INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films 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 this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
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 material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in
reduced form at the back of the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white
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 Intern atio n al

A Bell & Howell Inform ation C o m p a n y
3 0 0 N orth Z e e b R o a d . A nn A rbor. Ml 4 8 1 0 6 -1 3 4 6 USA
3 1 3 /7 6 1 -4 7 0 0 8 0 0 /5 2 1 -0 6 0 0
 Order N u m b er 9420985

In ternation alizing extension: A n exp loration o f th e characteristics

evid en t in a sta te university ex ten sio n sy stem th a t achieves
in ternationalization

Ludwig, Barbara G., Ph.D .

The Ohio State University, 1994

C op yrigh t © 1 9 9 4 b y L u d w ig, B arbara G . A ll rig h ts reserved .

UMI
300 N. Zeeb Rd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48106
 INTERNATIONALIZING EXTENSION:

AN EXPLORATION OF THE CHARACTERISTICS EVIDENT

IN A STATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION SYSTEM

THAT ACHIEVES INTERNATIONALIZATION

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the

Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By

Barbara G. Ludwig, B.S., M.S.

* * * * *

The Ohio State University

1994

Dissertation Committee: Approved by:

R. Kirby Barrick

Richard W. Clark
*e-.
- :
t
Larry E. Miller Adviser
Department of
Agricultural Education
 Copyright by
Barbara G . Ludwig
1994
In Memory of Adeline B. Good

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to express appreciation to my family and colleagues for

their support, encouragement and tolerance as I worked toward

this degree. A special thank you goes to my daughters, Betsy

and Kim, for their patience with mom's many days away from

home. Likewise, without the flexibility of the staff in the

Northeast District and my colleagues on Administrative Cabinet

the balancing act between school, work and home would have

been impossible.

Special recognition is due to my graduate committee who guided

me throughout the process of degree work and helped to focus

and facilitate the research reported in this document. To Dr.

Kirby Barrick, Dr. Richard Clark, Dr. Bernie Ervin and Dr.

Larry Miller, a hearty thank you for your mentoring and the

high expectations you set. I'm proud to have had the

opportunity to work under your direction.

Thanks are expressed to Dr. Maryann Berry for her assistance

with date analysis.

iii
Finally, I would like to acknowledge the technical support and

contributions of Mrs. Kathy Moritz. Without her special

skills, the questionnaires and this document could never have

been prepared in as timely and professional manner.

 VITA

1971 ..................... B.S., Baldwin-Wallace College

Berea, Ohio

1972 ..................... M.S., The Ohio State University

Columbus, Ohio

1972-1974 ............... Instructor/4-H Agent, Lucas

County, Ohio

1974-1978 ............... Home Economist and Consumer

Relations Manager, Club Products
Company, Cleveland (part-time)

1976-1979 ............... Lecturer/Home Economics, Baldwin-

Wallace College (part-time)

1979-1984 ............... Instructor/Home Economics Agent,

Lake County, Ohio

1985-1987 ............... Supervisor-in-Training(50%

assignment), Lake County
assignment continued

1984-1987 ............... Assistant Professor/Home Economics

Agent and County Chair, Lake
County

1987-1993 ............... Assistant Professor/Northeast

District Extension Director, Ohio
Cooperative Extension Service

September,1992-July,1993. Special Study Assignments: Study

Abroad Coordinator, College of
Agriculture, International
Programs Office, The Ohio State
University; Special Assignment for
the Director, Ohio State
University Extension

July,1993 - Present .... Associate Professor, Northeast

District Extension Director, Ohio
State University Extension

v
 PUBLICATIONS

Ludwig, Barbara G. (Summer, 1993). "Attitudes toward

internationalizing". Journal of Extension. XXX I . 28.

Ludwig, Barbara G. (Winter, 1993). "Global perspectives of

agriculture and metropolitan leaders". Journal of Agricultural
Education. 3 4 . 4.

Owen, William G., Ludwig, Barbara G., Thorne, Kenneth. (Fall,

1988) . "Did Extension Pay Its Way?" Journal of Extension.
XX V I . 23.

Ludwig, Barbara G. (Spring, 1988). "Reaching Out to Single

Parents". Journal of Extension. XXV I .

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Fields: Agricultural Education

Studies in:
Organizational Development: Dr. Richard W. Clark
Dr. R. Kirby Barrick
Human Resource Development: Dr. Bernard L. Erven
Research Methodology: Dr. Larry E. Miller
Dr. R. Kirby Barrick
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

D E D I C A T I O N ............................................. ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................... iii

V I T A .................................................... V

LIST OF T A B L E S ......................................... ix

LIST OF F I G U R E S ......................................... X

CHAPTER PAGE

I..............INTRODUCTION ........................ 1

Introduction ................................ l
Purpose and Objectives of the Study ........ 7
Definition of Terms .......................... 7
Significance of the Problem ................. 9
S u m m a r y ....................................... 10

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................. 12

Introduction ................................ 12
Perceptions of Internationalization ........ 13
The U. S. Extension O r g a n i z a t i o n ........... 16
Ohio State University Extension ............. 23
Studies of Extension Internationalizing . . . 25
Internationalizing Higher Education ........ 31
Organization Model of Kaufman ............... 37
Organizational Efforts ...................... 42
Organizational Results ...................... 46
Delphi Technique ............................ 49
Framework Summarizing the Study ............. 60

III. M E T H O D O L O G Y ....................... 62

Research Design .............................. 62

Panel S e l e c t i o n .............................. 63
Instrumentation .............................. 67
Data C o l l e c t i o n .......................... 72
Data A n a l y s i s ................................. 74
S u m m a r y ....................................... 75

vii
 IV. R E S U L T S ......................................... 77

Introduction ................................ 77
Results: Round I ........................... 78
Results: Round I I ......................... 79
Results: Round I I I ......................... 86
Characteristics of an Internationalized
Extension System ............................ 109
S u m m a r y ......................................... 113

V. DISCUSSION ........................................ 131

Introduction ................................ 131

M e t h o d o l o g y ..................................... 132
C o n c l u s i o n s ..................................... 134
Implications for Knowledge ................. 143
Recommendations .............................. 146
Implications for Practice ................... 148
Suggestions for Future Study ............... 157

LIST OF R E F E R E N C E S ....................................... 163

APPENDICES

A. Panel Selection Committee.. ..................... 171

B. Delphi Panel ............................. . . . 173

C. Panel of OSU International L e a d e r s ..............176

D. Content Validity Panel ........................ 178

E. Round I ............................................ 180

Cover L e t t e r ................................... 181
I n s t r u m e n t ..................................... 182

F. Round II .......................................... 205

Cover L e t t e r ................................... 206
I n s t r u m e n t ..................................... 207

G. Round I I I .......................................... 239

Cover L e t t e r ................................... 240
I n s t r u m e n t ..................................... 242
C o m m e n t s ....................................... 282

H. General Comments by Delphi Panel ............... 287

I. Correspondence ................................... 289

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

1. Organizational Efforts: Distribution of

Ratings of Importance by Delphi Panel for
Each Item and R o u n d .............................. 114

2. Organizational Results: Distribution of

Ratings of Importance by Delphi Panel for
Each Item and R o u n d .............................. 121

3. Level of Importance of Organizational

E f f o r t s ....................................... 126

4. Level of Importance of Organizational

R e s u l t s ............................................129

ix
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

1 Organizational Elements Model ............. 39

2 Framework Summarizing the Study ........... 61

x
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

America’s future rests on its ability

to understand and compete in a world
which year by year moves rapidly
toward economic, political and social
interdependence. Ping (1990, p.27)

Extension systems across the country have been challenged to

integrate international perspectives into programs and assist

staff and clientele in developing global competency. For the

past decade, national Extension leaders have encouraged state

Extension systems to internationalize. The Extension Committee

on Organization and Policy (ECOP) in 1983 published a position

paper which included a mission statement and policies to provide

future guidance for effective Extension participation in

international activities. The policy emphasized work in and

with developing countries and the provision of educational

programs to U.S. citizens and clientele to improve understanding

of "international trade, agricultural cooperative production,

world hunger and marketing policies" (USDA, 1984, p. 8).

Extension, or the Cooperative Extension Service, a public

education system, has existed in the U.S. as part of the Land-

Grant College system since 1914. Over time the mission and focus

1
of Extension has changed from production agriculture to include

a broader social orientation. An increased interest in

internationalization of Extension has occurred (Henson, Noel,

Gillrad-Byers, & Ingle; Ingle & Gage, 1990; Somersan, 1992).

This interest appeared to be a result of many factors and

influences, both within and outside Extension and the university.

Extension leaders indicated that, for Extension to achieve its

desired future, international content and understanding was a

critical element. The authors of Patterns of Change, a report

of the Cooperative Extension Service Strategic Planning Council

(1991), discussed the impact of the "shrinking global village".

The United States Department of Agriculture in April of 1989

published Global Perspectives for Extension. The authors

established goals for integrating international perspectives

into all Extension programs and reaffirmed the importance of

global competency for Extension staff and clientele. In October

of 1989, the USDA in its publication, Going Global, outlined

the importance of clientele developing an understanding of global

markets.

Poston and O'Rourke (1990) studied the attitudes of Cooperative

Extension Service directors and administrators toward internation­

alization. The results indicated that the degree to which a

global perspective was being incorporated into the Cooperative

Extension Service was quite small. Eighty percent of the

 3

directors indicated their state had achieved either a low level

or had not achieved any level of globalization.

Andrews and Lambur (1986) conducted an eleven state survey to

determine the level of institutional support and capacity for

an international public education dimension within the Cooperative

Extension System. One-third of field staff in each state were

surveyed (n=888) . The study focused on attitudes and practices

relative to international programming. Field staff indicated

that the training and support provided for development and

implementation of international educational programs was poor,

resulting in sporadic and weak programs. Administrators in the

states sampled indicated fundamental weaknesses on all three

dimensions studied: institutional commitment, structure and

capacity for support.

During the Winter of 1990, an International Interest Study of

Extension personnel was conducted by the Ohio State University

Extension (OSU Extension) International Committee. This

descriptive study assisted Ohio in assessing the expertise already

available among its staff; determined interest of faculty and

staff in internationalizing OSU Extension; and targeted staff

development priorities. Fifty-four percent of the respondents

indicated an interest in incorporating an international dimension

into local programming efforts, 71% were interested in an overseas

assignment and 87% indicated an interest in in-service education.

 4

A question raised by OSU Extension personnel in the study was

the level of clientele support for internationalizing Extension.

Many county Extension personnel perceived the lack of clientele

support to be a barrier (Ludwig, 1991). Results of a values

audit of Ohio Extension staff (Safrit, Conklin, & Jones, 1991)

indicated that internationalizing was not highly valued by

Extension staff.

Henson, Noel, Gillard-Byers and Ingle (1990) stated international­

ization was frequently viewed in general, rather amorphous terms

that were difficult for some to understand and comprehend. The

researchers indicated strategic approaches to total university

internationalization have been addressed infrequently and there

appeared to be little research on internationalization per se.

Arum and Van De Water (1992) supported this view. Henson, et

a l . , found no evidence of a conceptual model that enabled

university internationalization to be researched and examined

in a comprehensive manner.

As a result of their 1990 study, Henson et al., developed a

conceptual model for university internationalization. The

researchers concluded that universities generally have not

attempted to define internationalization in terms of objectively

verifiable indicators of success. Survey and case study

activities elicited a broad spectrum of potential measures of

success. Factors found to promote and support university

internationalization included:

1. Resources represented by faculty, administrators, funding

and faculty incentives and rewards. Faculty international

competence and the utilization of this competence to strengthen

university programs was identified as very important.

2. Diverse program activities: foreign students and scholars

on campus, student exchanges, study abroad, internships abroad,

foreign language training, participation in donor funded

development activities, and inter-institutional agreements with

universities in other countries. Also important were interdisci­

plinary/multidisciplinary research, scholarly activities, graduate

education, area study programs and the undergraduate curriculum.

3. Leadership and management evidenced by institution commitment

to internationalization, including policies and procedures that

were supportive of internationalization, strategic planning,

and allocation of resources.

4. Organization of international programs with a central entity

and an administrator sufficiently high up in administration for

advocacy, coordination, and integration was the most important

organizational structure. Also important was a supportive

internal culture.

5. External environment composed of sub-factors including

awareness of global interdependence and change, demand by

stakeholders for international related information, training,

activities of benefit to the university and its programs.

The Problem

Few studies have been conducted related to internationalization

of the Extension component of the land-grant university system.

None define internationalizing in terms of objectively verifiable

indicators of success. A need to examine and improve the

understanding of internationalizing of a state university

Extension system became apparent through a review of literature.

Kaufman (1983) suggested putting problems into the context of

what is and what should be when dealing with organizations.

The researchers cited have provided a framework and background

for defining the current situation. Kaufman purported that the

next step was defining what should be, looking at the

organizational elements of inputs, processes, products, outputs

and outcomes. Kaufman (1987) used a holistic framework in looking

at organizations and what those organizations use, do and deliver

as well as the impact on clients and society in general. The

Organization Elements Model (OEM) developed by Kaufman (1983)

provided this framework. "The OEM links internal and external

resources and processes with three kinds of results: products,

outputs and outcomes (p. 79)". Kaufman's model was used to

examine and improve the understanding of internationalization

of a state university Extension system.

 7

Purpose and Objectives of the Study

Purpose of the study: To identify the characteristics that will

describe an internationalized state Extension system.

Objectives of the study:

1. To identify the organizational efforts which will be evident

in a state university Extension system that is internationalized.

2. To identify the organizational results which will be evident

in a state Extension system that is internationalized.

Definition of Terms:

The State Extension System targeted for study was Ohio State

University Extension. The organization is an administrative

unit of the College of Agriculture at The Ohio State University

with programs in three additional colleges: Human Ecology,

Biological Sciences and Veterinary Medicine. The stated mission

of the organization was to "help people improve their lives

through an educational process using scientific knowledge focused

on identified issues and needs" (Ohio State University Extension,

Mission & Vision Statement, 1992, p. 1).

Internationalization: The study sought to develop a description

of what internationalization of Extension means. Based on

writings by Henson et al., (1990), it was suggested that

"internationalization" is a process which must be implemented

within the context of existing Extension and university

organization and function.

 8

Characteristics of Internationalization: Characteristics

included: inputs, processes, products, and outputs. The

Organizational Elements Model (Kaufman, 1983) was used as the

basis for exploring these characteristics of internationalization.

Two elements of the Extension organization were studied:

organizational efforts and organizational results.

Organizational Efforts were defined as being comprised of the

inputs and processes evident in an organization which has achieved

internationalization. Inputs are the existing starting conditions

affecting organizational activities. These include, but are

not limited to, human and physical resources, existing needs,

goals and objectives, and policies. Processes are the means,

methods and procedures necessary for managing and implementing

inputs. Organizational development, performance analysis and

requirements, in-service training, curriculum development,

staffing patterns and networking are examples.

Operational Definition: The Delphi Research Technique was

selected to gain an understanding of the characteristic of

organizational efforts. Organizational efforts were those

identified by a consensus of panel of experts through a process

involving three iterations of the Delphi instrument.

Organizational Results were defined as those products and outputs

evident in an organization that has achieved internationalization.

Products are internal results accomplished through application

of inputs and processes. Learning materials developed, reports

completed, knowledge or skill acquired, services developed would

be product examples. Outputs are represented by services, goods

and products delivered to external clientele and the programming

efforts made.

Operational Definition: The Delphi Research Technique was

selected to gain an understanding of the characteristic of

organizational results. Organizational results were identified

by consensus of a panel of experts through a process involving

three iterations of the Delphi instrument.

Significance of the Problem

America 2000 targeted the need for an educated citizenry who

have the knowledge and skills to compete in a global economy.

The report stated "all our people, not just a few, must be able

to think for a living, adapt to changing environments, and to

understand the world around them ... we must realize that

education is a lifelong pursuit" (U.S. Department of Education,

1990, p. 35). Trends and events indicate the interdependence

of the world community (RahmanS Kopp, 1992; Ping, 1990; Somersan,

1992; Firebaugh, 1990; Haverner, 1988; Schuh, 1987, 1989).

Individual choices at all levels: economic, political and social

impact the global village we inhabit. Interdependence becomes

 10

an inescapable reality. Skinner (1991), in an address to the

American Home Economics Association, noted that in a world which

is increasingly interdependent, we [Extension] do ourselves and

our clients a disservice if we do not prepare them for an

increasingly internationalized economy and society. Somersan

(1992, p. 2) reported, "Globalization is the driving force of

the U.S. and world economy and community. The global village

has shrunk. Information, technology, labor, capital, pollution

and culture do not recognize artificial national boundaries.

Globalization has reduced the independence of nations."

In summary, a review of literature revealed broad, but often

ambiguous goal statements related to internationalization of

Extension (ES-USDA, 1990; Ingle, 1990; King & Martin, 1991).

Some ideas have been formulated for internationalizing (Somersan,

1992; Henson, Noel, Gilrad-Byers, 1991; ES-USDA, 1989; Knox,

1987; York, 1984; Patton, 1984), but there has been little

emphasis on implementation by Extension systems across the country

(Rosson & Sanders, 1991; Poston & O'Rourke, 1990; Andrews &

Lambur, 1986). In Chapter 2, the researcher presents a review

of literature.

To assist in the process of internationalizing Extension, a

clearer understanding was needed of what it meant to internation­

alize and how an organization could measure its progress in

becoming internationalized. If characteristics of an

internationalized Extension system could be identified, then

an organization might focus available resources to create needed

changes. In Chapters 3, 4 and 5, the researcher outlines the

methodology for the study, reports the results and discusses

the implications of what was learned.

 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The review of literature reports a summary of what the researcher

has learned in the process of preparing for this study of

internationalizing Extension. Chapter 2 begins by looking at

perceptions of internationalization from the standpoint of

educators involved in Extension and higher education. Sections

examining the U.S. Extension System, Ohio State University

Extension and their international activities are followed by

a section that presents studies of Extension internationalization.

Extension is a part of the land-grant system of colleges and

universities in the United States. Writings and research related

to internationalizing higher education offered valuable insights

and a section is included which reviews information gathered.

Internationalizing Extension involves organizational change.

Kaufman's Organizational Model, which provided a conceptual

framework for the research, and the characteristics of

Organizational Efforts and Organizational Results as defined

by Kaufman are reviewed. The review of literature concludes

with a summary of the use of the Delphi Technique as a research

tool.

12
 13

Perceptions of Internationalization

"One must care about

a world one will not
see."

Bertrand Russell

Definitions of internationalization vary. The term "internation­

alization" has often been used by researchers and writers without

any clarification of its meaning. As a result, confusion over

"why" Extension or higher education should strive to internation­

alize exists. Henson, Noel, Gillrad-Byers and Ingle (1990)

indicated "internationalization is frequently viewed in general,

rather amorphous terms that are difficult for some to understand

and comprehend. It is also difficult to research in any

systematic way ..." (Appendix B, p. 2) . Arum and Van De Water

(1992) wrote about defining the term "international education"

and the difficulty of developing a frame of reference indicating:

"The concept 'international education' means different things

to different people. In article after article, in report after

report, and at conference after conference, the terms used to

refer to the international dimension of education vary

tremendously" (p. 193). Arum and Van De Water indicated that

in the past little need has been felt to clarify the meaning

because each constituency had seen international education from

a different perspective and rarely had it been viewed as a whole.

The authors propose that in the future: "To fail to provide

a definition is to encourage misunderstanding, confusion, and

a lack of clarity to the process of change involved in the

 14

transition of educating for an interdependent world" (p.

210 ).

Ingle (1990) and King and Martin (1991) used a definition

developed by Henson and Noel (1989) to describe "internationaliza­

tion" . Internationalization was described as the incorporation

of international dimensions, content and considerations into

the teaching, research, Extension and public service function

of the university to enhance their relevance in an increasingly

interdependent world. Ping (1990) expanded the concept noting

"internationalization is not simply a program, or an activity

or even an emphasis or theme in the life of the university,

although it is all of those things and more. Internationalizing

the university means making a fundamental transformation in the

very ways in which we see the world. It requires that leaders

themselves become internationalized" (p. 33).

Internationalization produces citizens and leaders better able

to compete and to cooperate with others. Trends and events

highlight the interdependence of the community of the world which

has moved year by year toward economic, political and social

interdependence (Ping, 1990; Somersan, 1992; Firebaugh, 1990;

Haverner, 1988; Schuh, 1990). The Internationalizing U.S.

Universities Conference Proceedings (1990) indicated that

internationalization will produce a citizenry and leadership

sensitive to and understanding of other cultures, global issues

 15

and the values of democracy and pluralism, enabling communities

and nations to better understand and live more productively with

domestic and global diversity.

Dr. Robert Mueller, Assistant Secretary General of the United

Nations expressed concerns raised by other leaders and educators.

(York, 1984; Barrows, Thomas, Kline & Clark, 1981; Bonham, 1986)

when he spoke to the United Nations indicating:

A child born today will be faced as an adult, almost

daily, with problems of a global interdependent nature,
be it peace, food, the quality of life, inflation or
scarcity of natural resources. He will be both an
actor and a beneficiary or a victim in the total world
fabric, and he may rightly ask: "Why was I not warned?
Why did my teachers not tell me about these problems
and indicate my behavior as a member of an interdepen­
dent human race?" (L. Randalls, 1984, quoting Mueller,
pp. 63-64).

A lack of knowledge of international affairs by college students

which appeared related to a lack of interest in international

relations was reported by Barrows, Klein, Thomas and Clark (1981)

based on a study of three thousand college students conducted

for the Educational Testing Service. Bonham (1986, p. 6) five

years later suggested "America's young face a set of new national

and international circumstances about which they have only the

faintest notions. They are globally speaking, blind, deaf and

dumb; and thus handicapped, they will soon determine the future

directions of this nation."

The leaders of today in education, government and industry

received formal education and developed fundamental beliefs and

attitudes in an era of U.S. dominance of the world economy during

the 1980's (Somersan, 1992) . During the 1990's, the U.S. position

changed dramatically creating new rules. Somersan noted that

the initial reaction to the change has been denial. Intellibanc

in a report issued in 1990 stated "most small to medium size

businesses continue to ignore global markets. It is estimated

that only five percent of the 2.5 million firms that have the

potential to succeed in overseas markets also have the knowledge

and resources to do so." (p. 1). Miller (1989) and Koblinsky

(1987) wrote that global changes worldwide and cultural changes

in America demanded that the average citizen, as well as public

officials and business leaders, develop a better understanding

of the international world and a "social conscience" to help

in understanding and caring about how other people live.

In summary, internationalization could be identified as a "fuzzy"

construct which has eluded easy definition. The authors reviewed

indicate positive outcomes result from internationalization and

believe Americans require education related to global interdepen­

dencies.

The U.S. Extension Organization

The historical roots of Extension can be traced to the Renaissance

when there was a movement to relate education to the needs of

human life and the application of science to practical affairs.

Different types of institutions emerged to accomplish these goals

(Agricultural Education & Extension Service Human Resources,

Institutions & Agrarian Reform Division (ESHE), 1990). Westermark

(1991) reported that the origin of Extension was in England in

the 16001s when universities adopted it for their adult education

activities to teach the "grass roots outside universities to

read, write and accept some basic every day skills" (p. 10) .

"In the past 100 years most countries in the world have

established some type of Extension system. These systems are

dynamic organizations that reflect national goals, institutional

arrangements and changing needs of clients" (ESHE, 1990, p. 9) .

Within the United States, the concept of education as a public

service initiated with the Morrill Act of 1862 . The Act promoted

the concept that education be made available to everyone, not

just a privileged few. As a result, each state established an

Agricultural College. In time, in addition to the traditional

teaching component, an Agricultural Experiment Station and

Extension Service developed (Meyer, 1992). The Cooperative

Extension Service was created in 1914 with the passage of the

Smith Lever Act which authorized federal support at the state

and territorial levels for Extension services and established

a Cooperative Extension Service associated with each U.S. land-

grant college (Strategic Planning Council, 1991).

"Land-Grant Colleges with historic roots in agriculture initiated

the problem-solving approach to teaching, research and Extension,

and are, for the most part, the only units of the university,

school or college system that extend research results to the

public through their own unique organization, the Cooperative

Extension Service" (Meyer, 1992, p. 2). Traditionally, Extension

programs have been directed toward meeting the needs of farmers,

families and communities (Futures Task Force, 1987). Kellogg

and Knapp (1966) noted that agricultural Extension programs serve

not only to extend the resources of the university outward, but

also to help relate the teaching and research programs of the

agricultural college to the needs of the people of the state.

Early Extension job descriptions focused on providing agriculture

producers with the latest research and production information.

Three-quarters of a century has brought dramatic changes in

production agriculture. At the same time, societal changes have

opened new arenas of need for people-oriented information and

services. The redefined mission of Extension states: "Extension

helps people improve their lives through an educational process

that uses scientific knowledge focused on issues and needs"

(Strategic Planning Council, 1991, p. v) . Reflected in the new

definition are changes in the global economy, the environment,

demographic, family structures, values and resources according

to the Strategic Planning Council which issued the report.

 19

In summary, the Cooperative Extension Service, a public education

system, has existed in the U.S. since 1914 as a part of the Land-

Grant College system. Over time the mission and focus have

changed from production agriculture to include a broader social

orientation.

International Programming and Activities in the U.S. Cooperative

Extension Service

International content and understanding is a "core

competency" in Extension work. (Somersan, 1992,
p. 1)

York (1984) traced the involvement of higher education (and

Extension as a part of the Land-Grant System) to the inaugural

address of Harry Truman in 1949. Truman proposed that the U.S.

embark on a bold and new program of making scientific advances

and industrial progress available for the improvement and growth

of underdeveloped areas in the world. On February 4, 1949, a

few days after the Truman inaugural speech, the President of

the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant

Colleges wrote President Truman saying, "... being fully aware

that sacrifices are involved in a world program such as you have

outlined .... We feel that this responsibility is particularly

incumbent upon us as colleges and universities ..." (York, 1984

p. 9, quoted from NASULG, International Development Assistance.

Report of the Task Force on International Development Assistance,

January, 1969) .
The International Task Force of the Extension Committee on

Organization and Policy (ECOP) on November 12, 1983 approved

an international mission and policy statement which indicated:

Extension's international mission shall be (1)

assisting developing nations in support of U.S.
government policies described in Title XII and Title
XIV, (2) broadening the experience base and enhancing
the professional capabilities of U.S. Extension
personnel, (3) improving the ability of the Cooperative
Extension Service to explain and interpret the global
market and its effects upon U.S. agriculture, and (4)
providing creative leadership and innovative techniques
to increase the option of relevant technologies (USDA,
1984, p. 10).

Title XII of the International Development and Food Assistance

Act of 1975 related to international efforts to increase world

food production; solve food and nutrition problems of developing

countries, and build and strengthen agriculturally developing

countries. Title XIV of the 1981 Farm Bill dealt with expanding

international food and agricultural research, Extension and

teaching programs. Assistance to AID in developing countries,

cooperative efforts with persons throughout the world, and the

development of qualified and experienced scientists.

In 1989, The International Task Force of ECOP adopted the

following goals which reaffirmed the policies ECOP outlined in

its 1983 statement of policy:

* Integrate relevant international perspectives

into all ongoing Cooperative Extension Systems
(CES) programs to enhance the U.S. public's
global knowledge and skills.
* Support and strengthen U.S. competitiveness and
profitability in the global marketplace.
* Promote the use of new technology developed
abroad.
 21

* Increase the participation of CES personnel in

international development efforts.
* Strengthen the capacity of the Cooperative
Extension System to plan and conduct internation­
al programs (ES-USDA, 1989, p. 1).

The rationale for internationalizing Extension reported in Global

Perspectives for Extension indicated: (1) The Cooperative

Extension Service (CES) had the expertise to help alleviate global

hunger and facilitate the strengthening of families, communities

and societies. (2) CES can help leaders of tomorrow acquire

skills and knowledge they need to function effectively in the

global marketplace. (3) CES can help the U.S. public understand

how the global marketplace functions and how the economic health

of the U.S. agricultural community is connected with international

development (1989). In Going Global (1989, p. 1), a position

paper published by ES-USDA, the authors focused on the global

marketplace. ES-USDA indicated a major new thrust for Extension

designed to assist Extension clientele to "see new global

possibilities and seize the opportunities ... looking for new

partners and linkages (private and public organizations) to help

infuse vigorous global thinking and action into rural America."

Extension leaders (Patton, 1984; York, 1984; Somersan, 1992;

Skinner, 1991) have expressed the importance of internationalizing

Extension. "An international dimension is basic to effective

Extension programs. Not secondary. Not a luxury. Not an after

thought. Not an add-on. But basic" (Patton, 1984, p. 37).

Somersan (1992) expanded the concept noting, "My hypothesis is

that supporting our faculty and staff to develop an international

perspective will strengthen our leadership position in the

educational marketplace ... international content and

understanding is a core competency in Extension work" (p. 6) .

Richardson (1991), wrote in the Journal of Extension that many

state Extension Services were beginning to identify important

relationships between the international arena and domestic program

thrusts by adding international dimensions to staff development

programs.

The International Programs Office of the Extension Service, USDA

provides national program leadership for the international efforts

of Cooperative Extension. Major activities of Extension

Service/International Program included policy formulation,

representation of the Cooperative Extension System with other

national and international organizations, technical assistance

for overseas development projects and support for educational

programs designed to increase the public's understanding of

international hunger, development and trade issues. The office

also served as a clearing house for information about

international programs, upcoming overseas assignment and projects,

training opportunities, and assistance on issues concerning

Extension.
 23

In summary, Extension systems across the country have been

challenged to integrate international perspectives into programs

and assist staff and clientele in developing global competency.

Extension leaders indicated that for Extension to achieve its

desired future, international content and understanding was

a critical element.

Ohio State University Extension

When established in 1905, agricultural Extension work was a part

of the College of Agriculture and Domestic Science at The Ohio

State University (OSU) . The Ohio State University Extension (OSU

Extension) today is housed in the College of Agriculture and

received funding from a separate line-item in the state budget

which came to Ohio State University to conduct Extension programs,

from ES-USDA, and from monies allocated to Ohio State University

by local county boards of commission to support county Extension

offices. As redefined by its Mission and Vision statement in

1991:

The mission of Ohio State University Extension is to

help people improve their lives through an educational
process using scientific knowledge focused on
identified issues and needs.

The vision: Ohio State University Extension is broadly

recognized throughout the state as a premier
educational network. It is a dynamic organization
strengthening individuals, families and communities
in partnership with the federal Extension system.

Extension Educators:

* Concentrate on critical economic, environmental,

leadership and youth/family development issues.
 24

* Engage people in their own learning and subse­

quent actions.
* Address emerging needs by developing programs
that anticipate social and economic changes.
* Apply valid, reliable research and information.
* Unite and extend the broad base of university
resources.
* Maximize available resources by organizing and
leading coalition.
* Educate without discrimination and employ people
representing the diversity in the state's
population.
* Recruit and develop volunteers to multiply
Extension's efforts.
* Link local needs with researchers.
* Teach with appropriate and effective educational
techniques and methods.
* Value teamwork; recognize and support the
contributions of one another. (OSU Extension,
p. 1)

International programs have been actively pursued by the College

of Agriculture during the last forty years. In 1949, OSU pledged

to the United States Government its services to help in the

development of low income nations. This obligation was made

on behalf of OSU by the National Association of State Universities

and Land Grant Colleges to President Harry S. Truman in response

to his inaugural address of January 1949. Smith indicates an

"international aspect has become a part of every subject matter

area, in classes, research and Extension" (1989, p. 23).

In 1989, Ohio State University Extension established an Extension

International Committee charged with developing goals and a

process for the internationalization of the Ohio Cooperative

Extension Service. Internationalization was to focus on the entire

Extension system and provide opportunities for all personnel

 25

(Extension International Committee, 1989) . The goals of

internationalizing the Ohio State University Extension as

developed by the Extension International Committee and approved

by Ohio State University Extension Administrative Cabinet (1989)

were:

* To develop a global perspective in Extension

educational programs.
* Expand the exchange of knowledge with citizens
of other countries.
* Facilitate economic and cultural opportunities
for Ohio clientele.
* Provide Extension personnel with professional
growth opportunities.

In summary, Ohio State University Extension has served the people

of Ohio for almost ninety years. Its mission is helping improve

the lives of people through education. Goals have been

established for internationalizing Extension and a committee

established to provide leadership.

Studies of Extension Internationalizing

Andrews and Lambur (Andrews & Lambur, 1986; Lambur, Abedon,

Andrews, & Scearce, 1987) conducted an eleven state survey in

1986 with the purpose of determining the level of institutional

support and capacity for an international public education

dimension within the Cooperative Extension System (CES). Surveyed

were one-third of the field staff (n=888) of each state. Focus

of the study was upon attitudes and practices relative to

international programming. A telephone interview was conducted

with' spokespersons for the respective CES administration

 26

concerning their capacity of each state to support international

programming in Extension.

The survey reported field staff: (1) Indicated it was important

to clarify the University's role in international programs; (2)

felt training and support provided for programming in the

international area was poor; (3) were pursuing their own self­

development in the international program area; (4) were

programming to some extent in the international program area,

but admitted most programming was sporadic and weak due to lack

of administrative and program support; (5) were supportive of

an international dimension in CES with 67% indicating they felt

they should be directing education about international issues

to their clientele; and (6) felt a responsibility (74%) to bring

international issues to the awareness of clientele. The need

for administrative support, strategies to help integrate

international issues into ongoing programs, continued networking

to access resources and share information, staff training and

adequate resource materials were identified by staff. Results

of administrator interviews (n=28) in the eleven states sampled

by Andrews and Lambur illustrate fundamental weaknesses on all

three dimensions studied: institutional commitment, structure

and capacity for support.

During the Winter of 1990, an International Interest Study was

conducted by OSU Extension International Committee. This

descriptive study used a four page survey instrument to contact

all personnel (N=369). A 72% return rate was achieved. Fifty-

four percent of the respondents indicated an interest in

incorporating an international dimension into educational programs

delivered to clientele, 71% were interested in an overseas

assignment and 87% indicated an interest in in-service education.

Written comments by respondents indicated an interest in improving

skills and capabilities. Having available the necessary resource

materials to internationalize local programs was identified as

a concern. A question raised by OSU Extension personnel in the

study was the level of clientele support for internationalizing

Extension. County Extension personnel perceived lack of clientele

and administrative support to be a barrier (Ludwig, 1991) .

A study of 385 Ohio county agricultural leaders, state level

agricultural leaders and metropolitan leaders was conducted in

June of 1991 to identify attitudes toward four international

dimensions: (1) third world development and poverty, (2)

international trade, (3) sensitivity to other cultures, and (4)

Extension involvement in global education. A survey instrument

was developed, pilot tested and field tested to establish

reliability and validity. A response rate of 82% was achieved

(Ludwig & Miller, 1992; Ludwig, 1993). Overall, the groups

targeted for study were positive, but not strongly so. Results

indicated the traditional agricultural constituency in Ohio were

more reluctant than their metropolitan neighbors to support

internationalizing Extension. County agricultural leaders, state

level agriculture leaders and metropolitan leaders indicated

Extension should develop programs to educate America's farmers,

agribusinesses and rural leaders about competing in global markets

and encouraged Extension staff to receive training to become

more knowledgeable about global marketing. Respondents also

indicated strong support for the concept that Extension staff

in Ohio have a role to play in helping clientele understand global

issues. Leaders indicated we can learn from the culture and

technologies of other countries and felt citizen exchanges between

countries improve the ability of participants to understand and

care about how other people live (Ludwig & Miller, 1992; Ludwig,

1993).

Ingle (1990) in reporting findings from studies on "International­

ization of U.S. University Systems" and "Internationalizing U.S.

Universities" also noted that in public service and cooperative

Extension areas, external clients are viewed as non-supportive.

Thus many leaders feel a need to handle internationalization

"with care".

Poston and O'Rourke (1991) researched the attitudes of all

Cooperative Extension Service directors and administrators in

the United States and its Territories toward internationalization

of the Extension System to determine the extent to which CES

was bringing a global dimension to its programs and activities,

 29

barriers which existed, and factors enhancing internationaliza­

tion. A 16-member advisory panel, consisting of individuals

with varying types of responsibilities within and external to

Cooperative Extension, was identified. The advisory panel

provided guidance on development of the study's objectives and

reviewed drafts of the questionnaire. Results indicated the

degree to which a global perspective was being incorporated into

CES was quite small. Eighty percent of the respondents stated

that their state or territory had achieved either a low level

or had not achieved any level of globalization. The mission

statement in 75.4% of the states did not include any language

pertaining to globalization and 54.9% indicated no one in their

state or territory had been put in charge of supporting or

coordinating the globalization of CES programs and activities.

Barriers included: funding that comes from local and state or

territory resources, attitudes of clientele, and the experience

and attitudes of personnel. Factors enhancing or facilitating

CES efforts to globalize were overall attitude and policy

direction provided by CES directors and administrators and

university policies. Policy mechanisms that provide for travel

abroad, professional leaves, and international assignments were

viewed by some as having a positive effect on globalization.

Results provided some indication of what respondents consider

necessary to enable CES to globalize its programs and activities.

 30

Educational programs, especially those provided to clientele

groups were seen as very necessary while exchange programs and

travel opportunities were viewed as necessary, but not considered

very necessary by a majority of respondents. Results also

indicated directors and administrators felt globalization of

CES would have positive effects. Eighty seven percent noted

that global issues, problems and/or opportunities will become

more important during the next ten years and 92% reported they

thought CES will eventually globalize.

Meyer (1992) in a Delphi study of colleges whose roots have been

in agriculture found:

The challenge ranked as being of greatest importance

was that of responding to changing social conditions,
urban and consumer interests, and the increasing
interdependence of rural, urban and global communities
... All segments of the Land Grant College - that is
teaching, research and Extension - would modify
objectives and programs to serve this end... .A concern
with an even wider scope focused on the impact of
international issues, cultural diversity, U.S.
competitiveness, and the responsibility to meet the
educational needs of both foreign and domestic students
(p. 12).

Informed respondents and professional leaders identified the

need for Extension to define who its clientele would be as the

greatest challenge it faced. Meyer challenged Extension to

"clarify the uncertainty as to who the clientele should be and

develop a coherent set of priorities or missions which are in

keeping with the current context of a complex industry surrounding

and supporting agriculture, the urbanized community and the

changing social interests of the public" (p. 10).

 31

In summary, few studies have been conducted related to

internationalization of the Extension component of the land grant

university system. None defined internationalizing in terms

of objectively verifiable indicators of success. Many state

university Extension systems have made little progress toward

internationalizing, with the exception of a notable few.

Internationalizing Higher Education

Klasek (1992), in the preface of a book recently published by

the Association of International Education Administrators, pointed

to how the economic, political and cultural mood in the country

has changed since 1990. The researchers and authors of the book

defined strategies for elevating the role of international

education in the academic and service arenas of higher education

to assist institutions in achieving their goal of international­

ization. Characteristics of a college or university that has

developed an international ethos were identified. The

characteristics included: growth in numbers of international

students on campus; growth in number of countries represented;

faculty actively pursue and receive an increasing number of grants

and contracts for international research, training or technical

assistance; positive publicity for international successes in

student newspaper; faculty enthusiasm, along with administrative

and fiscal support increasing; and an increase in the number

of international scholars on campus.

 32

Other characteristics of a college or university that has an

international ethos identified by Klasek included: eager

participation in linkages and exchanges and the development of

proposals; competition for long-term overseas assignments;

excitement and support for collegial international projects;

funding for faculty travel and development of initiatives;

inclusion of the institution's international responsibilities

in mission statements, planning documents and promotion and

tenure documents; a true effort to internationalize the

curriculum; and real support for institution internationalization

by the President or Chancellor.

Arum and Van De Water (1992), writing a chapter in the book

edited by Klasek, pointed to the need for a definition of

international education in U.S. universities. The authors raised

the question, "Has it become so generic that it does not require

any definition? Or is the term 'international education' so

ambiguous, so nebulous, that it defies any easy definition so

it receives none at all?" (p. 191) . The need for a common

definition was identified as being important to higher education.

Arum and Van De Water traced the history of attempts to define

international education and concluded that the process of

attempting to develop a definition of international education

quickly becomes very complex. The definition developed by the

researchers stated "international education refers to the

multiple activities, programs and services that fall within

 33

international studies, international educational exchange and

technical cooperation" (p. 202).

Ingle (1990) defined "internationalization" as "the incorporation

of international content, materials, activities and under­

standings into the teaching, research, and public service

function of universities in an increasingly interdependent world"

(p. 18). The findings of a 1990 study of university systems'

internationalization by Ingle and Gage (1990) indicated a strong

rationale for internationalization with 75% of the university

systems which responded identifying themselves as committed to

moderate to high internationalization efforts.

Thirty-seven university systems throughout the United States

were surveyed using a mail questionnaire. The target sample

was composed of systems similar to the University of Maryland.

Twenty nine responses (78%) were received with 16 identifying

themselves as land-grant universities. A trend toward increased

internationalization of university systems was indicated. Reasons

reported for internationalizing included: the impact of global

change on university goods and services, the expectations of

the university system, the external environment, and benefits

to stakeholders. Ingle and Gage defined the external environment

to include both private and public sector stakeholders.

Expectations for systems to internationalize from the external

environment included: economic competitiveness (54% rated high

 34

on all surveys), assistance to international trade (46% rated

high), international understandings (25% rated high), and

assistance to state agriculture (25% rated high). Groennings

and Wiley (1990) defined the external environment to include

the economy, communication and national security as the most

powerful forces providing impetus for change in higher education.

York (1984), in his Seaman Knapp Memorial Lecture, noted a

general feeling existed within the university community and

outside that the potential of the university to contribute to

international development assistance efforts has not been fully

realized. York indicated U.S. colleges of agriculture should

be giving leadership to such efforts in their teaching, research

and Extension programs, just as they have contributed to the

development of domestic markets. York proposed:

Often we find ourselves thinking as if it were somehow

unnatural for a university to assume any obligations
for international work .... Why is it less organic
(to a university's interests) to equip the university
with experience and knowledge about the developing
parts of the world where its students may one day work
and where its farmers now find their markets, than
to equip it to work in astronomical observation of
the stars where it is unlikely that any of its
students or faculty will ever visit? . . . Can we really
believe students, preparing now for careers which peak
two decades from now, are well educated if taught
entirely by provincial teachers?

Can the "publish or perish" drive be allowed to

tyrannize young faculty that they dare not tackle
tough problems in their international contexts for
fear of reducing the number of publications and
thereby their promotional opportunities?" (p. 17-18) .
 35

Schuh (1990), writing about "The Changing Role of U.S.

Universities in International Agriculture", also expressed the

importance of undertaking development activities. An increased

capacity to conduct research in other parts of the world and

educate youth and citizens about the nature of the global economy

where they will find employment and in which they compete were

viewed as priorities by Schuh. Groennings and Wiley (1990)

described academic disciplines as the gatekeepers of educational

change, indicating changes in the curriculum would not occur

until faculty in their disciplinary and departmental arena

implemented them.

A study by Henson, Noel, Gillrad-Byers and Ingle (1990) was

designed to construct a conceptual model for university

internationalization that could be used to examine and support

internationalization. The study emphasized strategic approaches

for internationalization of universities and focused on U.S.

research universities and Historically Black Colleges and

Universities. Of the 235 universities contacted, 183 (76%)

completed and returned the questionnaires: 64 public land-grant

universities, 61 public non land-grant, 44 private universities

and 14 historical black colleges and universities. Ten case

studies were conducted in which 237 university administrators

were interviewed. Results indicated a high level of interest

and urgency on the part of university leaders, faculty and

students for incorporating global dimensions into policies,

structures and programs. Henson et al., (1990) concluded that

universities generally have not attempted to define interna­

tionalization in terms of objectively verifiable indicators of

success. Survey and case study activities elicited a broad

spectrum of potential measures of success. Factors found

promoting and supporting internationalization included: (1)

resources, (2) diverse program activities, (3) leadership and

management show institutional commitment, (4) organization of

international programs with an administrative head, and (5)

external environment and stakeholder demand.

In June of 1990, a conference titled "Internationalizing U.S.

Universities - A Time for Leadership", was sponsored by

Washington State University in conjunction with the University

of Maryland System. The conference objectives included improving

the understanding of internationalization of U.S. universities

and was designed for university presidents, senior academic

officers, and other senior administrators with an interest in

and responsibility for the internationalization of university

curricula and programs. One hundred sixty one participants

representing 82 universities, state government, federal

government, private sector organizations and educational

organizations attended the conference. Action recommendations

for promoting and supporting internationalization of higher

education are identified in later sections. Resulting from the

conference were recommendations to undertake assessments at

 37

individual universities to determine the extent of current

internationalization, developing and utilizing a meaningful

assessment tool to evaluate internationalization programs.

Commitment of university resources to accomplish these tasks

was proposed.

In summary, several studies have recently been conducted on

internationalization of higher education. From these studies,

conference proceedings, and writings during the past ten years

there appears to be a trend toward support, at least in theory,

of internationalization as defined by Henson.

Organizational Model of Kaufman

The Organizational Elements Model (OEM) (Kaufman, 1982, 1987,

1992; Kaufman & Stone, 1983; Rodriguez, 1988) provided a

conceptual overview of organizational resources, activities,

accomplishments and contributions. Kaufman indicated that use

of the model helped identify, define and relate what organiza­

tions use, do and deliver linking internal and external resources

and processes with three kinds of results: products, outputs

and outcomes. The approach assumed the organization's quest to

produce societally useful results, and it clearly separated means

from ends.

Five primary characteristics were identified: inputs, processes,

products, outputs and outcomes. As illustrated by Figure 1,

inputs and processes make up one element of the model identified

as Organizational Efforts. The characteristics of products and

outputs comprise a second element identified as Organization

Results. Societal Impact was the outcome which represented

client-based impact resulting from internal organizational

efforts and results and was not examined in this study.

 The Organizational Elements Model (OEM) and an Educational Example of Each

INPUTS P R 0C E S S E 8 . PRODUCTS OUTPUTS OUTCOMES

( r a io u r c * * , Ingredlenta) (how -to'a; m aana; m alhoda; (an ro u ta • b u lld ln g -b lo c k • (tha a ggregated prod u cta o f (tha c o n trlb u tlo n a o l o u tp u t*
ORGANIZATIO NAL
p roca d u raa ) raaulta) th e eyatem th a t are In a n d to r aoclaty a nd the
LEVEL
d elive re d o r daltvarabta to c o m m un ity)
aoclaty)

Exlatlng paraonnal;
Id e n tifie d n * * d t , g o a lf,
o b je c tiv e *, pollclaa,
ra gu la tlon a , lawa, m oney,
v a lu ta , and eoctetal and
EXAMPLES co m m u n ity charactarlatlce;
c u rra n t q u a lity o f Ilia ,
la a rn a r a ntry charactarlaUca,
ta a ch ar com patanctaa,
b ulld ln g a, aqulpm anL ato.
T o ta l q u a lity m a na g a m an t -
co n tln u o u a Im p ro vam a n t;
ta a c h ln g ; la a rn ln g ; In-
aarvlca tra in in g , m anaging,
a c cala ra ta d la a rn ln g ; alta-
baaad m a na g ing ;
a c c o u n ta b ility ; ate.
C ouraa c o m ple te d ;
co m pe ten cy ta a t paaaad;
aklll a c q u lra d ; la a rn a r
a ccom p lla h m a nta; In a tru cto r
a ccom p lla h m a nta; ate.
O ra d u ala a; com ptatara;
d ro p o u ta ; Job placam anta;
c e rtifie d Itcanaaaa; ate.
S a ff-a u fflcle nL aatt ralla nL
producS va In d ivid u a l w ho la
a ocla lly co m p e te n t and
a lta c tlv a , c o n b lb u tln g to a a ll
and o th e r*; n o a d d ic tio n to
o thara o r to aubataneea;
fin a n c ia lly Independent;
c o n tin u e d fu n d in g o t
a ge n cy; ate.

CLUSTER EFFORTS RESULTS S O C IETAL

RESULTS/IMPACTS

INTERNAL EXTERNAL
SCOPE (Societal)
(O rganizational)

From: Mapping Educational Success (p.41) by R. Kaufman, 1992, Newbury Park, California:
Corwin Press, Inc. Copyright 1992 by Corwin Press, Inc. Reprinted by permission.

Figure 1 . Organizational Elements Model.

VO
 40

An overview of each of the components as described by Rodriguez

(1988) and Kaufman (1983, 1987, 1992) follows. Organizational

Efforts were comprised of inputs and processes. Inputs were

the existing starting conditions affecting organizational

activities. These included physical resources such as time and

money, existing needs, goals and objectives, policies, and human

resources. Examples included organizational climate and values,

senior management's concerns and utilization of human resources.

Processes were the methods of implementation and management of

the resources and ingredients (inputs) . Included were the how-

to-do it procedures of an organization and the roles people play,

particularly their behaviors and techniques. For example,

staffing patterns, organizational development, performance

analysis and requirements, curriculum development, staff

development, supervisory techniques and delivery systems were

all identified as Processes. In organizations that deliver

intangibles, such as a service, there were more Processes than

other Organizational Elements, but the viability of the

organization still depended on the perceived utility of the

"service.11

Organizational Results included products and outputs. Products

were the internal, enroute results accomplished through

application of inputs and processes. Inputs and Processes were

used to produce results. The most basic result of an organiza­

tion was a Product. These products may include services

developed, reports completed, learning materials developed,

acquisition of a specific skill, knowledge or attitude. By

itself, a product was not deliverable to the client or consumer.

Outputs were represented by the services, goods and products

that an organization delivered to external clients or society.

Products of an organization were integrated into a more

comprehensive output. The impact of these outputs when received

by society should be beneficial. The delivery aspect was

important, unless the Output (the collected Products) was desired

and thereafter delivered to a user, the organization was not

completely successful. If society viewed the Outputs as being

useful and worthy, they tended to support the organization and

monies from them and/or public sources were continued. (Kaufman,

1983) .

In summary, Kaufman (1983) noted "all models are just that —

representations of reality. None is perfect, and none always

completely represents the current or future world. The

Organizational Elements Model is also imperfect. One problem

in using it is determining the exact placement on the model of

an organizational effort or result and defining the OEM

boundaries" (pp. 52-53). The following sections: Organizational

Efforts and Organizational Results, attempt to identify

characteristics based on insights provided by researchers.

 42

Organizational Efforts

A review of literature suggested Organizational Efforts in the

area of internationalization that should be evident in an

Extension system which has internationalized. The Organizational

Efforts reported below are presented in the contextual setting

used by each author. The pattern of examples which emerged

compared favorably with the definitions and model proposed by

Kaufman (1982, 1983, 1992).

A clear institutional goal statement which forcefully expressed

the international commitments of land-grant institutions should

be evident according to Patton (1984). Writing in the Journal

of Extension. Patton pointed to actions aimed at making

internationalism a basic theme in Extension including policies

that reward and recognize international efforts, international

elements being incorporated into annual plans of work, staff

development activities which increased knowledge about global

issues and enhanced skills in internationalizing local programs.

Adding an international focus to annual conferences and exchange

programs with Extension organizations in other countries were

efforts suggested.

York noted the importance of having administrators authorize

special policies and procedures to assure that individual faculty

member's promotion, tenure and prestige benefit rather than

suffer from overseas assignments. Encouragement and selection

 43

of the best faculty and administrative personnel to participate

in overseas assignments was viewed as being an important method

of manifesting administrative commitment. Support could also

be evidenced by special financial support for overseas activities

and opportunities for foreign language improvement.

Dalziel and Schoonover (1988) and Beckhard and Pritchard (1992)

emphasized the senior executive's role in sponsorship of change.

Writings by Henson and Noel (1989) , Ping (1990) , Somersan (1992) ,

Klasek, (1992) , and York (1984) also pointed to the importance

of administrators who clearly communicate their support of

internationalizing to faculty and staff. The need for leaders

to engage in experiences which would internationalize their own

lives was indicated. Critical elements for internationalizing

universities included: budgets, hiring decisions, faculty

interests, curricular emphases, contract acquisitions, exchange

opportunities and student experiences (Ping, 1990; Klasek, 1992).

Poston and O'Rourke's (1990) study of Extension administrators

substantiated these viewpoints. Study results indicated factors

which enhanced CES efforts to globalize: (1) overall attitude,

policy direction and plans of CES directors and administrators;

(2) college and university policies; (3) policy mechanisms that

provide for travel abroad, professional leaves, and international

assignments were viewed by some (the one-third of directors who

have used them) as having a positive effect on globalization.

 44

In addition to administrative support, strategies to help

integrate international issues into ongoing programs, continued

networking to access resources and share information, staff

training and adequate resource materials were identified by

Lambur et al., (1987) in their eleven state study of internation­

al programming in the cooperative Extension system.

Henson et al., (1990) reported participating universities were

asked to indicate the importance of various inputs of interna­

tionalization. Over 90% of the responding universities indicated

that faculty interest and support, funds, and a supportive

central administration were very important for internationaliza­

tion. Approximately 70% of the universities indicated that

factors related to departments and to faculty incentives and

reward were very important. Public service, including Extension,

appeared to have had minimal impact on internationalization of

most universities. The researchers indicated it was viewed as

a low priority with limited on-going activities. Respondents

also indicated faculty gaining international experience and

understanding by the conduct of professional activities in a

foreign setting was very important. Henson and Noel (1989) in

their study of "Faculty and the Internationalization of the

Agricultural Education Curriculum for the Year 2 005 - Educating

for a Global Perspective" found the two most important factors

influencing faculty interest were overseas experience and

capability in a second language. Carter (1992) cited studies

 45

which pointed to the development needs of faculty. These

included: funding for overseas travel, faculty exchange

programs, collaboration with visiting international scholars,

workshops and participation in Fulbright programs.

ES-USDA in Global Perspectives and New Directions: The

International Mission of the Cooperative Extension Service

encouraged individuals to work on development projects abroad

and invited state Cooperative Extension Systems to become

involved with international development efforts. ES-USDA also

recommended: (1) mobilization of planning processes to coordinate

and support international programming; (2) review of policies

and operating procedures to remove roadblocks to international

program efforts; (3) recruitment and support of staff with

international expertise; (4) active exploration of ways to expand

funding for international training and programming; (5)

collaboration with other U.S. agencies involved in international

programs; and (6) participation in international scientific and

technical exchanges of both personnel and information.

Participants in the Conference on Internationalizing U.S.

Universities (1990) identified many of the factors listed above.

In addition, the university leaders developed a list of actions

which meet the Organizational Effort definition and included:

* Elicit support of external community.

* Increase international literacy of faculty
through incentives.
 46

* Diversify study abroad and exchange opportunities

at all levels.
* Develop international linkages on campuses and
abroad.
* Use international literacy as a criteria in
hiring faculty.
* Link international projects to public service,
research and teaching.
* Provide seed money for international research
and networking.
* Increase participation in development projects.
* Administrative commitment and support increased
through rhetoric.
* Self-assessment of strengths and needs using an
institutional task force.
* Establish a database of faculty language capabilities
and international experience.
* Identify a person to oversee alumni communication
who could provide networking and linkages for
faculty and students.
* Establish collaborative linkages with other
educational institutions.

In summary, institutional goal statements, faculty interest and

support, funding, financial incentives for faculty, supportive

administration and policies, and staff development opportunities

including travel or work abroad appeared to be very important

Organizational Efforts to achieve internationalization.

Organizational Results

We have to change attitudes, create a new mindset to

think globally, and act locally (Going Global. 1989,
p . 3) .

A review of literature suggested Organizational Results in the

area of internationalization that should be evident in an

Extension system which has internationalized. The Organizational

Results reported below are presented in the contextual setting

 47

used by each author. It should be noted that fewer examples of

suggested Organizational Results were evident in the literature,

this supported Kaufman's (1983) theory.

New Directions: The International Mission of the Cooperative

Extension Service identified Organizational Results which

included: (1) educational programs within the U.S. secure better

public understanding of complex worldwide political and economic

forces that affect agricultural markets, human nutrition, food

scarcity and distribution and economic development and their

impact upon U.S. policy and welfare; (2) leadership in interna­

tional youth exchanges and development of strong international

awareness and participation by 4-H members; (3) training of U.S.

youth leaders who work or study abroad; and (4) development of

Extension training programs for foreign nationals studying in

the United States.

Poston and O'Rourke (1990) concluded that to enable CES to

globalize, activities and programs, especially those provided

to clientele groups, would be very necessary. Exchange programs

and travel opportunities were viewed as being necessary, however,

they were not considered to be very necessary by a majority of

the Extension directors. This was in contrast to the direction

provided by ES-USDA (1989) in Global Perspectives for Extension.

The document recommended the design of interdisciplinary

international experiences for key leaders and clientele working

 48

collaboratively with university, government, business and the

private sector was encouraged. ES-USDA also suggested people

in farm and rural communities be targeted for educational

programming related to the current international marketplace.

Extension educators should increase clientele awareness and

understanding of the differences between peoples and cultures

and the relative value clientele attach to time, family, land,

youth, the elderly, religion, law, freedom, tradition and wealth.

Through Extension educational programming, people can come to

understand the extent and underlying causes of hunger and poverty

in developing nations and the actions required within those

countries to effect change at the grass-roots level. (Skinner,

1991; York, 1984; Somersan, 1992; Firebaugh, 1990; & Patton,

1984). Patton also suggested Extension staff assist communities

build a sense of responsibility for wise resource and energy

use in the context of global needs and shortages. The Consortium

for International Cooperation in Higher Education (1988)

recommended similar staff activities, suggesting staff should

be encouraged to start slowly with one issue or message and

incorporate that theme into many activities and events with

a targeted clientele group.

Measures of assessment of university internationalization most

often suggested, according to research (Klasek, 1992), have

included; faculty experience and interests, numbers of

 49

international students on campus, numbers of courses and programs

with terms like "international" and "global" in their titles,

numbers of students and faculty from campus who study and teach

abroad, numbers of international contacts. While these numbers

were valuable and necessary measures of assessment, numbers were

not necessarily accurate or sufficient. Assessment needed to

be initiated in terms of changes in the lives of faculty and

students. (Ping, 1990)

In summary, Organization Results identified included: Educational

programs and activities for clientele such as exchange programs

and interdisciplinary international experiences; educational

programs which focus on interdependencies in agricultural markets,

food supply; and economic development. Increased understanding

by clientele of the key elements of global and national

interdependence appeared essential as did cross-cultural

understanding. This understanding should equip individuals to

analyze and respond intelligently to domestic and international

developments.

Delphi Technique

To gain an understanding of the characteristics evident in a

state university Extension system which has internationalized,

the Delphi Research Technique was chosen to collect empirical

data. Dalkey and Helmer, in 1953, initiated the technique when

they were with the Rand Corporation as a method for obtaining

 50

a consensus of opinion about a matter not subject to precise

quantification (Dalkey & Helmer, 1963). Delphi was recognized

for motivating innovative thinking. Three traditional uses of

the Delphi technique included: forecasting, policy investi­

gations and goal setting (Ulschak, 1983). The specific form of

the Delphi was generally determined by the nature of the problem

to be investigated and constrained by the amount of human and

physical resources available. (Delbecq, Van de Ven, Gustafson,

1975; Altschuld, 1993; Altschuld, Thomas, McCloskey, Smith,

Wiesmann & Lower, 1992; Linstone & Turoff, 1975).

"Delphi operates on the principle that several heads are better

than one in making subjective conjectures about the future ...

and that experts will make conjectures based upon rational

judgement rather than merely guessing, and will separate hope

from likelihood in the process" (Weaver, 1971, p. 268). Campbell

(1966) noted that there was considerable evidence to support

the contention that groups of experts are more useful than

individual experts in business forecasting citing work by eleven

researchers. Sutphin (1981) reported "in general terms, the

Delphi could assist an investigator in assessing the what is

and what should be with regard to organizational conditions,

goals and objectives" (p. 41).

Delphi, a group process, utilized individual written responses,

as opposed to bringing individuals together for oral discussion.

 51

This became an advantage when a group of persons were not in

close proximity. It was further characterized by multiple

iterations or feedback designed to accomplish convergence of

opinion. Another characteristic of the process was the anonymity

of the respondents. The participants did not know who was saying

what and were not swayed by the persona of other participants

(Jones & Twiss, 1978; Dalkey, Rourke, Lewis, Snyder, 1972;

Linstone & Turoff, 1975) . Ludlow (1972) reported the critical

elements of the Delphi included: anonymity, statistical

summarizing of information provided by the group, controlled

feedback, and iterative process permits and encourages

reassessment of initial judgements.

The Delphi Technique has been the subject of studies comparing

its results with other methods. Ulschak (1983) noted that many

studies confirmed the prevailing claim of Delphi proponents that

the more people were encouraged to put forth their ideas, the

better the final answer produced by the group. The Delphi was

consistently favored with respect to the appropriate use of time.

Experiments carried out by Dalkey at Rand (1967, 1969) and

Campbell at the University of California (1966) found the Delphi

process more effective than interacting meetings. Van de Ven

(Delbecq, et al., 1974) subjected the Nominal Group Technique

(NGT) and Delphi techniques to a formal experimental comparison

on a applied problem. Comparisons noted that the NGT technique

and Delphi processes generated almost twice as many ideas as

 52

interacting groups, and that the NGT generated slightly more

ideas than Delphi groups.

Respondents - Identification and Motivation

The majority of Delphi studies have used between 15 and 20

respondents and run over periods of several weeks. The number

of respondents was generally determined by the number required

to constitute a representative pooling of judgments and the

information processing capability of the research team. Large

numbers of respondents generate many items making categorization

difficult. Delbecq, et al., (1975) suggested using the minimally

sufficient number of respondents and seeking verification of

results through follow-up survey research.

Qualifications of desirable respondents should be identified

and a nomination process used to select specific individual

respondents (Jones & Twiss, 1978). Solicitation of nominations

of well-known and respected individuals from members within the

target groups of experts was recommended (Linstone & Turoff,

1975). Meyer (1992) identified knowledgeable researchers and

leaders who were linked to the land-grant college system. These

individuals, termed "informed respondents", were selected

following a review of authors of pivotal publications in the

literature, solicitation of nominations during consultations

with professional leaders in the academic field or personal

knowledge of outstanding contributions made to land-grant colleges

 53

or universities.

Delphi should not be used with groups that have difficulty in

reading or expressing themselves in written communication

(Ulschak, 1983; Delbecq et al., 1975; Johnson, Miller, Miller

& Summers, 1987; Altschuld, 1993; Altschuld, Thomas, McCloskey,

Smith, Wiesmann, & Lower, 1992). Delphi also required participants

to be highly self-motivated. The quality of responses was

influenced by the interest, knowledge and commitment of the

participants. (Altschuld, 1993; Altschuld, etal., 1992; Delbecq

et al. , 1975; Ulschak, 1983; & Johnson, etal., 1987). Personal

or telephone contacts with potential respondents were recommended

to explain the Delphi's objectives and importance of participation

(Altschuld, 1993; Altschuld, etal., 1992; Delbecq etal., 1975).

Altschuld, et al., (1992) suggested use of a script with potential

respondents. The script included 1) identification of the caller,

(2) explanation of the study, (3) solicitation of questions and

comments, and (4) an expression of hope that the person would

participate. Altschuld, et al., (1992) and Delbecq et. al.,

(1975) reported that attention to such details may be perceived

by administrators as a sign of deference to their status and

of respect for their importance within the organization. Some

participants would not respond unless they received encouragement.

 54

Time Requirements

A minimum time of 45 days for administration of the Delphi study

was recommended (Delbecq et a l . , 1975; Ulschak,1983; & Johnson,

et al., 1987) . Delbecq et al., (1975) recommended allowing two

weeks for participants to respond to each round. A drawback to

Delphi was that the questionnaire method may slow the process

greatly as several days or weeks may pass between rounds.

Participant motivation and interest can decline as a result.

A positive aspect of the Delphi method was the minimization of

time and effort on the part of the participants. A thirty-minute

completion time was recommended for questionnaires (Delbecq et

al., 1975).

Instrument Development and Data Collection in the Delphi

Technique, the development and administration of questionnaires

is interconnected. Delbeq et al., (1975) recommended the following

approach in the development and administration of questionnaires.

In round one, participants were asked to write responses to a

broad problem issue. The first questionnaire could take several

forms, but would most likely be one or two rather open-ended

questions. One frequent modification of format would be the use

of a structured instrument based on a review of literature.

During the second round, a second questionnaire asked participants

to review the items identified by the first questionnaire and

summarized by the researchers. Participants rank-order items

to establish preliminary priorities among items. As a result

 55

of round two, areas of disagreement and agreement were identified.

The third and final questionnaire permitted participants to review

prior responses and express their individual judgments as to

the importance of each item. The third round provided closure

for the study, suggested areas where diversity of judgment

existed, but allowed for the aggregation of judgments. Delbeq

et al. , (1975) and Johnson (1987) noted that the number of Delphi

questionnaires may vary from three to five depending on the degree

of agreement sought. Altschuld (1993) and Cyfert and Gant (1970),

through an extensive review of literature, found that in most

instances three iterations were enough and not enough new

information was gained to warrant the cost of more iterations.

Iteration refers to the feedback process. The process was viewed

as a series of rounds; in each round every participant worked

through a questionnaire which was returned to the researcher

who collected, edited and returned to every participant a

statement of the position of the whole group and the participant

's own position. A summation of comments made each participant

aware of the range of opinions and the reasons underlying those

opinions. (Johnson et al., 1987; Altschuld, 1993; Linstone &

Turoff, 1975; Ulschak, 1983).

Linstone and Turoff (1975) reviewed research on Delphi statements.

The authors recommended statements should have a length of 20-25

words. The authors found a distinct relationship between the

 56

number of words used and the amount of information received or

level of consensus reached. Mid-length statements (20-25 words)

produced widest agreement in interpretation and highest consensus.

Expert respondents were found to have very high consensus with

moderate length statements, but fell to a very low level of

agreement with long statements.

There are many variants of the Delphi technique. Linstone and

Turoff (1975) and Kerlinger (1973) indicated the appropriateness

of using a modified Delphi if essential information was available.

A structured instrument developed by the researcher and refined

by a panel of experts for use in the first round of Delphi

minimized the expense and time of using open-ended questions

on the first round.

Presentation of Feedback

Presentation of feedback is central to the operation of the Delphi

(Ulschak, 1983). Feedback to participants has a tendency to

move respondents toward consensus (Schiebe, Skutsch & Schofer,

1975). Dalkey and Helmer (1963) studied the effects of verbal

feedback alone against those of statistical feedback alone found

that the presentation of verbal feedback by itself was not

satisfactory in terms of reaching a consensus in the Delphi.

Statistical feedback without any verbal explanations was superior.

The study showed, however, that given statistical feedback, groups

that were also provided with a "relevant fact" produced better

 57

results than groups that were not presented a combination. Based

on this study, Ulschak (1983) favored a combination of visual

statistical feedback and a carefully edited summary of the

"reasons" given. Altschuld (1993) cautioned that wording and

how results are fed back to the panel can mold consensus.

A general practice has been to present a statistic such as the

mean or median as the "score" and sometimes to give the

interquartile range as an indication of the dispersion of the

distribution, as well as the verbal feedback on "reasons"

(Ulschak, 1983; Witkin, 1984; Dalkey, 1967). Witkin indicated

that the mean was generally not an appropriate measure of central

tendency because few response scales in Delphi instruments assume

equal intervals. Dalkey (1967) argued that the median of

individual responses was the most useful index. Ulschak suggested

the possibility of using the mode as the feedback parameter in

the form of a histogram display. The Delphi process has a tendency

to create convergence, and though this was usually to a single

point, there was the possibility of polarization or clustering

of the results around two or more points. In these instances,

the mean or median could be misleading.

Determining Reliability

In determining reliability, Hughes (1993) noted that conventional

means of establishing reliability were not appropriate for a

Delphi study. One function of the Delphi technique was to

 58

encourage participants to modify responses as the group moved

toward consensus. Dalkey, Rourke, Lewis and Snyder (1972)

indicated:

For the analyst using expert opinion within a study,

reliability can be considered to play somewhat the
same role as reproducibility in experimental investi­
gations. It is clearly desirable for a study that
another analyst using the same approach (and different
experts) arrive at similar results ... this similarity
can be measured by the correlation between the answers
of two groups over a set of questions (p. 18).

Dalkey et al., (1972) reported there was a definite and monotonic

increase in the reliability of group responses with increasing

group size. Reliability, with a correlation coefficient

approaching .9, was found with a group size of 13. Dalkey

reported, based on Rand studies, an increase in reliability of

group responses with an increase in group size.

Analysis of Data

Decision rules must be established to aggregate the judgments

of the respondent group on each round of the Delphi. Consensus

on a topic may be determined by having a certain percentage of

votes fall within a prescribed range (Schiebe et al., 1975).

The definition of consensus where rating or ranking takes place

has been by rule of thumb. Ulschak (1983, p. 122) suggested

"consensus is reached when 80 percent of the votes fall within

two categories on a seven-point scale". This does not allow

for cases in which bimodal consensus appears. Ulschak and Schiebe

et al., suggest the alternative approach of using the entire

 59

distribution curve rather than a single statistic in the

measurement of consensus and measuring consensus as the point

at which the histogram stabilizes such that further rounds do

not induce significant changes in its share as measured by the

variance.

In analyzing the written comments of the respondent group, the

procedure suggested by Delbecq et al., (1975) and modified by

Altschuld (1993) was to conduct a content analysis of written

responses to each questionnaire. A team of researchers or panel

of experts in the field was suggested to accomplish this task.

In summary, elements of the Delphi which make it applicable to

the research problem included: 1) The Delphi provided a means

of obtaining structured input from a group of experts without

the requirement of face to face meetings? 2) The technique

motivates innovative thinking in the areas of forecasting, policy

investigations and goal setting? 3) Anonymity and isolation of

respondents provided freedom from conformity pressures? 4)

Multiple iterations permitted time for reflection, respondents

received feedback and could alter initial positions in successive

iterations? 5) A measurement of consensus as well as clarifica­

tion of views resulted from the process.

 60

Framework Summarizing the Study

The review of literature focused primarily on internationalization

related to U.S. Extension systems, Ohio State University Extension

and higher education. Limited research has been conducted on

topics related to internationalization. As a result, the

literature review focused on the perceptions scholars present

of what is and what should be. The framework used to summarize

the study, as depicted in Figure 2, is a holistic one linking

what Extension organizations use, do and deliver to clientele

and society in general and is based on work by Kaufman (1983,

1987) . Focus is placed upon the internal processes of organiza­

tional efforts and organizational results.

The Delphi Technique provided the structure necessary to bring

together the perceptions reported in the literature and the

expertise of the panel members. Through use of the Delphi, the

researcher sought to facilitate consensus by the Delphi Panel

and define internationalization of the Extension component of

the land-grant university system in terms of objectively

verifiable indicators of success.

 ORGANIZATIONAL
EFFORTS
•Inputs
•P ro c e ss CONSENSUS
by
ex p ert panel
*** on DEFINITION
PERCEPTIONS
of '\ ch a rate ristic s of of
DELPHI TECHWOUES> . . . .
Internationalization / R ta fo F v t n n s l n n internationalization
Higher Education sy stem th a t h a s of U.S. E xtension
8
OSU E xtension s
achieved S y stem s
•U.S. Extension 3 Internationalization
ORGANIZATIONAL
RESULTS
•P ro d u cts
•O utputs

Figure 2 . Framework Summarizing the Study

 CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

The design of the study was descriptive-survey research. Two

characteristics were explored and described: The Organizational

Efforts and the Organizational Results which will be evident

in a state university Extension system which is

internationali zed.

To gain an understanding of the characteristics, the Delphi

Research Technique was selected. Delphi, a group process,

utilized individual written responses, as opposed to bringing

individuals together for oral discussion. Delphi was further

characterized by multiple iterations or feedback designed to

accomplish convergence of opinion. Another characteristic of

the process was the anonymity of the respondents. (Jones & Twiss,

1978; Dalkey, Rourke, Lewis, Snyder, 1972; Linstone & Turoff,

1975).

Linstone and Turoff (1975) outlined situations where the use

of Delphi was indicated. Situations included: (1) precise

analytical methods were not suitable for studying the problem,

but subjective judgement on a collective basis could provide

62
 63

beneficial information relative to the problem; (2) time and

cost limited the ability to convene group meetings involving

the individuals needed to address the problem; (3) the

individuals needed to contribute to examination of a broad and

complex problem represented different backgrounds with respect

to experience or expertise; (4) anonymity assured that

disagreements among individuals which might result in a face-to-

face interaction could be refereed; and (5) domination by a group

or individual was avoided. All of these situations were evident

in the problem to be addressed. The Delphi was determined to

be an appropriate methodology.

The methodology chapter has been organized into sections

reflecting the methodological activities used to accomplish the

objectives of the study. The sections include: (1) panel member

selection, (2) instrumentation, (3) data collection, and (4)

data analysis.

Panel Selection

Delphi operates on the principle that several heads are better

than one in making subjective conjectures about the future, and

that experts will make conjectures based upon rational judgement

rather than merely guessing. The majority of Delphi studies

have used between 15 and 20 respondents. The number was

generally determined by the number of respondents required to

constitute a representative pooling of judgments and the

 64

information processing capability of the researcher (Ulschak,

1983; Delbecq, Van de Ven, Gustafson, 1975; Johnson, Miller,

Miller & Summers, 1987).

The target population for the study was relatively homogeneous

and consisted of positional leaders and informed respondents.

A total of 15 positional leaders and informed respondents were

identified to comprise a panel of experts who were identified

as the Delphi Panel. Positional leaders were identified as

individuals who because of their position with The Ohio State

University or Extension Service - USDA had important knowledge

and experience specific to the Extension system studied. The

census of five were: Director, Ohio State University Extension;

Dean and Vice President, Ohio State University College of

Agriculture; Director, International Programs in Agriculture

at the Ohio State University; Vice Provost for International

Affairs, Ohio State University; and Director International

Programs, ES-USDA. All positional leaders agreed to participate;

should the positional leader have declined to participate in

the study, he/she would have been asked to designate a

representative.

Informed respondents were identified as individuals who were

well known and respected for their contributions to Extension

or land-grant colleges or universities in the area of

internationalization. It was anticipated that many would hold

positions in their own institutions similar to the positional

leaders. An accessible population of 23 informed respondents

was identified following a review of authors of significant

publications, solicitation of nominations during consultations

with professional leaders in the field, and personal knowledge

of outstanding contributions made to land-grant universities

in the area of internationalizing Extension or higher education.

From this group, a sample of 10 was purposefully selected to

join the Delphi Panel which was treated as a single population.

Three alternates were identified as substitutes to be included

should any of the informed respondents decline to participate

in the study. The informed respondents selected met at least

three of the criteria established for selection. The criteria

were: (1) national/international reputation related to

internationalizing educational organizations; (2) familiarity

with the U.S. land-grant Extension system; (3) has conducted

research, written or lectured about internationalizing Extension;

(4) was considered to have a deep interest in the problem and

important knowledge or experience to share. A review panel

consisting of three faculty members with extensive knowledge

of Extension, international issues and higher education was used

to assist the researcher in the selection process. See Appendix

A for a list of the review panel.

Individuals identified as Delphi Panel participants and one

alternate were initially contacted and invited to participate

 66

by a letter co-signed by the Vice President for Agricultural

Administration and Executive Dean of the College of Agriculture

on his letterhead. The letter explained why the assistance of

the expert was needed, outlined how the results would be used,

and described the Delphi process. In all instances, the expert

panel members were acquainted with either the Dean or the

researcher.

Personal or telephone contacts by the researcher with each

potential panel member were conducted to clarify the objectives

of the study and importance of participation. Following a

script, the nature of the panel, the obligations of participants,

the length of time the Delphi process would take and the

information that would be shared among participants was

described, and commitment was sought. Emphasized was the fact

that the respondent was in an important and unique position to

provide data on the topic of the study. All 15 individuals

nominated agreed to participate as members of the expert panel;

the alternate panel member initially contacted did not

participate. See Appendix B for a list of the Delphi Panel.

Information obtained from panel members included: (1)

verification of correct address and telephone number, and fax

number; (2) name and telephone number of the secretary or

administrative assistant who could be contacted if the panel

member was not available; and (3) dates that the panel member

would not be available to participate in the study.

 67

Instrumentation

Specialized instruments were developed following a review of

the literature to clarify the concepts being studied and the

suitability of the Modified Delphi Research technique to assess

these concepts. Three rounds were planned and three instruments

were developed. The review of literature conducted by the

researcher and that of Cyfert and Gant(1970) and Altschuld (1993)

indicated that not enough was gained after three iterations to

warrant the cost of additional rounds. Instrument I contained

position statements developed from the literature and interviews

with international leaders. Instruments II and III were each

developed based on responses to the preceding instrument.

Instrument I contained 39 statements derived from the review

of literature and further grounded by structured interviews with

five faculty leaders at The Ohio State University who were

acknowledged for their expertise in international activities.

See Appendix C for a list of these individuals. The position

statements were further refined by a content validity panel who

were not members of the Delphi Panel (See Appendix D) . In the

modified Delphi, position statements were used in place of an

unstructured questionnaire on the first round. Each item on

the instrument was stated in the present tense indicating the

attainment of an ideal internationalized Extension system.

The items were organized by the following categories:

Organizational Efforts, consisting of 25 statements reflecting

organization inputs and processes, and Organizational Results,

consisting of 14 statements reflecting organizational products

and services. A seven-point Likert-type scale was used with

0 indicating "no importance", 1 indicating "slight importance",

2 indicating "limited importance", 3 indicating "moderate

importance", 4 indicating "moderately high importance", 5

indicating "high importance", and 6 indicating "critical

importance". The Delphi Panel was asked to identify the level

of importance of each item to the internationalization of an

Extension system. Space was provided for clarification or

comments related to each statement. Delphi Panel members were

asked to support their opinion with a rationale. Space was also

provided for panel members to add new statements. Delphi Panel

responses were incorporated in successive instruments. Appendix

E contains a copy of Instrument I.

Instrument II was developed based on responses to the first

instrument and suggestions for new statements made by the Delphi

Panel. The instrument used in Round II repeated the 39 items

from Round I . Consensus was not achieved on any statement based

on the criteria established. Consensus on a statement was

considered to have been reached when 80% of the ratings (12 panel

members) fell within two rating categories on a seven-point scale

(Ulschak, 1983) . Nine of the original items were reworded as

 69

a result of comments by the Delphi Panel.

Two types of feedback were used in Instrument II. The first

was statistical feedback in the form of group response using

a frequency table for each statement and the individual's own

response on each statement. Neither the mean nor median was

reported as a descriptive parameter. The dispersion of scores

indicated these parameters could be misleading to the Delphi

Panel. In addition to statistical feedback, all comments by

the Delphi Panel for each statement in Round I were anonymously

reported. (See Appendix F ) .

The instrument in Round II also contained 12 additional items

derived from suggestions received from the Delphi Panel during

Round I. The suggestions were subjected to content analysis

(Altschuld, 1993; Delbeq et a l . , 1975). The meanings of similar

suggestions were summarized to formulate one statement as agreed

upon by three reviewers, one of which was the researcher. The

process used was; (1) Review and cluster similar items into

categories; (2) Identify key words in these similar statements;

(3) Produce a label for each category; and (4) Write a

descriptive statement for that label. The original wording

suggested by the Delphi Panel was used whenever possible (Meyer,

1992; Altschuld, 1993) and was reported in the "Comments" section

on Instrument II. The new items were clearly identified in the

Round II instrument which is found in Appendix F. The Delphi

 70

Panel, in Round II, was asked to evaluate all 51 items, reviewing

their position on the original items based on feedback provided,

and rating each statement using the same seven point Likert-type

scale used in Round I. Ratings ranged from 0 indicating "no

importance" to 6 indicating "critical importance".

Instrument III was developed based on responses to the first

instrument and suggestions made by the Delphi Panel. The Round

III instrument contained 42 items on which consensus was not

achieved in Round II. Consensus was achieved on 9 items.

Consensus on an item was considered to have been reached when

80% of the ratings (12 votes) fell within two categories on a

seven-point scale. Two types of feedback were used in Round

III. The first was statistical feedback in the form of group

response using a frequency table for each statement and the

individual's own response on each statement. The mode was

identified (Ulschak, 1983) as well. In addition to statistical

feedback, all comments by the Delphi Panel for each statement

in Round II were anonymously reported. In Round III, the Delphi

Panel was asked to review each statement, re-evaluate their

position on each statement where consensus was not reached and

rerate using the same seven point Likert-type scale, where 0

indicates "no importance" and 6 indicates "critical importance".

On those items where the individual's final rating varied two

points or more from the mode, clarification was requested on

the rationale for the rating.

Face and content validity of the initial instrument were assured

through the use of a content validity panel comprised of five

international educators who had experience in Extension, higher

education and research design. Appendix D provides a listing

of these educators. The reviewers were advised of the objectives

of the study and the purpose of the instrument. Each was asked

to review and refine the alternatives stated and identify

additional important positions pertaining to the study. Comments

and suggestions related to clarity and content were solicited.

Minor revisions in the instrument were made based on the content

validity panel recommendations.

Given the nature of the Delphi technique, additional types of

validity were not appropriate for the instrument. Construct

validity is concerned with the extent the instrument is

associated with some psychological construct and the extent to

which test scores serve as a measure of that construct.

Criterion-related validity is concerned with the predictive

relationship of the items to some relevant external criterion

(Ary & Jacobs, 1990) . Neither construct validity nor criterion-

related validity are a consideration in the Delphi technique

which seeks to assess what should be with regard to

organizational conditions, goals and objectives. No attempt

will be made to generalize the results of the consensus building

by the Delphi Panel to any other population and situation.

Therefore, neither ecological nor population validity are

 72

pertinent to this study. Consensus is item specific and related

to the knowledgeable individuals on the Delphi panel.

Reliability, a benchmark criterion for assessing the consistency

of the instrument in measuring accurately whatever it sets out

to measure, cannot be determined by conventional means in a

Delphi study. Reliability-estimation procedures look at

stability in measurement over time or across forms. Changing

responses from one round to the next is encouraged as the Delphi

panel moves toward consensus and the instrument is modified in

each round based on panel members1 input. Reproducibility using

the same approach with different experts could be considered

to play somewhat the same role as reliability. (Delbecq, Van

de Ven, & Gustafson, 1975; Dalkey, Rourke, Lewis & Snyder, 1972).

Dalkey (1969) reported an increase in reliability of group

responses with increasing group size. Reliability with a

correlation coefficient approaching .9 was found with a group

size of 13. Coefficients of stability were also deemed

inappropriate. No attempt is made to sum responses across items

or advance that each item measures the same thing, as would occur

in the technique used for establishing indices of internal

consistency reliability.

Data Collection

The Delphi instruments were mailed to the Delphi Panel using

regular U.S. mail or air mail to international locations. The

 73

mailed packet consisted of the instrument, an individually

addressed cover letter, and a self-addressed stamped return

envelope. In the cover letter, the researcher thanked the

individual for participating, provided instructions and a

response date. Panelists were given two weeks from the mailing

date to respond. Each mailed iteration of the instrument

utilized a bright yellow envelop which made it easily

identifiable in the panel member's mail. A special transmittal

sheet with humorous graphics was designed for fax communication

with nonrespondents. Nonrespondents on each round were contacted

by a facsimile transcribed letter five days after the due date

and encouraged to complete and return the questionnaire. If

no response was received within ten days after the due date,

the nonrespondent was contacted by telephone. Thirteen of the

fifteen respondents were scheduled to be out of the country

during the course of the study, so some flexibility in data

collection procedures was required. Fax transmittal answer

sheets were designed and provided to Delphi Panel members during

Round III. The data collection process took three months to

complete.

During Round I, the researcher contacted each panel member the

day after the instrument should have been received to verify

its arrival, answer questions and encourage its completion and

return. Small incentives were used with Rounds II and III.

The token used during Round II was sent to administrative

 74

secretaries in appreciation for their assistance. The token

in Round III was included with the mailed packet. Letters of

appreciation were mailed or transmitted by facsimile machine

following each round to maintain interest and confirm the arrival

date of the next instrument. The literature revealed that

participant loss of interest because of replicated measures is

one of the drawbacks to the Delphi technique. A final letter

expressing thanks and assuring participants a summary brought

closure to the process. Appendix I contains examples of the

correspondence used.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated for each round. The

computer program, Statistical Program for the Social Sciences

(SPSS), was used for data analysis. Consensus on a statement

was considered to have been reached when 80% of the ratings fell

within two categories on a seven-point scale. Frequency counts

and percentages, along with the mode, median, mean, and standard

deviation, were reviewed in determining consensus. For each

round, those items not meeting the criteria for consensus were

included in the following round as well as new items generated

from suggestions. Suggested items were compiled and content

analysis was conducted following procedures outlined in the

Instrumentation section. Written reasons for support or

disagreement with position items on each round were reprinted

in the resulting instrument.

Termination of the Delphi procedures occurred as planned,

following the third round. Linstone and Turoff (1975) indicate

that three rounds proved sufficient to attain stability in

responses and further rounds tended to show very little change.

"Excessive repetition was unacceptable to participants" (p. 229).

Data were analyzed descriptively, and those items where consensus

was reached were identified. The mean for each item on which

consensus was reached was calculated, and variability was

described through standard deviations. The mean was used to

describe the level of importance of the item, as determined by

consensus of the Delphi Panel, to an internationalized state

Extension system. Common themes and accompanying statistical

descriptions are reported in Chapter IV.

Considering the strong tendency in the Delphi procedure for

opinion to centralize, resistance in the form of nonconsensual

distributions was viewed with special interest (Linstone &

Turoff, 1975; Scheibe, Skutsch & Schofer, 1975; Ulschak, 1983).

Following the third round, items where consensus was not achieved

were identified. Delphi Panel comments on all rounds were

reviewed and utilized to further describe the panelists1 reaction

to each item where consensus was not achieved.

In summary, a modified Delphi technique was used in this

descriptive-survey research. The Delphi Panel, consisting of

15 purposely selected experts, sought to identify characteristics

of an internationalized state university Extension system. An

iterative process using three researcher developed instruments

was used to gather information.

 CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

Extension systems across the country are being challenged to

integrate international perspectives into programs and assist

staff and clientele in developing global competency. For the

past decade, national Extension leaders have encouraged state

Extension systems to internationalize. This interest appears

to be the result of many factors and influences, both within

and outside of Extension and the university.

Internationalization has frequently been viewed in general,

rather amorphous terms (Henson, Noel, Gillard-Byers and Ingle,

1990). The term "internationalization" has been used by

researchers and writers with no clarification of its meaning.

As a result, confusion over "why" or "how" Extension should

strive to internationalize exists. The current study strives

to bring greater clarity to internationalization, with the stated

purpose:

to identify the characteristics that will describe

an internationalized state Extension system.

77
 78

The study used a three-round, modified Delphi technique to

explore and describe the characteristics of an internationalized

state Extension system. A panel of 15 experts, purposefully

selected following a nomination process, were used to identify

the characteristics.

This chapter presents the results from each of the three rounds

of the modified Delphi in chronological order. For each round,

items on which consensus was reached are identified and common

themes evident in the comments of the Delphi Panel are presented

along with a statistical description of the results. The second

part of the chapter describes those items where consensus was

not reached, conflicting perspectives are reported and common

themes identified. The chapter concludes with a second look at

the items where consensus was reached and a reporting of the

relative importance of each item to the internationalization

of a state university Extension system as determined by consensus

of the Delphi Panel.

Results: Round I

The results reported are based on responses of 14 panel members

to the Round I instrument. One member of the panel was unable

to be reached because of an international assignment. The

instrument contained 39 literature based statements related to

organizational efforts and results and two open-ended items.

At the conclusion of Round I, consensus was reached on none of

 79

the items. Tables 1 and 2 (pp. 114-125) report the distribution

of ratings for each item.

The Delphi Panel was asked to comment and argue in favor or

against items in a space provided adjacent to each statement.

No attempt is made in this section to synthesize comments made

during Round I. This synthesis and reporting will occur in the

following sections. Reported in Appendix F are the 215 comments

received related to the 39 items. These comments were all

reprinted in the Round II instrument. Nineteen suggestions were

also received for additional items. Using a content analysis

process described in Chapter III, 12 new items were added. Nine

items were reworded based on suggestions by panel members.

Examination of the Round II instrument found in Appendix F will

show the new items, the comments on which they were based, and

the reworded items.

Results; Round II

The results reported are based on responses of 13 panel members

to the Round II instrument. One panel member responded too late

to have input included in the data analysis and one member of

the panel was unable to be reached because of an international

assignment. The unavailable panel member was a different

individual than the nonrespondent in Round I .

 80

The Round II instrument contained 51 items related to organiza­

tional efforts and results and two open-ended items. At the

conclusion of Round II, consensus was reached on nine items.

Consensus on a statement was considered to have been reached

when 80% of the ratings (12 votes) fell within two categories

on a seven-point scale. Tables 1 and 2 (pp. 114-125) report

the distribution of ratings for all items. Tables 3 and 4 (pp.

126-130) report mean rating scores for items where consensus

was reached. Reported later in this section is a synthesis of

comments on the nine items where consensus was reached.

The Delphi Panel was asked to comment, argue in favor or against

items in a space provided adjacent to each statement. Reported

in Appendix G are the 69 additional comments received related

to the 51 items. These comments were all reprinted in the Round

III instrument and will be found there. The comments received

in response to the Round II instrument were printed in italics.

Two general comments were received in response to the open-ended

items and are reported in Appendix H.

Consensus on Organizational Efforts

Consensus was reached on nine items during Round I I . In the

following paragraphs, representative comments are presented for

items where consensus was attained. Reported first are four items

related to Organizational Efforts which is comprised of inputs

and processes; secondly, five items related to Organizational

 81

Results which is comprised of products and outputs are reported.

Ratings are reported using a seven point Likert-type scale

ranging from 0 (no importance) to 6 (critical importance) .

Organizational Effort: Reward structure recognizes international­

ization in its system of rewards. These include merit adjustments,

tenure, promotion, and peer recognition. Consensus of the Delphi

Panel was that this item had between high importance (5) and

critical importance (6) to the internationalization of an

Extension system, but closer to high importance. Following Round

I, where consensus was not achieved, the statement was reworded

to include "peer recognition". Round I comments indicated that

"visibility among peers" and "a routine, annual process for

highlighting accomplishments — so others become aware of this

productive stream of activity" were important. The Delphi Panel

indicated a structure was necessary and "internal motivation

and interest — not just external rewards . . . ." Another panel

member stated a "pattern of merit/P&T being awarded to those

involved in international work" was important.

Organizational Effort: Proposals for international work are

developed and funded. Consensus of the Delphi Panel was that

this item had between moderately high (4) and high importance

(5) to the internationalization of an Extension system, but closer

to high importance. As one panel member indicated, it "depends

on how the organization operates — 'proposals' seems very

 82

formal." Another panel member reacted strongly indicating,

"Without this, it's 'all talk and no action'." A word of caution

was introduced by a comment made during Round I, "Yes, but . ..

not for their own sake and not without knowing what other

universities and consultants, international and bilateral

organizations, are doing and have done Early success

in proposal development was viewed as being important.

Organizational Effort; International experiences are provided

for county agents who do not have faculty status. Consensus

was that this item had high importance (5) to an internationalized

Extension system. Following Round I, the statement was reworded

because of confusion over the use of the term "nonfaculty agent".

One panel member indicated, "I don't know what a 'nonfaculty

agent1 is. I don't think we have such a category." An

indication of the reason for a rating of high importance was

provided by a panel member who commented, "Given the degree of

domestic isolation resident in our agent population, this is

essential." A concept suggested in both Round I and Round II

was "let's not provide the experience, let's do provide the

opportunity. The opportunity provides the experience."

Organizational Effort: Extension facultv/agents recognize the

relationship between basic international issues (e.g.. knowledge

of international agriculture, commitment to human development,

significance of privatization) and the Extension mission.

 83

Consensus among the Delphi Panel was that this item had between

high importance (5) and critical importance (6) to the

internationalization of an Extension system. This was an item

added following Round I. One panel member encouraged the Delphi

Panel to "think more about the goals and objectives of

internationalization, not just getting to know each other —

although this is part of the mission." During Round II, a panel

member indicated, "This should be the first step in the process."

A suggested addition to the list of international issues was

"the relationship between international agriculture development

and the health of the U.S. economy."

Consensus on Organizational Results

Five items related to Organizational Results which is comprised

of products and outputs are reported in the following paragraphs.

Ratings are reported using a seven point Likert-type scale ranging

from 0 (no importance) to 6 (critical importance).

Organizational Result: Educational programs planned bv Extension

help clientele secure a better understanding of complex worldwide

issues. The Delphi Panel agreed that this item had between high

importance (5) and critical importance (6) , but closer to high

importance for the internationalization of an Extension system.

Local understanding was viewed as being greatly needed. Stated

in Round I and repeated by another panel member in Round II was

the concept " Extension typically tries to be responsive to local

 84

needs. But few people recognize a need for international

'education1. This is where international education needs

leadership from Extension programmers who can see a need that

may be invisible to the general population." One panel member

indicated programs must include travel and work abroad. Another

expressed the belief that "the objective of internationalizing

Extension must be that of helping clientele understand the global

marketplace and the cultural context in which it is embedded.

This is the desired outcome."

Organizational Result: Clientele develop a fundamental

understanding of global and national interdependence. Consensus

among the Delphi Panel was that this item had between high

importance (5) and critical importance (6) to the international­

ization of an Extension system, but closer to critical importance.

Few written comments were offered by the Delphi Panel. One panel

member noted a close relationship between this item and the

previous item, "If you understand the complex issues, you will

understand interdependence." Another person indicated, "It must

include interdependence and connections to local issues."

Organizational Result; Extension educational programs within

the U.S. stress the impact of international economic forces on

agricultural markets. The Delphi Panel reached consensus that

this item had between high importance (5) and critical importance

(6) to the internationalization of an Extension system, but closer

 85

to critical importance. "This is central to effective U.S.

participation in [the] global economy" was a comment made by

one panel member during Round I . The comment was representative

of other responses. Another panel member stated, "In addition,

Extension should help our clientele to understand how better

to exploit economic opportunities overseas." No comments were

received during Round II for this item.

Organizational Result: Extension educators incorporate

international perspectives into on-going educational activities.

The Delphi Panel reached consensus that this item had between

high importance (5) and critical importance (6) to the

internationalization of an Extension system. Two comments were

made in response to this statement, one indicating the need for

a strong international thrust that deals with economic security

issues and a second which indicated academic faculty are already

incorporating international perspectives.

Organizational Result: Extension clientele interact with visiting

scholars and students to become more globally aware. Consensus

was that this statement, added during Round II, had between

moderately high (4) and high importance (5) to internationalizing

Extension, but closer to moderately high importance. Effective

use of students and visiting scholars was important, "for many

agents, this may be a primary vehicle to internationalize (become

more globally aware)." One panel member cautioned, "I'm not

 86

too sure if Extension clientele 'in general1 are interested in

enhancing their global awareness. Of course there are exceptions.

Perhaps generating clientele interests should be part of the

Extension mission."

Results; Round III

The results reported are based on responses of 14 panel members

to the Round III instrument. One member of the panel was unable

to be reached because of an international assignment. The

unavailable panel members was also a nonrespondent in Round II.

The Round III instrument contained 42 items related to

organizational efforts and results on which consensus was not

reached during Round II. At the conclusion of Round III,

consensus was reached on 29 additional items. Consensus on a

statement was considered to have been reached when 80% of the

ratings (12 votes) fell within two categories on a seven-point

scale. Tables 1 and 2 (pp. 114-125) report the distribution of

ratings for all items. Tables 3 and 4 (pp. 126-130) report mean

ratings for items where consensus was reached. Reported in

Appendix G are the 32 additional comments received related to

the items in the Round III instrument.

Consensus on Organizational Efforts

Reported in the following paragraphs is a synthesis of comments

on the 29 items where consensus was reached during Round III.

 87

The Delphi Panel was asked to comment and argue in favor or

against items in a space provided adjacent to each statement.

Ratings are reported using a seven point Likert-type scale ranging

from 0 (no importance) to 6 (critical importance).

Organizational Effort: The central mission of the Extension

system includes a commitment to international education. The

Delphi Panel reached consensus that this item had high importance

(5) to the internationalization of an Extension system. A panel

member indicated during Round I that " 'International education1

is too broad. " Other panel members suggested that international

education is not central to the mission of Extension. "Extension

does not have a mandate to deliver educational programs in other

countries. It does, however, need to incorporate international

dimensions into domestic programs. To accomplish this, Extension

must be internationally engaged in developed and developing

countries." Re-emphasized by panel members during Round II and

III were comments made by other panel members which indicated:

"I believe many faculty, staff and administrators think of

international as a sort of 4th dimension: Teaching, Research,

Extension and International .... If we are successful, we must

integrate international/global thought and reaction patterns

into our basic mandate ..." "Within the land-grant mission,

it is implied that we prepare our students and citizens to be

active participants in society and economy ...."

 88

Organizational Effort: Administrators clearly communicate support

for internationalization. Consensus of the Delphi Panel was

that this item had between high importance (5) and critical

importance (6), but closer to high importance to the internation­

alization of an Extension system. Suggested by several panel

members was the concept that "if administrators do not communicate

their support, faculty and staff will be reluctant to

participate." Panel members indicated "most do not state such"

administrator's commitment "must be action, not lip service."

Organizational Effort: Administrators engage in experiences which

will internationalize their own professional lives. The Delphi

Panel reached consensus that this item had between moderately

high importance (4) and high importance (5) to the international­

ization of an Extension system, but closer to high importance.

Panel members indicated it was "highly important for administra­

tors to participate", but indicated international experiences

"should not be just 'jaunts' to other countries."

Organizational Effort; Policy and operating procedures facilitate

international program efforts. Consensus of the Delphi Panel

was that this item had high importance (5) to internationalizing

Extension. During Round I, the question was raised "which

international program efforts?" A panel member during Round

II suggested, "The purpose for internationalizing Extension must

be clear and clearly stated." Three comments were received during

 89

the three rounds of the Delphi study.

Organizational Effort; Personnel evaluation systems recognize

international efforts. The Delphi Panel reached consensus that

this item had between high (5) and critical importance (6) to

the internationalization of an Extension system. During Round

I, a panel member suggested "this is an old fight ...." In Round

II, the statement was made, "incentives/rewards for international

interests and effort are imperative for internationalization

to occur."

Organizational Effort: Faculty increase their expertise by

interacting with faculty and scholars from other cultures.

Consensus of the Delphi Panel was that this item had high

importance (5) to the internationalization of an Extension system.

Following Round I, the statement was revised to eliminate a phrase

which indicated faculty increased their expertise "in their own

domain." One panel member indicated, "Faculty should be

encouraged to reach outside their area of expertise — personal

growth is just as vital. " Another panel member suggested, "Yes,

but w h a t 's needed is language training .... We need to learn

cultures and the knowledge of another language is its (the

country's) culture at the deepest level." A panel member

suggested that interaction is useful as a first step to create

awareness and interest, "but you're really not there until you

have successfully worked with peers from another culture and

 90

jointly created something of worth."

Organizational Effort: Professional improvement activities

increase knowledge of global issues. Consensus among the Delphi

Panel was that this item had high importance (5) to the

internationalization of an Extension system. One panel member

indicated "working outside our normal environment is the key."

Another panel member spoke of in-service training being necessary

to increase awareness. Several panel members cautioned that

professional improvement activities do not always increase

knowledge of global issues. Increase in awareness "depends on

the activities; care should be taken to identify the best ones. "

Organizational Effort: Exchange programs with Extension

organizations in other countries are institutionalized. Consensus

of the Delphi Panel was that this item had between moderately

high (4) and high importance (5) to the internationalization

of an Extension system, but closer to high importance. Several

panel members suggested that this item and the following item

"mean essentially the same thing" and preferred the wording

in the other item. Following Round I, one panel member expressed

the concept that mutual exchange can lead to mutual learning,

"Exchange should have a definite purpose: to review the

organizational structure, for instance .... Exchanges are probably

good in and of themselves, but best if planned with a strong

and accountable purpose." A comment during Round III may best

 91

summarize the thoughts expressed by panel members: "In the

'basket' of professional improvement activities that lead to

internationalization of Extension educators, exchange programs

represent a moderately important element. I believe there are

many elements of such professional improvement and don't want

to rate exchanges any higher for fear that it might be viewed

as a panacea for internationalization. They are not, in my

opinion."

Organizational Effort: Exchange programs with Extension

organizations in other countries are planned and conducted on

an on-going ba s i s . The Delphi Panel reached consensus that

this item had between moderately high (4) and high importance

(5) to internationalizing an Extension system. As noted above,

overlap was seen by some between this item and the previous item.

Exchange programs were viewed as one way to gain experience,

but not the only way. Several panel members spoke of the need

for continuity over time. "One/year is not too important."

Organizational Effort: The organization's best senior faculty/

agents are identified to participate in overseas assignments.

The Delphi Panel reached consensus that this item had between

moderately high (4) and high importance (5) , but closer to high

importance. Debate and questioning occurred during all rounds

of the Delphi around the concepts of "best" and "senior" faculty.

Panel members questioned the use of the term "best". As one

 92

panel member indicated, "I'm not sure I know what 'best' means",

and another panel member stated, "Clarifying the way to determine

'best senior' would be important. I feel the word senior is

inappropriate. Are we rewarding longevity?"

A panel member during Round I suggested rewording the statement

to say, "The organization's senior faculty are selected to

participate in overseas assignments." During Round II another

panel member responded, "Delete the word 'senior' . Don't send

overseas the dead wood — a frequent problem where Department

Heads want to shift a liability overseas." Several panel members

suggested both young and experienced agents/faculty should be

involved, although one added, "BUT, reward systems should be

modified so that untenured and junior faculty/agents can

participate and still build credit toward promotion." A final

comment, made during Round III, was to suggest the statement

read, "The organization demonstrates the priority placed on

international activity by its willingness to commit scarce

resources, i.e. its best senior faculty/agents, to participate

in international assignments."

Organizational Effort: The organization's best junior facul-

tv/agents are identified to participate in overseas assignments.

Consensus of the Delphi Panel was that this item had between

moderately high (4) and high importance (5) , but closer to high

importance in internationalizing Extension. Concerns related

to the concept of best junior faculty were expressed during all

three rounds. Once again, deletion, clarification or substitution

of another word for "best" was suggested by more than one panel

member. Panel members expressed concern about junior faculty

participating in overseas assignments, "This worries me.

Faculty/agents need to get tenured/established before they get

too enamored with international work." "I have seen too many

junior faculty get their career derailed due to an international

assignment." Several panel members indicated involvement of

junior faculty was important, "probably more important than senior

faculty, but [I] worry about P&T."

Organizational Effort: Financial support for internationalizing

activities is available. The Delphi Panel reached consensus

that this item had between high importance (5) and critical

importance (6), but closer to high importance in the internation­

alization of an Extension system. Panel members indicated "it

won't happen without some resources" and "the question is how

much support." A panel member during Round I suggested support

could come from grants. During Round II, another panel member

responded indicating financial support was "essential". "It

needs to be viewed as a key investment, but not just something

we do when extra $ are available." During Round III, a panel

member added "budget allocations are the clearest signal of

priorities an organization can send to its staff. Thus, this

is critical."
 94

Organizational Effort; A personfs^ is identified to provide

leadership to internationalizing efforts. Consensus of the Delphi

Panel was that this item had between high importance (5) and

critical importance (6), but closer to high importance to the

internationalization of an Extension system. A central contact

point was seen as being necessary, "even if responsibilities

are decentralized." Several panel members saw identification

of a person as necessary, comments indicated: "the 'right' person

has to be identified" and "not just the College of Ag directors

of OIP's."

Organizational Effort: A committee (s) is established to guide

internationalization efforts. The Delphi Panel reached consensus

that this item had between moderately high (4) and high importance

(5) to the internationalization of an Extension system. Reactions

were mixed during Round I with some members indicating: "Don't

hang too much hope on committees." "Committees take too much

time. Committees have limited view of situations." Other panel

members were more positive about the idea if the "right" people

were involved. During Round II, a panel member suggested that

a "committee is more useful in developing criteria to evaluate

faculty performance in international programs. It is of limited

use in determining directions."

Organizational Effort: The organization culture expects

international activity. Consensus of the Delphi Panel was that

 95

this item had high importance (5) to the internationalization

of an Extension system. Comments from panel members indicate

this was an unclear or "redundant question." An opinion expressed

during Round I was "one of the major problems with the successful

internationalization of Cooperative Extension is lack of

recognition that international content, activities, etc., are

an integral part of what clientele need. Instead, the development

assistance mentality prevails which continues to identify within

Extension, international as something separate and differently

from what faculty are supposed to do .... Faculty need to

know/learn about the potentials of international programs and

activities to enhance the quality, relevance and impact of their

programs/responsibilities."

Organizational Effort: Extension is involved with international

development activities. The Delphi Panel reached consensus that

this item had high importance (5) to the internationalization

of an Extension system. Opinions of the Delphi Panel varied.

Some panel members suggested "development projects are okay,

but not the critical concern of Extension, vis-a-vis, our

clientele" and suggested "Extension should focus on domestic

applications of knowledge acquired from international activities

Extension is not USAID." Other panel members spoke out that

it was "necessary for an Extension program of the 21st century."

Several panel members saw this question as redundant. During

Round II, the comment was made "In the past this was very
 96

important, and will probably remain an important window to gain

international experiences, however, the future foreign policy

agenda will emphasize economic advantage for the U.S. rather

than defence, and foreign assistance programs will change

accordingly."

Organizational Effort; Opportunities for international experiences

are provided for administrators. Consensus of the Delphi Panel

was that this item had high importance (5) to the international­

ization of an Extension system. A concern expressed by several

members of the panel during Round I was the use of the term

"provided." As one panel member said, "Important for all. The

word 'provided' worries me. How about encouraged, supported,

facilitated?" Another member suggested "let's not provide the

experience, let's do provide the opportunity ...." A third panel

member suggested experiences were more important for faculty.

No comments were received on this item during Rounds II and III.

Organizational Effort: Human and physical resources are allocated

to support the integration of international activities in the

overall institution effort. Consensus of the Delphi Panel was

that this item had high importance (5) to the internationalization

of an Extension service. During Round I, several panel members

expressed agreement with the statement. Following a suggestion

in Round I, the item was reworded to provide a focus on

"integration of international activities in the overall

 97

institution effort." No comments were received during Rounds

II or III.

Organizational Effort; Regular encouragement/accommodation of

visitation bv scholars from other countries occurs. The Delphi

Panel reached consensus that this item had between moderately

high (4) and high importance (5) , but closer to high importance

to the internationalization of an Extension system. During Round

I, suggestions were made to reword the item, although this did

not occur. One panel member suggested the need for the visits

to have a purpose, "scholars must lecture, engage in field trips,

analyze ....11 Another member suggested the need for visitations

to benefit our Extension program as well. It was also suggested

that not just scholars, but administrators, clientele, and

government officials be encouraged. No comments were received

during Rounds II and III.

Consensus on Organizational Results

During Round III consensus was reached on ten items related to

Organizational Results which is comprised of products and outputs.

Ratings are reported using a seven point Likert-type scale ranging

from 0 (no importance) to 6 (critical importance).

Organizational Result: Extension educational programs offered

to 4—H members help develop international awareness. The Delphi

Panel reached consensus that this item had between moderately

 98

high importance (4) and high importance (5) to the international­

ization of an Extension service. During Round I, a panel member

remarked, "This is the FUTURE" and another indicated "developing

world perspectives for new generations has to be top priority.

Youth are the future." Comments during Round II suggested "the

efforts of 4-H in the area need to be networked with others who

provide youth education ...." For some panel members, the

question was vague. During Round III, a panel member indicated,

"I now understand this item and need to lower my rating."

Organizational Result: Rural clientele are targeted for

educational programming related to the current international

marketplace. Consensus of the Delphi Panel was that this item

had between moderately high importance (4) and high importance

(5), but closer to high importance. Some panel members indicated

the importance to agricultural producers noting "we have generally

been unsuccessful in assisting our agricultural clientele in

this area." Other panel members encouraged the statement to

be broadened to include urban clientele or the general public.

During Round II, a panel member indicated, "It is needed by all

and Extension should provide it."

Organizational Result; Educational programs increase participants1

understanding of other cultures. The Delphi Panel reached

consensus that this item had between moderately high importance

(4) and high importance (5) to the internationalization of an

 99

Extension system. Opinions of the Delphi Panel varied. One

panel member indicated during Round I, "Nice, but not essential"

while another indicated "international Extension programs are

essential for broadening clientele knowledge of other cultures."

A panel member during Round III raised the question, "What else

should they do, regarding international? What else is there?"

Organizational Result: Training programs are provided for foreign

immigrants living in the United States. The Delphi Panel reached

consensus that this item had between moderately high (4) and

high importance (5) to the internationalization of an Extension

system. All comments on this item were received during Round

I. A question was raised by some panel members about Extension's

role. As one panel member commented, "I am not sure this is

a major task except as a resource." Other panel members raised

questions: "What kind of training programs?" "Do you really mean

1provided to immigrants1?" A panel member indicated, "Immigrants

are already internationalized. Perhaps more important is how

to use them to make others globally aware." Several other panel

members spoke strongly in support of the importance of this aspect

of the program, "Isn't Extension the logical provider? We were

all immigrants when we started ... the network and infrastructure

are in place."

Organizational Result: Key leaders participate in interdisciplin­

ary international experiences. Consensus of the Delphi Panel

 100

was that this item had between high importance (5) and critical

importance (6), but closer to high importance to the internation­

alization of Extension. One panel members saw interdisciplinary

international experiences as "critical", indicating "I think

this is the way to make 'it' work" while others suggested "care

must be given to crafting appropriate experiences. A difference

of opinion existed over whether the experiences should be

interdisciplinary. One panel member said "cross cutting is

critical", but another asked "why interdisciplinary? I agree

that interdisciplinary experiences are useful, but believe that

the international aspect is the most important."

Organizational Result: Extension educators assist communities

in building a sense of responsibility for wise use of natural

resources in the context of global trends. The Delphi Panel

reached consensus that this item had high importance (5) to the

internationalization of an Extension system. One panel member

indicated, "This is important, BUT not a dimension of

internationalization for me." Another panel member suggested

it is "probably critical for Extension in the future."

Organizational Result; Specific groups (i.e.. commodity groups)

are targeted for public policy education on global decision­

making. Consensus of the Delphi Panel was that this item had

between moderately high (4) and high importance (5) , but closer

to high importance to the internationalization of an Extension

 101

system. A comment during Round I suggested "this might bring

public policy education out from under. Good." During Round

II, questions were raised about the meaning of "global decision

making." During Round III, the suggestion was offered "go with

(play to) someone's self-interest."

Organizational Result: Urban clientele are targeted for

educational programming related to the current international

marketplace. The Delphi Panel reached consensus that this item

had between moderately high (4) and high importance (5) to the

internationalization of an Extension system. This item was added

during Round II based on suggestions from panel members. Comments

received during Round II suggested both urban and rural clientele

should be targeted. During Round III, one panel member indicated,

"I would score it '5' if it said urban and rural."

Organizational Result: Local business persons are trained for

participation in international markets. The Delphi Panel reached

consensus that this item had high importance (5) to the

internationalization of an Extension system. This was another

item which was added as a result of comments during Round I.

A comment received during Round II was, "I'm not clear whose

mission this is — surely it's important — but should CES

cooperate with the College of Business in this context?"

 102

Organizational Result: Sensitivity to diversity issues by

Extension clientele is enhanced. Consensus of the Delphi Panel

was that this item had between high importance (5) and critical

importance (6) to the internationalization of an Extension system,

but closer to high importance. For this item, added as the result

of a suggestion in Round I, the only comment received was during

Round II. The panel member indicated sensitivity to diversity

issues by both "Extension staff and clientele is enhanced."

Items Not Achieving Consensus

After three rounds of the Delphi, consensus was not achieved

by the Delphi Panel on 13 items. Independence of thought is

expected from experts identified to be part of a Delphi panel,

consensus is not easily achieved. However, the Delphi process

strongly encourages participants to modify original positions

and move toward convergence of opinion. Review of Tables 1

and 2 (pp. 114-125) shows the movement toward consensus which

occurred from round to round. The purpose of this section is

to explore and report the items where divergence of opinion

existed and present representative comments.

Items Not Achieving Consensus - Reaching 73% Agreement

Consensus on a statement was considered to have been reached

when 80% of the ratings (12 votes) fell within two categories

on a seven point Likert-type scale. On six items, 73% of the

ratings were within two categories on the seven-point scale.

 103

On seven items, there was wider divergence of opinion. Reported

in the following paragraphs are the items where 73% of the ratings

fell within two consecutive categories. Later in the section,

items where wider divergence of opinion occurred are report­

ed.

Organizational Effort: Staff development activities increase

skills in internationalization. Ratings ranged from moderate

importance (3) to critical importance (6) with the mode being

moderately high importance (4) . Panel members indicated, "it

depends on the nature of development activities." One panel

member agreed only "if conducted overseas." Another panel member,

during Round II, suggested "cross culture encounters in our own

backyards" is a good starting place. If Extension staff show

special interest in another culture then an investment in

international travel should follow." Several panel members

indicated the item was vague.

Organizational Effort; A database of Extension personnel with

international experience, interest, and language capabilities

exits. Ratings ranged from moderate importance (3) to critical

importance (6) with the mode being a rating of moderately high

importance (4) . During Round I, several panel members indicated

the item was "OK " and one. suggested the main use of a data base

was in identifying people for overseas projects. During Round

III, a panel member remarked, "Helpful but often impractical.

 104

Rather than maintaining such a data base, it is often just as

easy to distribute international opportunity announcements via

e-mail to ALL Extension personnel ...."

Organizational Effort: Opportunities for international experiences

are provided for faculty. Ratings ranged from moderately high

importance (4) to critical importance (6) with the mode rating

being moderately high importance (4) to the internationalization

of Extension. The only comments to this item were heard during

Round I. Suggested by panel members were the ideas, "faculty

should also find their own opportunities" and "international

experience creates awareness, but generally doesn't result in

changed performance."

Organizational Result: U.S. and foreign citizen exchange occurs.

Ratings for this item ranged from limited importance (2) to

critical importance (6) with the mode rating being moderately

high importance (4) . During Round I, several panel members

suggested that other agencies already offer exchange programs

and exchange was "useful, but not critical." A comment made

during Round III further clarified one panel member's perspective,

"I question the feasibility and political support for using public

funds for such exchanges on a large scale. It is already underway

without Extension help and should probably not be pursued."

 105

Organizational Result: Linkage agreements are developed with

international counterparts. Ratings ranged from moderate

importance (3) to critical importance (6) with the mode ratings

being moderately high importance (4). One panel member suggested

that linkage agreements "legitimize interaction." Others panel

members questioned how formal the linkage was noting, "agreements

are pieces of paper — people working together on mutually

beneficial activities is the goal."

Organizational Result: Extension promotes interagency cooperation

on international initiatives. Ratings ranged from moderate

importance (3) to critical importance (6) with a mode rating

of high importance (5). This item was added as a result of

suggestions made during Round I. The comment received during

Round II and repeated by another panel member in Round III was

"in our system our international program office handles this.

I don't think this is Extension's comparative advantage."

Items Not Achieving Consensus - Wide Divergence of Opinion

The following paragraphs report the items where consensus was

not reached by the Delphi Panel and wide divergence of opinion

occurred based on the results of three rounds of the Delphi

instrument.
Organizational Effort: Extension clientele support incorporation

of international concepts into on-aoina localized programs.

Ratings on this item were split with ten panel members indicating

moderately high importance (4) and four panel members indicating

critical importance (6). The item was added during Round II

based on suggestions that "the tie between "international ...

and state constituents ... must be made or it will be politically

difficulty to maintain." During Round III, a panel member

suggested rewording the item to indicate "Extension clientele

'do not oppose incorporation' of international concepts into

on-going local programs ..." An opinion expressed by a panel

member during Round II was, "international work in Extension

needs to be a mutual arrangement whereby our constituents and

overseas partners benefit." In Round III, one member of the

Delphi Panel remarked, "Extension is a partnership. Traditional­

ly, it has been county, state and federal. In the future, it

may be county, state, federal and international. We can't ignore

our local constituent base as we expand to embrace the world.

We must do it with them, not for them."

Organizational Effort: Extension clientele support Extension

agents/faculty conducting educational programs in other countries.

Ratings ranged from moderate importance (3) to critical importance

(6) with the mode rating being moderately high importance (4) .

This item was added following Round I based on suggestions from

the Delphi Panel. A comment made during Round II suggested,

 107

"probably Extension clientele in reality ... would not support

their Extension agents being away from their jobs for extended

periods of time, however it's important that agents share their

expertise in other countries. In the long run, everyone will

be a winner." Several other panel members indicated conducting

educational programs in other countries was "helpful, but not

critical."

Organizational Effort: Faculty increase their understanding

of other cultures through interaction with international students

and scholars. Ratings ranged from moderate importance (3) to

critical importance (6) with the mode rating being moderately

high importance (4) to the internationalization of Extension.

This item was added based on a comment in Round I suggesting

the pairing of faculty with a broad-base of international students

based on personal interests. No comments were received during

Round II. During Round III, the only comment made was that

interaction with international students and scholars was the

"easiest way to internationalize."

Organizational Effort: Facultv/agents interact with faculty in

other schools who are involved in international projects. Ratings

for this item, added following Round I based on suggestions from

the Delphi Panel, ranged from moderate importance (3) to critical

importance (6) with the mode rating being moderately high

importance (4) . No additional comments which clarify panel

 108

members positions were received beyond those suggesting the

addition of the item during Round I.

Organizational Result: Extension educational programs within

the U.S. present the underlying causes of hunger and poverty

in other nations and the effect on U.S. citizens. Ratings for

this item ranged from moderate importance (3) to critical

importance (6) with the mode rating being moderately high

importance (4) . Following suggestions during Round I, the

statement was reworded to broaden the focus from "developing

nations" to "other nations." Several panel members raised the

question, "can we do this?" One member commented, "This is a

tough one to do effectively."

Organizational Result: U.S. Extension information is disseminated

to people in other countries. Ratings ranged from limited

importance (2) to critical importance (6) with the mode rating

being high importance (5). Following Round II, the statement

was reworded. Only one comment was received on this item noting

it "does not have much to do with process in this country."

Organizational Result: Community development programs adapt ideas

from international models. Ratings ranged from no importance

(0) to critical importance (6) with the mode rating being

moderately high importance (4) . The item was added during Round

II based on suggestions from the Delphi Panel that rural

 109

development and economic development benefit or adapt ideas

from international development. Comments during Round III

expressed divergent viewpoints. One panel member suggested,

"This form of reverse technology (or methodology) transfer is

more important than is readily evident. We have successfully

used LDC's as testing grounds for such programs and have used

the results in the US." Another indicated, "I just don't see

any connection. Obviously others see something that I don't."

Characteristics of an Internationalized Extension System

By consensus, the Delphi Panel identified 38 characteristics

of an internationalized state Extension system. Consensus was

reached on 23 characteristics of Organizational Efforts and

15 characteristics of Organizational Results. In earlier sections

of Chapter IV, items where consensus was reached have been

identified and described. This section looks at the relative

importance to internationalization of each item using the mean

rating score to describe the level of importance of the item.

Variability is described through standard deviations. Tables

3 and 4 (pp. 126-130) report the results. All items where

consensus was achieved had scale ratings that fell within the

categories of moderately high importance (4), high importance

(5), or critical importance (6) .

 110

Characteristics having Critical Importance

Characteristics having critical importance are those whose mean

rating score was 5.50 or higher on the seven point Likert-type

scale where 0 indicated "no importance" and 6 indicated "critical

importance" to the internationalization of an Extension system.

Descriptive statistics are reported in Tables 3 and 4 at the

conclusion of the chapter.

Organizational Efforts
Extension faculty/agents recognize the relationship
between basic international issues (e.g. knowledge
of international agriculture, commitment to human
development, significance of privatization) and the
Extension mission.

Personnel evaluation systems recognize international

efforts.

Organizational Results
Clientele develop a fundamental understanding of global
and national interdependence.

Extension educational programs within the U.S. stress

the impact of international economic forces on
agricultural markets.

Extension educators incorporate international

perspectives into on-going educational activities.

Characteristics having High Importance are those items whose

mean rating score was between 4.50 and 5.49 on the seven point

Likert-type scale used where 0 indicated "no importance" and

6 indicated "critical importance". Descriptive statistics are

reported in Tables 3 and 4 at the conclusion of the chapter.

Organizational Efforts
Reward structure recognizes internationalization in
its system of rewards. These include merit adjust­
ments, tenure, promotion, and peer recognition.
 Ill

Financial support for internationalizing activities

is available.

A person(s) is identified to provide leadership to

internationalizing efforts.

Administrators clearly communicate support for

internationalization.

International experiences are provided for county

agents who do not have faculty status.

Faculty increase their expertise by interacting with

faculty and scholars from other cultures.

Human and physical resources are allocated to support

the integration of international activities in the
overall institution effort.

Policy and operating procedures facilitate inter­

national program efforts.

The organizational culture expects international

activity.

The central mission of the Extension system includes

a commitment to international education.

Professional improvement activities increase knowledge

of global issues.

Opportunities for international experiences are

provided for administrators

Extension is involved with international development

activities.

The organization's best junior faculty/agents are

identified to participate in overseas assignments.

Administrators engage in experiences which will

internationalize their own perspective.

Regular encouragement/accommodation of visitation by

scholars from other countries occurs.

Proposals for international work are developed and

funded.

The organization's best senior faculty/agents are

identified to participate in overseas assignments.
 112

Exchange programs with Extension organizations in other

countries are institutionalized.

A committee(s) is established to guide internation­

alization efforts.

Exchange programs with Extension organizations in other

countries are planned and conducted on an on-going
basis.

Organizational Results
Sensitivity to diversity issues by Extension clientele
is enhanced.

Key leaders participate in interdisciplinary interna­

tional experiences.

Extension educators assist communities in building

a sense of responsibility for wise use of natural
resources in the context of global trends.

Local business persons are trained for participation

in international markets.

Specific groups (i.e., commodity groups) are targeted

for public policy education on global decision-making.

Rural clientele are targeted for educational program­

ming related to the current international marketplace.

Educational programs planned by Extension help

clientele secure a better understanding of complex
worldwide issues.

Extension educational programs offered to 4-H members

help develop international awareness.

Training programs are provided for foreign immigrants

living in the United States.

Urban clientele are targeted for educational program­

ming related to the current international marketplace.

Characteristics having Moderately High Importance are those items

whose mean rating score was between 3.50 and 4.49 on the seven

point Likert-type scale used where 0 indicated "no importance"

and 6 indicated "critical importance". No Organizational Efforts

 113

were identified. Descriptive statistics are reported in Tables

3 and 4 at the conclusion of the chapter.

Organizational Results
Extension clientele interact with visiting
scholars and students to become more
globally aware.

Characteristics having Moderate. Limited. Slight or No Importance.

No items were reported for any of these categories based on

consensus of the Delphi Panel.

In summary, the Delphi Panel, comprised of experts in the areas

of international efforts in Extension and higher education

reached consensus on 38 items which can be used to describe the

characteristics of an internationalized state Extension system.

Through a three-round modified Delphi process, consensus has

also been reached on the relative importance of each of the 38

items to the internationalization of a state Extension system.

Finally, 13 items where the Delphi Panel was unable to reach

consensus were identified and divergent viewpoints explored and

described.
Table 1

Organizational Efforts: Distribution of Ratings of Importance by Delphi Panel for Each Item
and Round

Level of Importance

Item Delphi 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 MD
Round a

1. The central mission of the Round I 4 7 2 1

Extension system includes a Round II 3 8 2
a commitment to international Round IIIC 2 10 2
education.

2. Administrators clearly Round I 1 2 3 3 5

communicate support for Round II 3 5 5
internationalization. Round IIIC 2 8 4

3. Administrators engage in Round I 1 2 6 5

experiences which will Round II 2 7 4
internationalize their own Round IIIC 3 11
professional lives.

4. Policy and operating procedures Round I 1 1 3 5 4

facilitate international program Round II 3 7 3
efforts. Round IIIC 2 9 3

5. Personnel evaluation systems Round I 1 2 2 3 6

recognize international efforts. Round II 4 2 7 H
Round IIIC 2 3 9 £
Table 1 (continued)

Level of Importance

Item Delphi 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 MD
Round

6. Reward structure recognizes Round I i i i 6 5

internationalization in its Round ir i 7 5
system of rewards. These Round h i
include merit adjustments,
tenure, promotion, and peer
recognition.15

7. Faculty increase their expertise Round I 1 3 3 6 1

by interacting with faculty and Round II 1 1 9 2
scholars from other cultures.15 Round IIIC 1 11 2

8. Professional improvement activities Round I 1 1 4 5 3

increase knowledge of global issues. Round II 1 4 6 2
Round IIIC 2 11 1

9. Staff development activities Round I 1 2 5 4 1

increase skills in Round II 2 6 2 3
internationalization. Round III 1 7 4 2

10. Exchange programs with extension Round I 1 1 3 3 4 2

organizations in other countries Round II 3 4 5 1
are institutionalized. Round IIIC 1 4 9
Table 1 (continued)

Level of Importance

Item Delphi 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 MD
Round a

11. Exchange programs with extension Round I

organizations in other countries Round II 6 4 3
are planned and conducted on an Round IIIC 8 6
on-going basis.

12. The organization's best senior Round I 2 1 2 3 5 1

faculty/agents are identified to Round II 1 2 4 5 1
participate in overseas Round IIIC 1 3 10
assignments.

13. The organization's best junior Round I 1 1 1 1 8 2

faculty/agents are identified to Round II 1 1 9 2
participate in overseas Round IIIC 2 12
assignments.

14. Financial support for Round I 1 1 2 7 3

internationalizing activities Round II 2 7 4
is available. Round IIIC 11 3

15. A database of extension personnel Round I 2 2 6 3 1

with international experience, Round II 2 8 2 1
interest, and language Round IIIC 3 8 3
capabilities exists.
Table 1 (continued)

Level of Importance

Item Delphi 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 MD
Round a

16. A person(s) is identified to Round I 2 4 4 4

provide leadership to Round II 3 5 5
internationalizing efforts. Round IIIC 1 10 3

17. A committee(s) is established Round I 3 5 6

to guide internationalization Round II 3 5 6
efforts. Round IIIC 7 6 1

18. Proposals for international work Round I 1 1 1 2 5 1

are developed and funded. Round IIC 3 10
Round III

19. The organization culture expects Round I 1 1 1 2 3 5

international activity. Round II 1 2 6 4
Round IIIC 2 9 3

20. Extension is involved with Round I 3 2 5 4

international development Round II 4 5 4
activities. Round IIIC 2 9 3

21. Opportunities for International Round I 1 6 4 3

experiences are provided for Round II 7 4 2
faculty.b Round III 8 3 3
Table 1 (continued)

Level of Importance

Item Delphi 0 1 2 3 - 4 5 6 HD
Round a

22. Opportunities for International Round I 1 5 6 2

experiences are provided for Round II 3 8 2
administrators.b Round IIIC 2 10 2

23. International experiences are Round I 1 1 4 3 2 3

provided for county agents who Round IIC 1 5 7
do not have faculty status.b Round III

24. Human and physical resources are Round I 1 1 4 4 4

allocated to support the Round II 3 7 3
integration of international Round IIIC 1 11 2
activities in the overall
institution effort.b

25. Regular encouragement/ Round I 1 2 3 7 1

accommodation of visitation by Round II 5 6 2
scholars from other countries Round IIIC 4 8 2
occurs.

A. Extension clientele support Round II 7 1 5

incorporation of international Round III 10 4
concepts into on-going localized
programs.d
Table 1 (continued)

Level of Importance

Item Delphi 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 MD
Round a

B. Extension clientele support Round II 3 4 4 2

Extension agents/faculty Round III 2 6 4 2
conducting educational programs
in other countries.d

C. Faculty increase their Round II 2 4 3 4

understanding of other cultures Round III 1 7 3 3
through interaction with
international students and
scholars.d

D. Faculty/agents interact with Round II 2 3 7 1

faculty in other schools who Round III 1 7 3 3
are involved in international
projects.d
Table 1 (continued)

Level of Importance

Item Delphi 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 MD
Round a

E. Extension faculty/agents Round 11° 1 4 8

recognize the relationship Round III
between basic international
issues (e.g. knowledge of
international agriculture,
commitment to human development,
significance of privatization)
and the Extension mission.*1

Scale: 0 = No Importance; 1 = Slight Importance; 2 = Limited Importance; 3 = Moderate

Importance; 4 = Moderately High Importance; 5 = High Importance; 6 = Critical Importance;
MD = Missing Data

a Round 1: N = 14; Round 2: N = 13; Round 3: N = 14

b Item printed as revised following Round I of the Delphi
° Consensus Achieved
d New item added in Round II
Table 2

Organizational Results; Distribution of Ratings of Importance bv Delphi Panel for Each Item
and Round

Level of Importance

Item Delphi 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 MD
Round a

26. Educational programs planned by Round I 1 3 6 4

Extension help clientele secure a Round IIC 8 5
better understanding of complex Round III
worldwide issues.

27. Clientele develop a fundamental Round I 1 2 4 7

understanding of global and Round IIC 2 11
national interdependence. Round III

28. Extension educational programs Round I 1 3 2 3 3 3

offered to 4-H members help Round II 6 2 5
develop international awareness.15 Round IIIC 8 4 2

29. Rural clientele are targeted for Round I 1 4 6 2 1

educational programming related Round II 2 7 3 1
to the current international Round IIIC 1 4 8 1
marketplace.15
Table 2 (continued)

Level of Importance

Item Delphi 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 MD
Round a

30. Educational programs increase Round I i 1 4 3 5

participant's understanding of Round II 6 4 3
other cultures. Round i i i c 8 4 2

31. Training programs are provided Round i i 3 1 6 3

for foreign immigrants living in Round i i 3 1 4 5
the United States. Round i i i c 7 7

32. U.S. and foreign citizen Round i i 1 3 6 2

exchange occurs.15 Round i i 2 3 7 1
Round h i 2 2 9 1

33. Key leaders participate in Round i 1 2 2 5 4

interdisciplinary Round i i 1 1 5 6
international experiences. Round i i i c 2 5 7

34. Extension educators assist Round i 1 2 4 4 3

communities in building a Round i i 2 2 6 3
sense of responsibility for Round i i i c 2 9 3
wise use of natural resources
in the context of global trends.

122
Table 2 (continued)

Level of Importance

Item Delphi 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 MD
Round a

35. Specific groups (i.e. commodity Round I 1 1 4 3 4 1

groups) are targeted for public Round II 1 2 5 4 1
policy education on global Round 111° 4 9 1
decision-making.

36. Extension educational programs Round I 3 1 3 7

within the U.S. stress the Round 11° 1 1 11
impact of international economic Round III
forces on agricultural markets.

37. Extension educational programs Round I 1 3 3 5 1 1

within the U.S. present the Round II 1 5 5 1 1
underlying causes of hunger and Round III 2 6 5 1
poverty in other nations and the
effect on U.S. citizens.15

38. Extension educators incorporate Round I 1 2 3 8

international perspectives into Round IIC 1 4 8
on-going educational activities. Round III

39. Linkage agreements are developed Round I 1 3 6 3 1

with international counterparts. Round II 2 8 1 2
Round III 2 9 2 1

123
Table 2 (continued)

Level of Importance

Item Delphi 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 MD
Round a

F. Extension clientele interact Round IIC

with visiting scholars and Round III
students to become more
globally aware.d

G. Urban clientele are targeted Round II 2 5 6

for educational programming Round 111° 8 5 1
related to the current
international marketplace.d

H. U.S. extension information is Round II 2 1 2 2 1 3 2

disseminated to people in other Round III 2 3 2 6 1
nations.db

I. Community development programs Round II 2 6 2 3

adapt ideas from international Round III 1 9 1 3
models.d

J. Local business persons are Round II 2 1 7 3

trained for participation Round IIIC 3 9 2
in international markets.d
Table 2 (continued)

Level of Importance

Item Delphi 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 MD
Round a

K. Extension promotes interagency Round II 1 4 3 4 1

cooperation on international Round III 1 4 7 2
initiatives.d

L. Sensitivity to diversity issues Round II 1 2 3 2 5

by Extension clientele is Round IIIC 1 7 6
enhanced.d

Scale; 0 = No Importance; 1 = Slight Importance; 2 = Limited Importance; 3 = Moderate

Importance; 4 = Moderately High Importance; 5 = High Importance; 6 = Critical Importance;
MD = Missing Data

a Round 1: N = 14; Round 2: N = 13; Round 3; N = 14

b Item printed as revised following Round I of the Delphi
c Consensus Achieved
d New item added in Round II

H
to
U1
 126

Table 3

Level of Importance of Organizational Efforts

Item Mean SD

Extension faculty/agents recognize 5.54 .66

the relationship between basic
international issues (e.g.
knowledge of international
agriculture, commitment to human
development, significance of
privatization)and the Extension
mission.

Personnel evaluation systems 5.50 .76

recognize international efforts.

Reward structure recognizes 5.31 .63

internationalization in its system
of rewards. These include merit
adjustments, tenure, promotion,
and peer recognition.

Financial support for 5.21 .43

internationalizing activities is
available.

A person(s) is identified to 5.14 .53

provide leadership to
internationalizing efforts.

Administrators clearly communicate 5.14 .66

support for internationalization.

International experiences are 5.08 .64

provided for county agents who
do not have faculty status.

Faculty increase their expertise 5.07 .47

by interacting with faculty and
scholars from other cultures.
 127

Table 3 (continued)

Item Mean SD

Human and physical resources are 5.07 .47

allocated to support the
integration of international
activities in the overall
institution effort.

Policy and operating procedures 5.07 .62

facilitate international program
efforts.

The organization culture expects 5.07 .62

international activity.

Opportunities for international 5.00 .55

experiences are provided for
administrators.

The central mission of the 5.00 .55

Extension system includes a
commitment to international
education.

Professional improvement 4.93 .47

activities increase knowledge
of global issues.

Extension is involved with 4.93 .92

international development
activities.

The organization's best junior 4.86 .36

faculty/agents are identified to
participate in overseas
assignments.

Administrators engage in 4.86 .53

experiences which will
internationalize their own
professional lives.

Regular encouragement/ 4.86 .66

accommodation of visitation
by scholars from other
countries occurs.
 128

Table 3 (continued)

Item Mean SD

Proposals for international 4.77 .44

work are developed and funded.

The organization's best senior 4.64 .63

faculty/agents are identified
to participate in overseas
assignments.

Exchange programs with extension 4.64 .74

organizations in other countries
are institutionalized.

A committee(s) is established 4.57 .65

to guide internationalization
efforts.

Exchange programs with extension 4.50 .65

organizations in other countries
are planned and conducted on an
on-going basis.

Scale: 0 = No Importance; 1 = Slight Importance; 2 = Limited

Importance; 3 = Moderate Importance; 4 = Moderately High
Importance; 5 = High Importance; 6 = Critical Importance

Note: Round 1: N = 14; Round 2: N = 13; Round 3: N = 14

 129

Table 4

Level of Importance of Organizational Results

Item Mean SD

Clientele develop a fundamental 5.85 .38

understanding of global and
national interdependence.

Extension educational programs 5.69 .86

within the U.S. stress the impact
of international economic forces
on agricultural markets.

Extension educators incorporate 5.54 .66

international perspectives into
on-going educational activities.

Sensitivity to diversity issues 5.36 .63

by Extension clientele is enhanced.

Key leaders participate in 5.36 .74

interdisciplinary international
experiences.

Extension educators assist 5.07 .62

communities in building a sense
of responsibility for wise use of
natural resources in the context
of global trends.

Local business persons are trained 4.93 .62

for participation in international
markets.

Specific groups (i.e. commodity 4.86 .66

groups) are targeted for public
policy education on global
decision-making.
 130

Table 4 (continued)

Item Mean SD

Rural clientele are targeted 4 .64 .74

for educational programming
related to the current
international marketplace.

Educational programs planned by 4.57 .76

Extension help clientele secure
a better understanding of
complex worldwide issues.

Extension educational programs 4.57 .76

offered to 4-H members help
develop international awareness.

Educational programs increase 4.57 .76

participant’s understanding of
other cultures.

Training programs are provided 4.50 .52

for foreign immigrants living
in the United States.

Urban clientele are targeted for 4.50 .65

educational programming related
to the current international
marketplace.

Extension clientele interact 4.31 .75

with visiting scholars and
students to become more
globally aware.

Scale: 0 = No Importance; 1 = Slight Importance; 2 = Limited

Importance; 3 = Moderate Importance; 4 = Moderately High
Importance; 5 = High Importance; 6 = Critical Importance

Note: Round 1: N = 14; Round 2: N = 13; Round 3: N = 14

 CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

Few studies have been conducted related to internationalization

of the Extension component of the land-grant university system.

None define internationalizing in terms of objectively verifiable

indicators of success. A need to examine and improve the

understanding of internationalization of a state university

Extension system became apparent through a review of literature.

The review of literature revealed broad, but often ambiguous

goal statements related to internationalization of Extension

(ES-USDA, 1990; Ingle, 1990; King and Martin, 1991). Some ideas

had been formulated for internationalizing (Somersan, 1992;

Henson, Noel, Gillard-Byers, 1991; ES-USDA, 1989; Knox, 1987;

York, 1984; Patton, 1984), but there had been little emphasis

on implementation by Extension systems across the country (Rosson

& Sanders, 1991; Poston & O'Rourke, 1990; Andrews & Lambur,

1986).

To assist in the process of internationalizing Extension, a

clearer understanding was needed of what it meant to internation­

alize. If characteristics of an internationalized Extension

system could be identified, then an organization might focus

 132

available resources to create needed changes. The Organization

Elements Model (OEM) developed by Kaufman (1983) provided a

framework for the study. Kaufman's model was used to examine

and improve the understanding of internationalization of a state

university Extension system.

The purpose of the study was to identify the characteristics

that will describe an internationalized state Extension system.

The objectives of the study were:

To identify the organizational efforts which will be

evident in a state university Extension system that
is internationalized.

To identify the organizational results which will be

evident in a state Extension system that is interna­
tionalized.

Methodology

A modified Delphi study using a panel of 15 experts was

undertaken to identify the characteristics. The Delphi Panel

members were purposefully selected following a nomination

process. Criteria for selection is described in Chapter III.

Delphi, a group process, utilized individual written responses

to three researcher developed instruments as opposed to bringing

individuals together for oral discussion. The process was

further characterized by multiple iterations or feedback designed

to accomplish convergence of opinion. For Rounds II and III,

a statistical summary for each item in the form of a frequency

table and a listing of all comments made by panel members

 133

encouraged reassessment of initial judgements. Anonymity of the

respondents and their specific comments was maintained during

the study.

The instrument developed for Round I contained 39 position

statements derived from the literature and structured interviews

with international experts. A seven point Likert-type scale

was used with 0 indicating "no importance" and 6 indicating

"critical importance". The Delphi Panel was asked to identify

the degree to which they believed each item contributed to the

internationalization of a state university Extension system.

Comments were solicited and panel members were encouraged to

add new statements.

The instruments used in the second and third rounds contained

items on which a predetermined level of consensus was not

achieved during the previous round. Consensus on a item was

considered to have been reached when 80% of the ratings fell

within two categories on a seven-point scale. Each item was

listed and statistical feedback was provided in the form of the

group response using a frequency table and the individual's own

response to each item in the prior round. All comments made

by panel members during the prior round were anonymously

reported. For Round II, based on suggestions from the Delphi

Panel, 12 new items were added and nine items were reworded.
 134

Descriptive statistics were calculated for each round. The

computer program SPSS was used for data analysis. Following

Round III, statistics of central tendency and variability were

calculated for all items on which consensus had been reached.

The mean was used to describe the level of importance of the

item to an internationalized state Extension system as determined

by consensus of the Delphi Panel. For items where consensus

was not reached, the frequency distribution of ratings was

reported.

Conclusions

The Delphi process is used where precise analytical methods are

not suitable for studying the problem, but subjective judgement

on a collective basis can provide beneficial information relative

to the problem (Linstone & Turoff, 1975). The Delphi Panel

identified were individuals who were well known and respected

for their contributions to Extension or land-grant colleges or

universities in the area of internationalization. Time and cost

limited the ability to convene group meetings involving the

individuals needed to address the problem of internationalizing

a state Extension system. The modified Delphi technique provided

the vehicle to accomplish the objectives of the study.

The results of the study represent the collective opinion of

the experts participating in the Delphi Panel at this point in

time and cannot be construed to be representative of any other

 135

population or situation. Consensus is item specific and related

to the knowledgeable individuals on the Delphi Panel. Fifty-one

items were considered during the three rounds of the Delphi.

Consensus was achieved on the following items which were

identified as having moderately high importance to critical

importance for the internationalization of a state university

Extension system:

Faculty/agents recognize the relationship between

international issues and the Extension mission.

Personnel evaluation systems recognizes international

efforts.

Reward structure recognizes and rewards international­

ization.

Financial support is available for internationalization

activities.

A person is identified to provide leadership to

internationalizing efforts.

Administrators communicate support for international­

ization.

International experiences are provided for county

agents.

Faculty increase expertise by interacting with scholars

from other countries.

Human and physical resources are allocated to integrate

international activities into the overall institution
effort.

Policy and procedures facilitate international program

efforts.

The organization culture expects international

activity.

Opportunity for international experiences are provided

for administrators.
A commitment to international education is included
in he Extension mission.

Professional improvement activities increase knowledge

of global issues.

Extension is involved with international development

activities.

The best junior faculty/agents participate in overseas

assignments.

Administrators engage in experiences to international­

ize their own lives.

Regular visitation by scholars from other countries

is encouraged.

Proposals for international work are developed and

funded.

The best senior faculty/agents participate in overseas

assignments.

Institutionalization of exchange programs with

Extension organizations in other countries.

A committee is established to guide internationaliza­

tion efforts.

Regular and on-going exchange programs with Extension

organizations in other countries.

Clientele develop a fundamental understanding of global

and national interdependence.

Educational programs within the U.S. stress impacts

of international economic forces on agricultural
markets.

Extension educators incorporate international

perspectives into on-going activities.

Sensitivity to diversity issues by Extension clientele

is enhanced.

Key leaders participate in interdisciplinary

international experiences.

Extension educators assist communities in wise use

of natural resources in the context of global trends.
 137

Local business persons are trained for participation

in international markets.

Specific groups (i.e., commodity) are targeted for

public policy education on global decision making.

Rural clientele are targeted for educational

programming on the international marketplace.

Extension programs help clientele understand complex

worldwide issues.

Programs offered to 4-H members help develop

international awareness.

Programs increase participant1s understanding of other

cultures.

Training programs are provided for foreign immigrants.

Urban clientele are targeted for educational

programming on the international marketplace.

Extension clientele and visiting scholars and students

interact.

Consensus was not reached on the level of importance to

internationalization of a state Extension system by the Delphi

Panel on the following items:

Staff development activities increase skills in

internationalization.

A personnel database of international interest exists.

Opportunities for international experiences are

provided for faculty.

Clientele support incorporation of international

concepts into local programs.

Clientele support Extension agents/faculty conducting

programs in other countries.

Faculty interact with international students/scholars

to increase understanding of other cultures.
 138

Faculty/agents interact with faculty in other schools

who are involved in international projects.

U.S. and foreign citizen exchange occurs.

Programs present underlying causes of hunger and

poverty and effect on U.S. citizens.

Linkage agreements are developed with international

counterparts.

U.S. Extension information is disseminated to people

in other nations.

Community Development programs adapt ideas from

international models.

Extension promotes interagency cooperation on

international initiatives.

Organizational Efforts Achieving Consensus

Organizational efforts are comprised of inputs and processes.

Inputs, the existing starting conditions affecting organizational

activities identified by the Delphi Panel could be broadly

classified into two areas: organizational mission and resource

base. Processes, the means, methods and procedures necessary

for managing inputs identified by the Delphi Panel could be

broadly classified into three areas: institutional commitment,

staff development, and organizational development.

An input of critical importance to the internationalization of

an Extension system was recognition by faculty and agents of

the relationship between international issues and the Extension

mission. A commitment to international education as a part of

the Extension mission, an organizational culture that expects

 139

international activity, and administrators who communicated

support for internationalization were also viewed as highly

important. Inputs related to the resource base that were

identified as having high importance included: Financial support

being available for internationalization activities, human and

physical resources being allocated to integrate international

activities into the overall institution effort, the identification

of a person to provide leadership to internationalizing efforts,

and proposals for international work being developed and funded.

Institutional commitment was evident through three processes:

The development of a personnel evaluation system which recognized

international efforts had critical importance. Policies and

procedures which facilitated international program efforts and

a reward structure which recognized and rewarded internatio­

nalization were viewed as highly important.

Staff development processes identified as having high importance

to the internationalization of an Extension system included:

Interaction with scholars from other countries to increase faculty

expertise, opportunity for international experiences for county

agents and administrators, and professional improvement activities

designed to increase knowledge of global issues. Organizational

development processes identified as having high importance

included: Encouragement of regular visitation by scholars from

other countries, the establishment of a committee to guide

 140

internationalization efforts, institutionalization of exchange

programs with Extension organizations in other countries resulting

in regular, and on-going exchanges and Extension involvement

with international development activities.

Organizational Results Achieving Consensus

The Delphi Panel identified organizational results that are

comprised of products and outputs. Products, the internal results

accomplished through the application of inputs and processes

could be grouped into two broad areas: educational programs

developed and audiences targeted. Outputs, the products the

organization delivered to external clients identified were

educational programming efforts.

Products identified as having critical importance to the

internationalization of an Extension system included: Educational

programs offered in the U.S. that stress the impact of

international economic forces on agricultural markets and

Extension educators incorporating international perspectives

into on-going educational activities. High importance was placed

on the targeting of specific groups (i.e., commodity) for public

policy education on global decision making. Rural clientele

were targeted for educational programming on the international

marketplace. The Delphi Panel placed moderately high importance

upon the targeting of urban clientele for educational programming

on the international marketplace. High importance was placed

 141

on programs to develop international awareness among 4-H members.

The output identified as having critical importance to an

internationalized state Extension system was clientele developing

a fundamental understanding of global and national interdepen­

dence. Increased clientele sensitivity to diversity issues was

seen as an output of high importance. Educational programming

efforts having high importance to internationalization included:

programs that help clientele understand complex worldwide issues,

programs that train local business persons for participation

in international markets, interdisciplinary international

experiences for key leaders, and assistance to communities in

wise use of natural resources in the context of global trends.

Of moderately high importance to the internationalization of

Extension was clientele interaction with visiting international

scholars and students.

Items not achieving consensus

An outcome of the Delphi process was the movement by the

participants toward consensus on all items. By the conclusion

of the third round, although consensus was not reached on 13

items, the Delphi Panel had moved close to consensus on six items.

Ratings on the six items found 73% of the Delphi Panel in

agreement within two categories on a seven point Likert-type

scale. Seven items exhibited less movement toward consensus as

rated by the Delphi Panel.

 142

Seven of the 13 items not achieving consensus were added during

Round II as a result of a panel member's suggestion. A fourth

round might have brought consensus on some items, but panel

members comments express differences of opinion. In several

instances, an item was identified by panel members as being vague

or closely duplicating another item. Topics of the items where

consensus was not reached related to the broadly defined areas

of clientele support for international efforts and international

exchanges or linkages.

Overall Conclusions

In a state university Extension system that has achieved

internationalization, five critical elements must be present:

(1) Clientele develop a fundamental understanding of global and

national interdependence. (2) Extension educational programs

within the U.S. stress the impact of international economic forces

on agricultural markets. (3) Extension educators incorporate

international perspectives into on-going activities. (4) Extension

faculty/agents recognize the relationship between basic

international issues and the Extension mission. (5) Personnel

evaluation systems recognize international efforts. The absence

of any one of these critical elements would mean that the

Extension system could not be considered to be internationalized.

An internationalized state university Extension system would

also exhibit other important characteristics. The characteristics

 143

are those discussed in the preceding sections related to

Organizational Efforts Achieving Consensus and Organizational

Results Achieving Consensus. Not all of the important

characteristics identified by the Delphi Panel need be present

for the Extension system to be considered to be internationalized,

but many are likely to be evident. Each important characteristic

provides a building block, process or programming goal which

will enable the Extension system to develop and maintain the

five critical elements identified.

Implications for Knowledge

Arum and Van De Water (1992) identified a need to clarify the

meaning of internationalization. Henson, Noel, Gillard-Byers

and Ingle (1990), in their study of university international­

ization, stated internationalization has frequently been viewed

in general, rather amorphous terms that were difficult to

understand and indicated little research on internationalization,

per se had been conducted. The review of literature revealed

broad, but often ambiguous, goal statements relating to

internationalization of Extension (ES-USDA, 1990; Ingle, 1990;

King & Martin, 1991). Few studies had been conducted related

to internationalization of the Extension component of the land-

grant university system.

1. The current study of internationalization of a state

university Extension system has identified characteristics of

 144

an internationalized Extension system and through the interaction

of the Delphi Panel has been able to establish the relative

importance of these characteristics. A review of literature

did not reveal any previous studies which had investigated the

problem. The results will provide other researchers, as well

as leaders of land-grant universities and Extension, a clearer

understanding of Extension internationalization and a starting

point for further research, debate and discussion. The results

will provide those interested in advancing the internationaliza­

tion of Extension with verifiable indicators of success to measure

achievement in internationalization.

2. The findings support perceptions advanced by authors cited

in the Review of Literature who indicated the need for Americans

to acquire education related to global interdependencies and

the necessity for international content and understanding to

become a core competency in Extension work (Somersan, 1992).

3. The study did not produce results in conflict with the

findings of Poston and O'Rourke (1990) or Andrews and Lambur

(1986), researchers who have conducted major research in the

area of internationalization of Extension during the past eight

years. Examples of overlap are cited in the section on

Implications for Practice.

 145

4. The study of university internationalization by Henson, Noel,

Gillard-Byers and Ingle (1990) identified five factors found

to promote and support university internationalization. These

included: (1) human resources, funding and faculty incentives

and rewards; (2) diverse program activities; (3) leadership and

management evidenced by institution commitment; (4) organization

of international programs with an administrator; and (5) external

environmental factors (e.g., economic competitiveness,

international trade, international understandings) . The current

study found critical and highly important characteristics related

to each factor.

5. The study brought greater clarity and focus to the definition

of internationalization of an Extension system. International­

ization is not seen as a fourth dimension: teaching, research,

service and international. Instead, successful international­

ization efforts will integrate global perspectives into the basic

mission and mandate of Extension. Using the definition of

university internationalization developed by Henson and Noel

(1989) as a starting point, a three-part definition is proposed

for discussion and debate. The definition is based on results

of the current study and reflects the five critical elements

identified:

Internationalization of Extension is the incorporation

of international dimensions, content and considerations
into Extension teaching, research, and service to
enhance their relevance in an increasingly interdepen­
dent world.
 146

Participation in Extension educational activities

assist clientele to develop a fundamental understanding
of global interdependence and international economic
forces as they relate to the issue areas within
Extension's mission.

Institutional commitment is evidenced by the

development of a structure and capacity to support
staff development and reward accomplishments.

Recommendations

Studies in organizational change (Dalziel & Schoonover, 1988;

Beckhard & Pritchard, 1992) identified the crucial role played

by administrators in implementing change. Poston and O'Rourke

(1990) reported 80% of Extension directors indicated their state

had achieved either a low level or had not achieved any level

of globalization. For these Extension systems, internationaliza­

tion will represent a significant organizational change.

Identification of characteristics of an internationalized

Extension system can assist Extension leaders and university

administrators to identify and focus available resources where

the greatest impact or change can be realized.

The following discussion of Implications for Practice is

approached as a series of recommendations to Extension directors

and university administrators. However, a question raised during

the study of "what could stimulate an uninvolved CES [Extension

system] to change — to seek to become involved?" indicated the

sparkplug for the process has not been identified. Therefore,

the recommendations are also directed to other organizational

 147

change agents, perhaps individual faculty members, or small groups

who perceive a need for change and begin to try to move the

organization.

Finally, the implications for practice can be viewed as a series

of recommendations to Ohio State University Extension,

particularly the Extension International Committee and

Administrative Cabinet, to use as a basis for future discussion

and action related to internationalizing. OSU Extension is in

the process of becoming internationalized. Based on the results

of the study, OSU Extension needs to further develop the

organizational structure to provide leadership, support staff

development and reward accomplishments. Knowledge of the current

level of incorporation of international perspectives into on-going

activities and level of agent/faculty competence would assist

the process of internationalization.

These recommendations are not precise descriptions of what changes

should occur, but are intended to serve as guidelines or reference

points for directors and administrators wishing to strengthen

or initiate the process of Extension internationalization.

Administrative styles and organization structures vary among

Extension systems and reflect the historical traditions inherent

in each system. These traditions will shape efforts to develop

a strong international dimension.

 148

Implications for Practice

By consensus of the Delphi Panel, the most critical characteristic

of a state university Extension service which had international­

ized was the end product of clientele who had developed a

fundamental understanding of global and national interdependence.

Clientele education can be accomplished through programs within

the U.S. that stress the impact of international economic forces

on agricultural markets and by Extension educators incorporating

international perspectives and the concept of global/local

interdependence into on-going educational activities.

Aaent/Facultv Expectations

Extension educators have the responsibility to help clientele

develop a better understanding of the complexity of global issues.

Issues that might be initially targeted include: human health,

the environment, diversity, renewable resources, and the

agricultural market. Extension "typically tries to be responsive

to local needs. But few people recognize a need for international

'education'. This is where international education needs

leadership from Extension programmers who can see a need that

may be invisible to the general population" was a particularly

relevant comment made by a panel member. Extension may have

a unique role to play in helping traditional rural and

agricultural county clientele to recognize the need for education

on international issues. The Delphi Panel also suggested

targeting groups for education: key leaders for interdisciplinary

 149

international experiences, business owners, rural and urban

clientele for programming related to the international

marketplace, or commodity groups for public policy education

on global decision making.

By consensus, the Delphi Panel identified the critical importance

of faculty/agent recognition of the relationship between basic

international issues and the Extension mission. These issues

would include, but not be limited to, knowledge of international

agriculture, commitment to human development, the significance

of the debate on "privatization" and the experiences of Extension

services in seeking new ways of funding services.

Faculty/agents have a responsibility for their own professional

growth and development, which can take many forms. Inquisitive

approaches might include: independent study, reading journals

from other nations, formal course work or language training,

participation in international conferences, and hosting foreign

academics. By consensus, the Delphi Panel identified faculty

increasing their own expertise by interacting with faculty and

scholars from other cultures as highly important. International

collaboration was suggested as a goal, "You're not really there

until you have successfully worked with peers from other cultures

and jointly created something of worth." Ideally, the

organization will concurrently provide opportunities through

planned professional improvement activities. The goal of these

 150

activities is to assist faculty/agents to gain a world view

enabling them to think internationally and teach comparatively.

While international experiences for faculty, agents and

administrators were not viewed as critical characteristics of

an internationalized Extension system, opportunities to work

and pursue international assignments for both junior and senior

faculty and agents were viewed by the Delphi Panel as having

high importance. County agents, with or without faculty

appointments, were singled out for these types of experiences

by some panel members because of the domestic isolation a county

agent may experience.

A fear of career "derailments" for junior faculty caused by

participation in international assignments was viewed by panel

members as a potential barrier to internationalization which

administration and faculty promotion and tenure committees will

need to address. Peer recognition was viewed as being an integral

element of any reward system developed to recognize international­

ization efforts by facuity/agents. Promotion and tenure

committees at the local, department and college level need to

work with Extension leaders to define international expectations.

Administrative Expectations

Administrators play a key role in the internationalization of

an Extension system. The Director of Extension and other

 151

administrators, to ensure organizational change occurs, need

to adopt a three-part strategy for change: communication, decision

making and assessment. Ping (1990) outlined a similar strategy

for university internationalization.

Communication of an a dministrators support will be evident not

only by what is said, but more importantly through the policies

and procedures implemented in support of internationalization.

A clear sense of direction, strong leadership in international­

izing and enthusiasm will ensure concerted and sustained action.

An administrative retreat focusing on internationalization and

multicultural sensitivity might be targeted as a first step in

developing awareness. The Extension Director also needs to

implement strategies to encourage and reward middle managers

and other administrators for fostering internationalization by

members of the organization.

Policy and resource decisions, such as the incorporation of fiscal

support into the ongoing Extension budget and placing a person

"in change" of internationalization to support and coordinate

Extension program and activities, are necessary implementation

strategies. This recommendation supports findings by Ping (1990)

and Henson et al., (1990). The identification of a person to

provide leadership to internationalizing was identified by the

Delphi Panel as highly important and supports a recommendation

by Henson et al. , (1990) that the most important organizational

 152

structure to support internationalization was an administrator

sufficiently high up in administration for advocacy, coordination,

and integration. The allocation by all administrators of fiscal,

physical and human resources to assist the internationalization

process is highly important.

Assessment, the final component in the three part strategy for

change proposed, focuses on the outcomes achieved. Development

of a plan and goal statement for internationalization will be

critical factors, but implementation of the plan in a timely

and forthright manner is even more important. Too many well

conceived plans gather dust on shelves and become obsolete before

they can be implemented. Simple counting of the number of staff

development opportunities, the number of participants in a given

program or other "numbers” will not be sufficient to assess

outcomes or impact. The more important question to be addressed:

Are people acting differently, even in small ways? Organizational

change is a slow and often discontinuous process in a complex

organization. Ongoing assessment of the progress being made and

subsequent revisions of the plan will be necessary.

Organizational commitments are outlined more fully in the

following section. The Delphi Panel placed a high importance

on administrators engaging in experiences which will internation­

alize their own professional lives, stressing the necessity

of these being more than "jaunts" to other countries.

 153

International travel for Extension administrators might have

as a goal development of comparative perspectives on educational

systems. Program planning processes, funding sources,

participation in programs by clientele, staffing decisions, or

internal and external support for Extension are possible areas

for focus.

Organizational Expectations

Faculty and agent recognition of the relationship between basic

international issues and the Extension mission is the first step

in the process of internationalization. For recognition to occur,

internal motivation of agents and faculty must be nurtured.

Thoughtfully conceived opportunities must be developed to generate

enthusiasm and facilitate Extension educators developing

knowledge and skills which can be transmitted to clientele through

programming efforts.

In considering out-of-country Extension involvement, a panel

member suggested, "Extension does not have a mandate to deliver

educational programs in other countries. It does, however, need

to incorporate international dimensions into domestic programs."

To accomplish this, Extension must be internationally engaged.

The results of this study would indicate that state Extension

outreach efforts to less developed countries do not have.a high

priority for some of the Delphi panel members even though the

mission statement of ECOP (1983) for effective Extension

 154

participation in international activities emphasized work in

and with developing countries. The dichotomy of perceptions by

leaders will need to be addressed.

For some individuals, motivation and expertise development will

include out-of-county opportunities, but for the majority of

individuals other methods must be identified. A variety of

different opportunities for staff development must be offered

by Extension. A needs assessment to determine agent and faculty

needs, priorities, and areas of expertise related to internation­

alization will be necessary prior to the development of a series

of opportunities for staff development. Staff development methods

may include workshops, mentoring, development and use of a lending

library of resource materials, travel, or participation in self­

directed learning. Closer working arrangements with other units

on the university campus involved in international work or multi­

state programming are suggested.

Development of the ability of Extension educators to incorporate

international perspectives into on-going programs requires more

than a brief study tour to another country or a single workshop.

Having a small grants program available to foster individual

development or the infusion of international modules into existing

programming is suggested. Policy mechanisms that support travel

abroad, professional leaves, participation in Fulbright programs,

and international assignments need to be put in place by

 155

administration to communicate a positive and supportive

organizational climate.

Writings by Extension leaders cited in the Review of Literature

would indicate global marketing as the most quickly identified

programmatic focus. Cultural awareness, environmental issues,

public policy, interpersonal and communication skills are other

areas of importance identified by the Delphi Panel. Andrews

and Lambur (1986) , in a study of Extension field staff in eleven

states, found that training and support provided for the

development and implementation of international educational

programs was poor, resulting in sporadic and weak Extension

programming for clientele. Unless dramatic changes have occurred

unnoticed, internationalization of Extension systems will require

the development of a structure and capacity to support staff

development related to internationalization.

A committee to guide the internationalization effort, working

closely with the person designated to provide leadership, is

recommended. Tonkin (1981) offered a prescription for change

within the university setting noting that new directions or goals

may be initiated by administrators, but faculty members who

command respect with colleagues must be identified to serve as

allies. Following Tonkin's advice, empowering the committee

to develop an organizational policy statement and seek approval

from administration, appointment of a member of administration

 156

to the committee, and making money available to the committee

to help faculty/agents adapt programming and engage in

professional development would strengthen the potential

effectiveness of the committee.

Human resources available on most campuses are international

students and scholars who could be involved in planned

interactions with faculty, agents, and clientele to increase

understanding of other cultures. The Delphi Panel saw these

interactions as having only moderately high importance to

internationalizing Extension, perhaps most useful for creating

awareness and only if a way is determined to use the visitors

"effectively". Likewise, organizational exchange programs with

Extension organizations in other countries were viewed as having

only moderately high importance. Comments by the Delphi Panel

related to the importance of "experiences with a purpose" may

be an indication of less than successful attempts in the past.

Care must be taken in the development of these interactions that

engagement occurs in a significant way, with formative and

summative evaluation procedures built into experiences to

determine the effectiveness of exchanges for all parties.

Incorporation of international expectations into position

guidelines, reward of middle managers for fostering positive

change toward internationalization, searching for and hiring

international candidates or those with international experience

 157

will enhance the human resource base of Extension. College and

university administrators must be encouraged to support the

incorporation of international concepts and content into

coursework at the undergraduate and graduate level and maintain

contact with international alumni.

Finally, tied to the motivation of Extension educators to

internationalize themselves and their programs is recognition

through the organization's personnel evaluation and reward

systems. Incentives can take many forms. A structure which

includes peer recognition, merit adjustments, tenure and promotion

is important, but just as important is a pattern of merit

increases, recognition, promotion and tenure being awarded to

those involved in international work. The inclusion of an

international perspective as a significant part of all evaluation

systems is suggested.

Suggestions for Further Study

One outcome of the current study was the generation of additional

questions and avenues for research. Research in the area of

internationalization of Extension has been limited and the

current study has perhaps raised as many questions as it has

provided answers. Some of the major areas for study include:

1. What are the characteristics of an internationalized U.S.

Extension system? Replication of the current study using a

 158

different panel of experts should be undertaken to ascertain

the reliability of the results. Replication of the study using

other survey approaches and populations should also be considered.

2. The instrument itself, developed and refined through three

rounds of the Delphi, might be adapted and used to survey other

populations to determine and compare their attitudes toward

characteristics of an internationalized Extension system and

the relative importance of each characteristic.

3. The Delphi Study concluded with 13 items where consensus

was not reached by the panel of experts. Further examination

and exploration of these items is needed. Particular attention

might be given to the issues of: (1) Do clientele support

internationalization of Extension? Is "lack of opposition" the

same as support? (2) What can be learned about the involvement

of international students and scholars already on university

campuses with Extension and Extension clientele? Are there

opportunities which should be explored? What barriers may

prohibit successful involvement? How might these barriers be

overcome? (3) Why did the Delphi Panel not reach consensus on

the item suggesting "community development programs adapt ideas

from international models." The "why" question could be raised

related to any item of particular interest to another researcher.

(4) What are the perceived benefits and liabilities of

international exchange programs between Extension clientele?

 159

What are the perceived benefits and liabilities of international

exchange programs between faculty/agents? (5) What types of staff

development opportunities are required to develop international

competency in agents/faculty? How important is fluency in another

language? How important are overseas experiences?

4. What is the role of state Extension systems in international

development? What should the role be in the future?

5. How do faculty who were involved in overseas assignments

during the early years of their career perceive the experience

affected their own career? How do faculty who were involved

in overseas assignments during the later years of their career

perceive the experience affected their own career? What

relationship exists between participation in an overseas

assignment and professional achievement? How do these two groups

of faculty perceive overseas assignments affected colleagues?

What advice would experienced faculty offer junior faculty

considering an international assignment today?

6. Does the current organizational culture in universities

and Extension support international assignments for faculty?

What is currently happening with promotion and tenure guidelines

and decisions? What attitudes exist among agents, faculty and

administrators related to internationalization as defined by

the current study?

 160

7. What characteristics do state Extension systems, which by

reputation are considered internationalized, exhibit? How do

these characteristics compare with the Organizations Efforts

and Organizational Results identified by the current study?

Can the results of the study be used to develop a method for

assessing the level of internationalization of a state university

Extension system?

8. What are the societal impacts of an internationalized state

Extension system? What should the societal impacts be? What

contributions are clientele making or will clientele make as

a result of Extension programming? How can societal impact be

identified and measured? The Organizational Elements Model

(OEM) developed by Kaufman (1983,1987, 1992) was used as a

framework for the current study. The study did not attempt to

identify characteristics of societal impact for an international­

ized Extension system which was an integral part of the OEM.

Further study is needed, perhaps targeting clientele of Extension

systems which are recognized as internationalized.

9. Can the factor (s) which stimulated an uninvolved Extension

system to change and begin the process of becoming international­

ized be identified? How are Extension directors involved in

managing the change process? What is the relationship between

the Director's level of support and achievement of international­

ization? What barriers have internationalized Extension systems

 161

had to overcome? What strategies were employed and by whom?

10. Are internationalization efforts and diversity efforts inter­

related? Should the two efforts be more closely linked as

Extension organizational goals are set and staff development

opportunities are planned? Internationalization and diversity

both will cause organizational change which should result in

the development of a more culturally diverse and sensitive

Extension workforce. Would a comparative study identify points

of convergence and divergence?

11. What is the level of competency of current Extension

faculty/agents in regard to: (1) global and national

interdependence, (2) impact of international economic forces

on agricultural markets, (3) ability to incorporate international

perspectives into on-going activities, (4) understanding basic

international issues and their relationship to the Extension

mission? How competent do faculty/agents perceive themselves?

How competent do clientele and administrators perceive

faculty/agents? What support systems exist within universities

which can be used to increase competency?

12. Is internationalization of the Extension system, as defined

by the current study, an area of interest or priority in other

nations? What characteristics might a panel of experts identify

to describe an "internationalized" Extension system in their

 162

own nation? Does the level of development of the nation influence

the priority placed on internationalization?

Closing Comment

Perhaps the most important contribution of this study of

internationalizing Extension is the starting point it provides

for further research. The suggestions for further study are

illustrative of the types of problems yet to be addressed. The

results of the study help to clarify the meaning of internation­

alization and it is hoped will stimulate debate and perhaps action

among those involved in the process of internationalizing land-

grant colleges, universities and Extension systems.

 LIST OF REFERENCES

Agricultural Education and Extension Service (ESHE) Human

Resources, Institutions and Agrarian Reform Division. (1990).
Global consultation on agricultural extension. Rome, Italy:
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Altschuld, J.W. (1993). Delphi technique. Lecture, evaluation

methods: Principles of needs assessment II. The Ohio State
University, Columbus, Ohio.

Altschuld, J . W . , Thomas, P.M., McCloskey, W.H., Smith, D.W.,

Wiesmann, W . W . , Lower, M.A. (1992). Mailed evaluation
questionnaires, replications of a 96 percent return rate
procedure. Evaluation and Program Planning. 15, pp. 239-246.

America 2000. (1991). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Education.

Andrews, Mary P. and Michael Lambur. (1986). International

programming in the cooperative extension system: An eleven
state survey of organizational capacity and field staff
attitudes and processes. A study by the Cooperative Extension
Systems of Utah, Georgia, Rhode Island and Michigan and the
consortium for international cooperative in higher education.

Arum, S. and Van de Water, J. (1992) . The need for a definition

of international education in U.S. universities. In C.B. Klasek
(Ed.), Bridges to the future: strategies for international­
izing higher education (pp.191-203). Carbondale, Illinois:
Association of International Education Administration.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., Razavieh, A. (1990). Introduction to

research in education (4th ed.). Orlando, Florida: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Barrows, T. , Kline, S.F., Clark, J.L.D. (1981, March). College

students' knowledge and beliefs: a survey of global
understanding, A synopsis of N.Hartshorne, What college
students know and believe about their world. New York:
Changing Magazine Press.

Beckhard, R. & Pritchard, W. (1992). Changing the essence.

San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

163
 164

Bonham, G.W. (1986). Education and the world view, in IV

Education and the World Vie w . Council on Learning. Change
Magazine Press.

Campbell, R.M. (1966). A methodological study of the

utilization of experts in business forecasting. Unpublished
dissertation. University of California at Los Angeles.

Carter, H. (1992). Implementation of international competence

strategies: faulty, In C.B.Klasek (Ed.), Bridges to the
future: strategies for internationalizing higher education
(pp. 39-51). Carbondale, Illinois: Association of International
Education Administration.

Council on International Educational Exchange. (1988, August) .

Educating for global competence: The report of the advisory
council for international educational exchange. New York:
CIEE.

Cyphert, F.R., & Gant, W.L. (1971) The Delphi Technique: A

Case Study. Phi Delta Kappan. 52., 272-273.

Dalkey, N.C. (1967). Delphi (Research Rep. P-3704). Santa

Monica, Ca: Rand Corporation.

Dalkey, N.C. (1969). The Delphi method: An experimental

study of group opinion (Research Rep. RM-5888-PR). Santa
Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Dalkey,N.C. & Helmer, O. (1963, April). An experimental

application of the delphi method to the user of experts.
Management science. 9, 3., pp. 458-67.

Dalkey, N.C., Rourke, D.L., Lewis, R. , Snyder, D. (1972).

Studies in the gualitv of life. Lexington, Massachusetts:
Lexington Books.

Dalziel, M.M. & Schoonover, S.C. (1988). A practical tool for

implementing change within organizations. New York: American
Management Association.

Delbecq, A.L., Van de Ven, A.H. & Gustafson, D.H. (1975).

Group techniques for program planning. Glenview, Illinois:
Scott, Foresman and Company.

ES-USDA. (1989, October). Going global - cooperative

extension system. Washington D.C.: United States Department
of Agriculture.

Extension International Committee. (1989). Goals statement.

Unpublished report. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University
Extension.
 165

Firebaugh, F.M. (1990, fall). The importance of a global

perspective in human ecology. Forum. pp. 9-12.

Futures Task Force. (1987, November). Extension in transition.

bridging the gap between vision and reality. Report to the
extension committee on organization and policy. Virginia:
Virginia Cooperative Extension Service.

Global perspectives for extension. (1989, April). Washington

D.C.: Extension Service USDA.

Groennings, S. & Wiley, D.S. (1990). Group portra it:

internationalizing the disciplines. New York: The American
Forum.

Haverner, R.D. (1988). Winrock International Annual Report.

Arkansas: Winrock.

Henson, J.B. and Noel, J.C. (1989). Faculty and the international­
ization of the agricultural education curriculum for the year
2005. In Educating for a global perspective: international
agricultural curricula for 2005 (pp. 19-26) . Washington D.C.:
The North Central Curricular Committee Project.

Henson, J.B., Noel, J.C., Gillrad-Byers, T.E. & Ingle, M.D.

(1990, June). Internationalizing U.S. universities:
preliminary summary of a national study. Proceedings of
Internationalizing U.S. Universities (Appendix B) . Pullman,
Washington: International Program Development Office of
Washington State University.

Henson, J.B., Noel, J.C., Gillrad-Byers, T.E. & Ingle, M.D.

(1991, May). Internationalizing U.S. universities: preliminary
summary of a national study. (Occasional Paper #7) Pullman,
Washington: International Programs, Washington State
University.

Hughes, Matthew. (1993). Career-oriented program activities

and learning experiences that promote achievement of middle-
grade education goals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

Ingle, M.D. (1990). Conference proceedings-internationalizing

U.S. universities: a time for leadership. Pullman, Washington:
International Program Development Office of Washington State
University.

Ingle, M.D. & Gage, J.D. (1990). Conference proceedings-

internationalizing U.S. universities: a time for leadership.
Appendix B. Pullman, Washington: International Program
Development Office, Washington State University.
 166

Intellibanc Corporation. (1990, April) . Cooperative extension

service "going global11 field survey. Torrance, California:
Intellibanc Corporation.

International Committee, Ohio Cooperative Extension Service.

(1989, October) Program development statement for internation­
alizing the Ohio Cooperative Extension Service. 10 p. mimeo.

Internationalizing U.S. universities: a time for leadership -

conference proceedings. (1990, June). Pullman, Washington:
International Program Development Office, Washington State
University.

Johnson, D.E., Miller, L.R., Miller, L.C. & Summers, G.F.

(1987). Needs assessment theory and methods. Ames: Iowa
State University Press, pp. 10-113.

Jones, H.,& Twiss, B.C. (1978). Forecasting technology for

planning decisions. London: Macmillan Press Ltd.

Kaufman, R. (1992). Mapping educational success. Newbury

Park, California: Corwin Press, Inc., pp. 28-46.

Kaufman, R. (1982). Means and ends - Needs assessment, needs

analysis and front end analysis. Educational Technology. 22
(11), 33-34.

Kaufman, R. and Stone, B. (1983) Planning for organizational

success. New York: Wiley and Sons.

Kaufman, R. (1987, October). A needs assessment primer.

Training and development Journal. 78-83.

Kellogg,C & Knapp, D.C. (1966). The college of agriculture:

Science in the public service. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company.

Kerlinbger, F.N. (1973). Foundations of behavioral research

(2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

King, D.R. & Martin, R . A . (1991) Internationalization of the

post-secondary agriculture curriculum. Conference Proceedings
Seventh Annual Meeting of the Association for International
Agricultural and Extension Education. St. Louis Missouri.

Klasek, C.B.(Ed.). (1992). Bridges to the future: strategies

for internationalizing higher education. Carbondale, Illinois:
Association of International Education Administration.

Knox, A.B. (1987). International perspectives on adult

education. (Information Series No. 321). Columbus, Ohio:
National Center for Research in Vocational Education.
 167

Koblinsky, S.A. (1987, November/December). The world development;

why should home economists care? Illinois Teacher XXXI.
pp. 60-61.

Lambur, M . , Abedon,D., Andrews, M . , Scearce, K. (1987, April).

International programming in the cooperative extension system.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for
International Agricultural Education. Chevy Chase, Maryland.

Linstone, H.A. & Turoff, M. (1975). The Delphi method;

Techniques and applications. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley
Publishing.

Ludlow, J.D. (1972). Evaluation of methodology in the university

of Michigan sea grant delohi inquiry. Technical Report No.
22, Ann Arbor, February 1972.

Ludwig, B. (1991, March). Identifying competence and interest

of Extension professionals in internationalizing the Ohio
Cooperative Extension Service. Proceedings. 7th Annual
Conference of the Association of Agricultural and Extension
Educators. Washington D.C.

Ludwig, B. (1993, March). Global issues: identifying existing

attitudes of agricultural and metropolitan leaders.
Proceedings. 9th Annual Conference of the Association of
Agricultural and Extension Educators. Arlington, Virginia.

Ludwig, B.G. and Miller, L.E. (1992) Attiduinal study of Ohio

citizens toward four international dimension. Proceedings
of the Central Region 46th Annual Research Conference in
Agricultural Education. Austin, Minnesota.

McLaughlin, T. (1992). Combining Expert Systems and Optical

Data Storage Technologies in Computer-Assisted Instruction:
A Delphi Study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan
State University.

Meyer, J.H. (1992, March). Rethinking the outlook of colleges

whose roots have been in agriculture. Davis, California:
University of California.

Miller, M.J. (1988). International connections: promoting an

international dimension in extension. Unpublished masters,
plan B. Michigan State University. East Lansing, Michigan.

New Directions: The international mission of the cooperative

extension service - a statement of policy. Washington, DC:
USDA-ES, 1984.
 168

North Central Curricular Committee. (1989). Educating for a

global perspective: International agricultural curricula for
2005. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin.

Ohio State University Extension (OSU Extension).(1991) .

Mission and Vision. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University
Extension.

Patton, Michael Q.(1984, September/October). Extension - A

Citizen of the World. Journal of Extension. XXII, 37-44.

Ping, C. (1990, June). Internationalizing U.S. universities:

preliminary summary of a national study. Proceedings of
Internationalizing U.S. Universities. Pullman, Washington:
International Program Development Office of Washington State
University.

Poston and O'Rourke. (1991, November). Globalization and

cooperative extension. final report: November 1991
(Publication 91-53). Washington State University: Social
and Economic Sciences Research Center (SESRC).

Rahman, T. and Kopp, L. (1992) Administration of international

education, In C.B.Klasek (Ed.), Bridges to the future:
strategies for internationalizing higher education (pp. 1-21) .
Carbondale, Illinois: Association of International Education
Administration.

Randels, L. (1984). Overcoming isolation through development

education. Lessons for the United States from Canada. Sweden,
and the Netherlands. Washington, D.C. : Global Education Fund
Proj e c t .

Richardson, J.G. (1991, Summer). Expanding our horizons

internationally. Journal of Extension. XXIX, 23-24.

Rodriquez, S.R. (1988). Needs assessment and analysis: tools

for Change. Journal of Instructional Development. 11,1. 23-28.

Rosson, C.P. & Sanders, L.D. (1991, Summer). Extension in a

global context. Journal of Extension. XXIX, 21-23.

Safrit, R.D., Conklin, N., Jones, J. (1991). Organizational

values of the Ohio Cooperative Extension Service. Unpublished
raw data.

Scheibe, M . , Skutsch, M . , Schofer, J. (1975). Experiments in

delphi methodology. In Linstone, H.A. & Turoff, M. , The
Delphi method: technioues and applications. Reading, MA:
Addison Wesley Publishing.
 169

Schuh, G.E. (1990, January) . The changing role of US universita-

tes in international agricultural development. Paper presented
at Title XII regional seminars, Board for International Food
and Agricultural Development, Jefferson City, Missouri, and
Raleigh, North Carolina.

Schuh, E.G. (1987, February) . The new agenda for the cooperative
extension service: improving competitiveness in a global
economy. Paper presented at the National Extension Forum on
Agricultural Competitiveness and Profitability, Washington,
D.C.

Schuh, G.E. (1989) . The rationale for international agricultural

education for the 21st. In Educating for a global perspective:
international agricultural curricula for 2005 (pp. 1-10).
Washington D.C. : The North Central Curricular Committee Pro­
ject.

Skinner, G. (1991, June). Extension's role in linking visions

and global opportunities. Speech to the American Home Economics
Association Extension Section, Twin Cities Conference.

Smith, M.G. (1989, May). The Ohio State University international

agriculture, home economics. natural resources history, accom­
plishments. impact 1949-1989. Unpublished paper. Columbus,
Ohio: The Ohio State University.

Soersan, A. (1992) . The realities of globalization, implications

for extension. 1992 McDowell Lecture, November 18. Pennsylvania
State University.

Strategic Planing Council. (1991, March). Patterns of Change.

Washington D.C.: ES-USDA.

Sutphin, H.D. (1981). Positions held by teachers, teacher

educators, and state supervisors about selected national issues
in agricultural education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

Swanson, B.E., Farmer, B.J., & Bahai, R. (1990). The current

status of agricultural extension worldwide. (Report for
INTERPAKS and FAO). Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois.

Tonkin, H. & Edwards, J. (1981). The world in the curricu

lum. curricular strategies for the 21st century. New Rochelle,
N.Y.: Change Magazine Press.

Ulschak, F.L. (1983). Human resource development: The theory

and practice of need assessment. Reston, Virginia: Reston
Publishing Company,Inc. pp.111-131.
 170

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (1984,

January). New directions: the international mission of the
cooperative extension service — a statement of policy.
Washington D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture.

Weaver, W.T. (1971). The delphi forecasting method. Phi

Delta Kappan. 52(5), 267-273.

Westermark, H. (1991, August). Theory and practice of

extension development in europe. Paper presented at RSS
meeting at Ohio State University.

Wimmer, M.J. (1988). International connections: Promoting an

international dimension in extension. Unpublished Master's
Plan B paper. East Lansing: Michigan State University.

Witkin, B.R. (1984) . Assessing needs in educational and

social programs. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass,
Publishers.

York, E.T. (1984, November). 1984 Seaman A. Knapp memorial

lecture: A major international dimension for U.S. colleges
of agriculture - an imperative. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of National Association of State Universities and
Land-grant Colleges, Denver, Colorado.
 APPENDIX A

Panel Selection Committee

171
 172

Panel Selection Committee

Dr. Larry E. Miller

Dr. R. Kirby Barrick

Dr. Richard W. Clark

APPENDIX B

Delphi Panel

173
 174

Delphi Panel

Dr. David Aaker, Interim Director, Office of International

Research and Development, Oregon State University

Dr. Mary Andrews, Associate Dean, Human Ecology and Director,

International Extension Training Program, Michigan State
University

Dr. Ada Demb, Vice Provost for International Affairs, The Ohio
State University

Dr. James Diamond, Assistant Professor Emeritus, Department of

Agricultural and Extension Education, The Pennsylvania State
University

Dr. David Hansen, Associate Dean, International Programs in

Agriculture, The Ohio State University

Dr. James B. Henson, Director, International Programs,

Washington State University

Dr. Violet Malone, Department Chair, Education Administration

Foundations, Western Washington University

Dr. Robert H. Maxwell, Professor and Coordinator of

International Agriculture and Forestry, College of Agriculture
and Forestry, West Virginia University

Dr. Bobby D. Moser, Vice President for Agricultural

Administration, The Ohio State University

Dr. Fred L. Poston, Vice President and Dean, College of

Agriculture and Natural Resources, Michigan State University

Dr. William Rivera, Associate Professor, Department of

Agricultural and Extension Education, College of Agriculture,
University of Maryland

Dr. Keith L. Smith, Director, Ohio State University Extension,

The Ohio State University

Dr. Ayse Somersan, Director, University of Wisconsin

Extension, University of Wisconsin
 175

Delphi Panel (continued)

Dr. Burt Swanson, Director of INTERPAKS, University of

Illinois

Mr. Earl H. Teeter, Jr., Director, International Programs,

USDA Extension Service
 APPENDIX C

Panel of OSU International Leaders

176
 177

Panel of OSU International Leaders

Dr. Erwin Epstein, Director International Studies

Dr. Chet Hansen, S r . , Associate Director, Center on Education

and Training for Employment

Dr. Charles Herman, Director Mershon Center

Dr. Robert Lawson, Chair, Educational Administration

Dr. Ray Ryan, Director, Center on Education and Training for

Employment
 APPENDIX D

Content Validity Panel

178
 179

Content Validity Panel

Dr. T. J. Bembridge, Head, Department of Agricultural

Extension and Rural Development, University of Fort Hare,
Faculty of Agriculture, South Africa

Dr. Artur Cristovao, Department Chairman, Departmento de

Economia e Sociologia, Universidade de Tras-os-Montes E Alto
Douro, Portugal

Dr. John Crunkilton, Associate Dean and Director of

Agriculture Technology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University

Dr. Timothy Koehnen, Visiting Professor, Departmento de

Economia e Sociologia, Universidade de Tras-os-Montes E Alto
Douro, Portugal

Dr. Thomas F. Trail, Professor and Director, CID-Western

Regional Office, Washington State University

Professor Ian Wallace, Agricultural Extension and Rural

Development Department, University of Reading, United Kingdom
APPENDIX E

Round I

180
 181

T • H • E O h io C o o p e ra tiv e E x ten sio n S e rv ic e N o rth e a st D istric t

OHIO 1680 M adison A venue

A dm inistratio n B uilding,
O ARDC
W ooster, O H 44691-4096
October 15, 1993 P hone 216-263-3831
UNIVERSITY 216-263-3832
FAX 216-263-3667

Dear

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this Delphi study. /am glad v/e willbe able to
have the advantage ofyour experience and perspective to develop empiricalinformation
on internationalizing extension. Ilook forward to the insights you have to share.

This first questionnaire v/ill take about thirty minutes of your time. Your reply to the
questionnaire willbe kept confidential and a summarization of the various opinions and
suggestions received will be shared in the next mailing. Please:

1. Review allitems on the questionnaire. Comment on any items you wish. Feel
free to ask questions, make clarifications, or argue in favor or againstitems.

2. Rate each ofthe statements using a Lickert-type scale. Assign ratings ranging
from a high of "6" - CriticalImportance to a low of “0 “- No Importance. The
goal of the instrument is to determine ifthere is a convergence of opinion
among the 15 expertpanel members regarding characteristics ofan extension
system that is internationalized.

Please complete the questionnaire and return itin the envelope provided by October
30th. Yourprompt return willenable me to mailyou the second questionnaire during the
week of November 15, 1993.1will be calling within a few days to be certain you have
received the questionnaire and respond to any questions you may have.

Sincerely,

Barbara G.Ludwig
Northeast District Director
Ohio State University Extension.

ms
T h e O h io S tate U n iv e rs ity . T h e U n ite d S tate* D e p a rtm e n t o f A g ric u ltu re a n d C o u n ty C o m m is s io n e rs C o o p era tin g
 Internationalizing
U.S. Extension Systems

Fall 1993
A Brief O verview o f th e S tu d y

E xtension s y s te m s a c ro ss th e co u n try a re being ch allen g ed to integrate

Intemab'onal p e rsp e c tiv e s into p ro g ram s a n d a s s is t sta ff a n d clientele in developing global
com petency. F or th e p a s t d e c a d e , national E x ten sio n le a d e rs h av e encouraged state
Extension sy ste m s to internationalize. T his in te re s t a p p e a r s to b e th e result of m any
factors a n d Influences, both within an d o u tsid e E xten sio n a n d th e university.

F ew stu d ie s h a v e b e e n co n d u cted re la te d to internationalization of the extension

com ponent of the lan d g ra n t university sy stem . N one define Internationalizing in term s of
objectively verifiable Indicators of su c c e s s . A n e e d e x ists to ex am in e an d improve the
understanding of internationalizing of a s ta te university ex ten sio n sy stem .

T h e p u r p o s e o f t h e s t u d y is t o id e n t if y t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t w il l d e s c r ib e a n
INTERNATIONALIZED S T A T E EX T EN SIO N S Y S T E M .

C haracteristics o f Internationalization: T he c h a ra c te ristic s stu d ied include inputs,

p ro c e sse s, products, a n d ou tp u ts. K aufm an’s (1983) m o d e l o f O rganizational Elem ents
w a s u se d a s the b a s is for exploring th e c h a ra c te ristic s o f Internationalization. Two
elem ents of the ex ten sio n organization will b e stu d ied : o rg an izatio n al efforts and
organizational resu lts.

O m anizational-efforts a re com p rised o f Inputs a n d p ro c e s s e s . In p u ts are the existing

starting conditions affecting organizational activities. T h e s e include, b u t are not limited
to, hum an an d physical re so u rc e s, existing n e e d s , g o a ls a n d objectives, an d policies.
P ro c e sse s are th e m e a n s , m e th o d s an d p ro c e d u re s n e c e s s a r y fo r m anaging and
implementing inputs. O rganizational d ev e lo p m e n t, p e rfo rm a n c e analysis and
requirem ents, in-service training, cum 'culum d e v e lo p m e n t a n d staffing p attern s and
networking are ex a m p le s.

O rganizational re su lts include pro d u cts a n d o u tp u ts. P ro d u c ts a re internal results

accom plished through application of inputs an d p r o c e s s e s . L earn in g m aterials developed,
reports com pleted, know ledge o r skill ac q u ired , s e rv ic e s d e v e lo p e d w ould b e product
exam ples. O utputs a re re p re s e n te d b y se rv ic e s , g o o d s a n d p ro d u cts delivered to
external clientele a n d th e program m ing efforts m a d e .
 184

Q u e stio n n a ire I

Follow ing is a list o f O rg a n iz a tio n a l I n p u ts a n d P r o c e s s e s (ite m s n u m b e re d 1 to 25)

a n d O rg a n iz a tio n P r o d u c ts a n d S e r v ic e s (ite m s n u m b e r e d 2 6 to 39). P le a se ra te
th e Im p o rta n c e o f e a c h . C irc le th e n u m b e r c o r r e s p o n d i n g to y o u r rating. T h e
ra tin g s r a n g e fro m “0" - N o Im p o rta n c e to “6 “ - C ritic a l Im p o rta n c e .

C o m m en t o n a n y ite m s y o u w ish . F eel f r e e to a s k q u e s tio n s , m a k e clarificatio n s

o r a rg u e In fa v o r o r a g a in s t ite m s . A s p a c e is p r o v id e d In th e b o x to th e right of
e a c h Item . A d d ite m s w h ic h y o u b e lie v e a r e I m p o rta n t w h ic h w e re n ot In clu d ed .

LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE
(C irc le O ne)

Example: 8 S. ! |
1 1 * 1
2
s tas1i!iIe-*
s
5. P ersonnel evaluation sy ste m s recognize-------------------------,----------------j-------------,
International efforts as a critical co m ponent. o i a 3 ^ 5 6

A r a tin e o f ’4* w o u ld In d icate m oderateA ilgli Im portance.

 185

ORGANIZATION INPUTS
AND PR O C E SS E S

L evel of Im portance
(Circle Oae)

Critical Importance
I
f s s
I?
1 s I 1 I .
2 5 1 1 ! ?
i i i
0 1 3 3 4 5 6

1. T he c e n tra l m is s io n o f th e E x te n sio n s y s te m In c lu d e s 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
a com m itm ent to in te rn a tio n a l e d u c a tio n .

2. A d m in istra to rs c le a rly c o m m u n ic a te s u p p o r t 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
for In tern atio n aliza tio n .

3 . A d m in istrato rs e n g a g e In e x p e rie n c e s w h ich 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

will In te rn a tio n a liz e th e ir ow n p ro fe s s io n a l liv es.

4. Policy a n d o p e ra tin g p ro c e d u re s fa c ilita te 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

International p ro g ra m e ffo rts.

5. P e rso n n e l e v a lu a tio n s y s te m s re c o g n iz e 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
International e ffo rts.

6. R ew ard s tru c tu re re c o g n iz e s in te rn a tio n a liz a tio n 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

in its sy ste m o f r e w a r d s . T h e s e in c lu d e m erit
ad ju stm e n ts, te n u re , a n d p ro m o tio n .
 186

C om m ents: C larify, a r g u e In favo r o r a g a in s t Item s, r a is e q u e s tio n s .

1.

2.

3.

4.

6.
 187

ORGANIZATION INPUTS
AND PRO CESSES

Level of Im portance
(Circle Oae)

' 8

Critical Import onoo

g 5 J?
1 u
i" — *2 ^ 1
0 WI 31 I ?

High
2 S 3
1 : 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

7. Faculty In c r e a s e e x p e r tis e In th e ir o w n d o m a in • 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
by Interactin g w ith fac u lty a n d s c h o la r s from
o th e r c u ltu re s.

8. P ro fessio n al Im p ro v e m e n t a c tiv itie s I n c r e a s e 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

know ledge of g lo b a l I s s u e s .

9. Staff d e v e lo p m e n t a c tiv itie s In c r e a s e sk ills In 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

in tern atio n alizatio n .

10. E xchange p ro g ra m s w ith e x te n s io n o rg a n iz a tio n s 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

in o th e r c o u n trie s a r e in stitu tio n a liz e d .

11. E xchange p r o g ra m s w ith e x te n s io n o rg a n iz a tio n s 0 1 2 3 4 5 -6

in o th e r c o u n trie s a r e p la n n e d a n d c o n d u c te d o n
an on-going a n d r e g u la r b a s is .

12. The o rg a n iz a tio n 's b e s t s e n io r fa c u lty /a g e n ts a r e 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

identified to p a r tic ip a te in o v e r s e a s a s s ig n m e n ts .
 188

C om m ents: C larity , a r g u e In fav o r o r a g a in s t Item s, r a is e q u e s tio n s .

7. 1

8.

9'

10.

11.

12.
 189

ORGANIZATION INPUTS
AND PR O C E SS E S

Level of Im portance
(Circle One)

Critical Importance
t a l l
O 1= O t §.
2: w a 2 s =

13. T he o rg a n iz a tio n 's b e s t Junior fa c u lty /a g e n ts a r e 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

identified to p a r tic ip a te in o v e r s e a s a s s ig n m e n ts .

14. F inancial s u p p o r t fo r in te rn a tio n a liz in g ac tiv itie s is 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

available.

15. A d a ta b a s e of e x te n s io n p e rs o n n e l w ith 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
in te rn atio n a l e x p e rie n c e , in te re s t, a n d la n g u a g e
ca p a b ilitie s e x ists.

16. A p e rso n (s) is Id e n tifie d to p ro v id e le a d e rs h ip to 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

in te rn atio n a liz in g e ffo rts.

17. A com m iftee(s) Is e s ta b lis h e d to g u id e 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

in te rn atio n a liz atio n e ffo rts . •

18. P ro p o sa ls for in te rn a tio n a l w o rk a r e d e v e lo p e d 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

an d funded.
 190

C om m ents: C larify, a rg u e In fav o r o r a g a in s t Item s, r a is e q u e s tio n s .

14.

15.

16.

; _
17.
 191

ORGANIZATIONAL INPUTS
AND PR O C E SS E S

Level of Im portance
(Circle One)

Cilllcnl Importance
a -2^
5 S S
S. *0 5 0
- i 1 ! I -
6 $111
§
i r i
0 X 2 3 4 5 6

19. T he o rg a n iz a tio n c u ltu re e x p e c ts In tern atio n al 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

activity.

20. E x ten sio n is Involved w ith In tern atio n al 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

d e v e lo p m e n t a c tiv itie s.

21. In tern atio n al e x p e r ie n c e s a r e p ro v id ed fo r 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

faculty.

22. In tern atio n al e x p e r ie n c e s a r e p ro v id ed fo r 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

a d m in istra to rs.

23. Intern atio n al e x p e r ie n c e s a r e p ro v id e d fo r n o n - 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

faculty a g e n ts .

24. H um an a n d p h y s ic a l r e s o u r c e s a r e a llo c a te d to 0 1 .2 3 4' 5 6

in tern atio n al a c tiv itie s.
 192

C om m ents: Clarify, a r g u e In fa v o r o r a g a in s t ite m s, r a is e q u e s tio n s .

19.

'20.

21 .

22.

24.
 ORGANIZATION INPUTS
AND PR O C E SS E S

Level of Im portance
(Circle One)

25. R eg u lar e n c o u ra g e m e n t/a c c o m m o d a tio n of 0 1 2 . 3 4 5 6

v isitatio n b y s c h o la r s from o th e r c o u n trie s
o c c u rs.

Do yo u h av e o th e r s u g g e s tio n s to a d d to th e lis t? P le a s e in d ic a te th em .

A dditional space fo r c o m m e n ts is p ro v id e d o n th e f in a l p a g e o f th e q u e s tio n n a ire .

 194

C om m ents: C larify, a r g u e In fav o r o r a g a in s t ite m s, r a is e q u e s tio n s .

25.
 195

ORGANIZATIONAL PRODUCTS
AND SERVICES

Level of Im portance
(Circle One)

Critical Importance
Modoraloly High
Q» 73 ^

I aIaI

High
z0 w
1 i |
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

26. E ducational p r o g ra m s p la n n e d b y E x te n sio n 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

h e lp c lie n te le s e c u r e a b e tte r u n d e rs ta n d in g
of co m p lex w o rld w id e Is s u e s .

27. C lientele d e v e lo p a fu n d a m e n ta l u n d e rs ta n d in g 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
of global a n d n a tio n a l In te rd e p e n d e n c e .

28. D evelopm ent of in te rn a tio n a l a w a re n e s s b y 4-H 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

m e m b ers r e s u lts from E x te n sio n le a d e rs h ip .

29. R ural clie n te le a r e ta r g e te d fo r e d u c a tio n a l 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

p ro g ram m in g re la te d t o t h e c u rre n t in te rn a tio n a l
m a rk etp lace.

30. E ducational p ro g ra m s In c re a s e p a rtic ip a n t’s 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

u n d e rsta n d in g of o th e r c u ltu re s.

31. T raining p ro g ra m s a r e p ro v id e d fo r fo re ig n 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
im m igrants living in th e U nited S ta te s .
 196

C om m ents: C larify, a r g u e In fav o r o r a g a in s t Item s, r a is e q u e s tio n s .

26.

27.

28.
.

29.

31.
 197

ORGANIZATIONAL PRO DU CTS

AND SERVICES

Level of Im portance
( Circle One)

Cilllcal Import onoo

--------i------ 1
I
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

32. P airin g of U.S. a n d fo re ig n g ro u p s fo r citiz en 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

ex c h an g es o ccu rs.

33. Key le a d e r s p a r tic ip a te In In terd isc ip lin a ry 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

In te rn a tio n a l e x p e rie n c e s .

34. E x te n sio n e d u c a to r s a s s is t co m m u n ities in b u ild in g 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

a s e n s e of re s p o n s ib ility fo r w ise u s e of n a tu ra l
r e s o u r c e s in th e c o n te x t of g lo b al tre n d s .

35. S p e c ific g r o u p s (I.e. co m m o d ity g ro u p s ) a r e 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

ta rg e te d fo r p u b lic policy e d u c a tio n o n g lo b a l
d e c isio n -m a k in g .

36. E x te n sio n e d u c a tio n a l p ro g ra m s w ithin th e U .Si 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

s tr e s s th e im p a c t o f In tern atio n al e c o n o m ic f o r c e s
o n ag ric u ltu ral m a rk e ts.
 198

C om m ents: C larify, a r g u e In favor o r a g a in s t ite m s, r a is e q u e s tio n s .

32.

.
______________
33.

34.

36.
 199

ORGANIZATIONAL PRO DU CTS

AND SERVICES

Level of Im portance
(Circle Oac)

Critical Impottanco
*
E £ 2* iS tS _
O t? "c ^ ? i?
2 8 3 5 2 2
I i------ 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

37. E x ten sio n e d u c a tio n a l p ro g ra m s w ithin th e U .S. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

p r e s e n t th e u n d e rly in g c a u s e s of h u n g e r a n d
p o v erty In d e v e lo p in g n a tio n s a n d effect o n U.S.
citiz en s.

38. E x ten sio n e d u c a to rs in c o rp o ra te In tern atio n al 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

p e rs p e c tiv e s in to o n -g o in g e d u c a tio n a l
activities.

39. L inkage a g r e e m e n ts a r e d e v e lo p e d w ith 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

In tern atio n al c o u n te r p a r ts .

Do you have other su g g e stio n s to a d d to the list? P le a se indicate them:

A d d itio n a l space fo r c o m m e n d Is p ro v id e d o n Che fin a l p a g e o f Che q u e s tio n n a ir e .

 200

C om m ents: C larify, a r g u e In fav o r o r a g a in s t Item s, r a is e q u e s tio n s .

37.

39.
P le a se m a k e a n y a d d itio n a l c o m m e n ts:

ORGANIZATIONAL INPUTS AND PROCESSES

P lease m a k e a n y a d d itio n a l c o m m e n ts:

ORGANIZATIONAL PRODUCTS AND SERVICES

P le a s e r e t u r n in th e e n v e lo p e p r o v id e d by

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 2 9 ,1 9 9 3 .
R e tu r n to: B a rb a ra G. Ludw ig
N o rth e a s t D istrict E x te n sio n D irec to r
1680 M a d iso n A v en u e
OARDC A d m in istra tio n
W o o s te r, O h io 44691
APPENDIX F

Round II

205
 206

T • H • E O h io C o o p e ra tiv e E x te n s io n S e rv ic e N o rth e a st D istric t

1680 M adison A v en u e
OHIO Notramber 16,1993
A d m in istra tio n B uilding,
OARDC

SIATE
UNIVERSITY
W ooster, O H 44691-4096
Phone 216-263-3831
216-263-3832
FAX 216-263-3667

Dear

Thank you for continuing your participation In this study. 0\«r 90% percent of the participants
have responded to the first questionnaire. This Is highly encouraging. Based on ratings of the
most Important characteristics, consensus was not reached on any of the statements.

For your review, a summary of all ratings and comments Is Included In the second questionnaire.

Suggestions by yourself and others were aggregated Into groups of similar statements. If you
feel Ihave not given some of your suggestions full weight, please note this In the space
provided. (Itwas not possible to Include some late returns because of lime constraints.)

In the second questionnaire, your task Is fourfold:

1. Review all Items on the questionnaire. Consider the comments made by other expert panel
members. Reconsider your original rating on all Items The rating you assigned each Item on the
first questionnaire Is highlighted In yellow. Space Is provided following each statement for any
additional comments you choose to make.

2. Based on your suggestions, 11 new statements have been added. These are tabled "A-K"
Comment on any Items you wish. Feel free to ask questions, make clarifications, or argue In
favor of or against Items.

3. Flats each of the statements using a Uckert-type scale. Assign ratings ranging from a high of
"6" - Critical Importance to a low of ”0 “- No Importance. The goal of the Instrument Is to
determine Ifconvergence of opinion regarding characteristics of an extension system that Is
Internationalized can be reached.

4. Return your response In the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope AS S O O N AS YOU

RETURN. If ItIs possible to FAX to me the 1-pege S U M M A R Y OF RATINGS BY DECEMBER 8TH,
It will enable me to summarize those results and mall you the third questionnaire during the
week of December 20,1993.

Iwill look forward to hearing from you. This questionnaire will take about 45 minutes to
complete and your reply will be kept confidential.

Sincerely,

Barbara G. Ludwig
Northeast District Director
Ohio State Unlwralty Extension

GCES
T h e O h io S ta te U n iv ersity . T he U nited S ta te s D e p a rtm e n t o f A g ric u ltu re a n d C o u n ty C o m m is s io n e rs C o o p e ra tin g
 207

[ 1

Internationalizing
U.S. Extension Systems

Fall 1993

ROUND II

i J
 208

A Brief O verview of th e Study

E xtension s y s te m s a c ro s s th e country a re being challenged to integrate

International p e rsp e ctiv es into p ro g ra m s a n d a s s ist staff an d clientele In developing global
com petency. For the p a s t d e c a d e , national E xtension le a d e rs h av e encouraged state
Extension sy ste m s to Internationalize. T his Interest a p p e a rs to be the result of m any
factors an d influences, both within an d o u tsid e Extension an d th e university.

F ew stu d ies h av e b e e n co n d u cted rela ted to internationalization of the extension

com ponent of the land g ran t university sy stem . N one define internationalizing in term s of
objectively verifiable Indicators of s u c c e s s . A n e e d ex ists to ex am ine and improve the
understanding of internationalizing of a s ta te university ex ten sio n system .

T h e p u r p o s e o f t h e s t u d y is t o i d e n t i f y t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t w i l l d e s c r i b e a n
INTERNATIONALIZED ST A T E EX TEN SIO N S Y S T E M .

C haracteristics of Internationalization: T h e ch aracteristics stu d ied include inputs,

p ro c e sse s, products, a n d outputs. K aufm an's (1983) m odel of O rganizational Elem ents
w as u se d a s the b a s is for exploring th e ch a racteristics of internationalization. Two
elem ents of the exten sio n organization will be stu d ied : organizational efforts and
organizational results.

O rganizational efforts are com prised o f in p u ts an d p r o c e s s e s .’Inputs are the existing

starting conditions affecting organizational activities. T h ese include, but are not limited
to, hum an an d physical re so u rc e s, existing n e e d s, g o a ls a n d objectives, and policies.
P ro c e sse s are th e m e a n s, m e th o d s an d p ro c e d u re s n e c e s s a ry for managing and
implementing Inputs. O rganizational d evelopm ent, p erform ance analysis and
requirem ents, In-service training, curriculum d ev elo p m en t an d staffing patterns and
networking are exam ples.

O rganizational resu lts Include p ro d u cts a n d outputs. P ro d u c ts are internal results

accom plished through application of inputs a n d p ro c e s s e s . L earning m aterials developed,
reports com pleted, know ledge o r skill acq u ired , se rv ic e s d ev elo p ed would be product
exam ples. O utputs a re re p re se n te d by se rv ic es, g o o d s an d products delivered to
external clientele a n d th e program m ing efforts m ade.
 209

Q u e stio n n a ire II

C onsensus w as NOT re a c h e d b y your 15 m em b er p a n el o f experts o n any ite m s on

th e R o u n d I Q u e s tio n n a ire . P lease, rerate the Im portance of each numbered Item
follow ing rev ie w a n d re fle c tio n on th e c o m m e n ts of o th e r e x p e rt p an el m e m b ers.
C ircle th e n u m b e r c o r r e s p o n d in g to y o u r ra tin g . Y pur p e r s o n a l ratin g on e a c h item
for R o u n d I Is in d ic a te d b y yello w h ig h lig h tin g .

In ad d itio n , 12 ite m s w h ic h p a n e l m e m b e r s s u g g e s te d (Ite m s le tte re d A* P) h av e

b e e n a d d e d . P lea se rate the Im portance o f each n e w Hem. C ircle th e n u m b e r
c o rre s p o n d in g to y o u r ra tin g .

T he ra tin g s lor ah q u e s tio n n a ire ite m s r a n g e from "0“ - N o Im p o rtan ce to "6" •

C ritical Im p o rta n c e .

C o m m en t o n a n y ite m s y o u w ish . F eel fre e to m a k e c la rific a tio n s o r arg u e in favor

o r a g a in s t ite m s a n d c o m m e n ts m a d e b y o th e r p a n e l m e m b e r s . A s p a c e is
p ro v id ed follow ing e a c h item .

LEVEL O F IMPORTANCE
(C ircle On*)
E xam ple: •

5. P e rs o n n e l e v a lu a tio n s y s te m s re c o g n iz e
In te rn a tio n a l e ffo rts a s a c ritic a l c o m p o n e n t.

A ra tin g o f *4*, m o d e ra te ly h ig h w a s th e ra tin g y ou In d ic a te d o n i-------------- r— ------- 1

R o u n d I a n d y o u h a v e n o t m o d ifie d y o u r p o s itio n . 0 1 2 3 © 5 6

Exam ple:

P e rs o n n e l e v a lu a tio n s y s te m s re c o g n iz e (------------- j------------ 1

In te rn a tio n a l e ffo rts a s a c ritic a l c o m p o n e n t. 0 1 2 3 4 5 (5 )

A ratin g of *4* m o d e ra te ly h ig h w a s th e ra tin g y o u In d ic a te d o n R o u n d I. You h a v e m o d in e d y our p o sitio n and

now In d ic a te y o u r ra tin g la *6* w h ic h w ou ld In d ic a te c ritic a l Im p o rta n c e .
 ORGANIZATIONAL INPUTS AND PR O C E SSES
L»v*l of Im pertine*
(O rel* Or.*)

Your round I rating on u e h question la MghtighUd In yatlow.

Raviaw eommanta, rofloct, and RESCORE aaeh quasUon If your

vtawpoinf has modtflad.

A apaoa la provided fo llow ing’aaeh question for YOUR commanU,'

I I
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. The central mission of the Extension system Includes 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

a commitment to International education.

2. Administrators clearly communicate support 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

for Internationalization.

3 . Administrators engage in experiences which 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

will internationalize their own professional lives.

4. Policy and operating procedures facilitate 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

international program efforts.

5. Personnel evaluation systems recognize 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

international efforts.
 211

Comments made by members of the expert Frequency of Responses

panel In response to Round I N = 14
Importance
-Level

International education* U too broad. rm not sure Wyou moan education about tha eountrtoa and
cultures or how to do business wtth other countries, or Intarnadonal currant events, or?
There must bo a commitment o f tha organization.
Most do; not • should.
GtobaQatfon of agriculture and markets. Missing
Two problems: ( i) baste perhaps, not necessarily'central* mission. (2) Not IntarnaUonal
aducadon to ganaral ao much as IntarnaUonal extension aducadon Issues.
I ballava many faculty, staff and administrators think o f International as a sort o f 4th dimension;
Teaching, Research, Extension 4 IntamadonaL Wa hava scan structures that encourage that
compartmenUQzstion. tf wa are successful, wa must Integrate tnUrnadonat/gtobat thought and
raacdon patterns Into our b a sk mandate o f Teaching, Research and Extension.

If Administrators do not communicate their support, faculty and staff w ill be reluctant to participate
Commitment from the top la always an Important factor fo r Incentives and motivation.
Most do not state such

Highly Important for administrators to be participants.

Critical
Yes, # 1, but should not Just be *Jaunta* to other countries.

4.
Must be a part of the operational procedures.
Again, this requires modification. Which International programs efforts?!

5.
People must be rewarded before doing Intemetional work.
# S and are the most Important. •
This Is an old fight, can only be won tf aft the above Is clearly exercised.
 LE V EL O F IM PO R TA N C E
ORGANIZATIONAL INPUTS AND PR O C ESSES (C lrd* On*)

I----- 1-----1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

6. Reward structure recognizes Internationalization 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

In Its system of rewards. These Include merit
adjustments, tenure, promotion, and peer
recognition.

(Original atatamont: Raward atructura raeognlzaa

InSamaSonaOsatton In ft* ayatam of rawarda. That#
Ineiuda mart! adjustment*, Unura, and promotion.)

7. Faculty Increase their expertise by Interacting 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

with faculty and scholars from other cultures.

[Original a ia t.m .n c Faculty I n c / . I f . azpartfa. In th .Ir own

domain by In te n d in g wtth faculty and acholara from ottwr -
CU&UT.8.)

8. Professional Improvement activities Increase 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

knowledge of global Issues.
 213

C o m m e n ts m a d e b y m e m b e rs o f t h e e x p e rt F re q u e n c y of R e s p o n s e s
p a n e l In r e s p o n s e t o R o u n d I / N = 14. .
Im p o rtan ce
Level N -
(. 0 0
Some mot* structure needs to be put In place for the carrot to be there. It la not there yet.
1 1
2 ?
Balance la also needed • hard to know how raward ayatama ara applied. 3 0
4 1
95 and 9% ara the m o t| Important.
8 8
Suggested rewording: Raward atructura raeognlzaa Internationalization In Ha tyalam by Including • 8
merit adjustments, tenure, and promotion.
.-Mot occurring now. but thav ahould.
CrWcall
1 marked *5* not *8* bacauaa aoma o f tha raward ahould coma from Intamat motivation. IntaraaU
Incentives ara key, but International experiences m u tt ba conaldarad to ba an Intagral part of
• avaryday activities, rathar than a aaparata domain of activity.
VIsfbTOty among peers.
A routine, annual procaaa for highllghUng accomplishments • ao that othara bacoma award o f Ihla
productive stream of actMty.

7. 0 0
Faeulty ahould Inc/aaaa thalr expertise.
1 0
2 1
Suggested rawordlng: dalala *In own domain*. 3 3
*1n thalr own domain* • Thla la only ona o f aavaral ways. In aoma areas faculty will viaw thla as
4 3
8 8
less daalrabla bacauaa tha foratgn situation may bo far taaa sophisticated. Faculty should ba
encouraged to raaeh outalda thalr araa o f expertise - paraonal growth la Just aa vltaL
8 1
Yes, but whara naadad la language training. Otherwise, all *lntaractlona' will ba with English
speaking countries. Tha question 1 raise In particular refers to foreign (1 should say other)
Unouasa training. We need to loam cultures and tha knowtedoe of another Unauaae la Ha flhe
country's) culture at the deepest level.
Suggested rawordlng: delate 'expertise In thalr own domain* end replace wtth *the!r global
perspective*.
As a first step, 1 think this type of Interaction Is useful to create awareness and Interest.
International Extension Information exchange programs can economize duplicated rasaafch
efforts.
Better Sinks get between research and extension through International collaboration.
How does U.S. Extension compare with other systems • In developed and lass developed
countries? What ara their products and services as compared with ours? What do wa have to
learn? What do they have to learn?
•How are adult education and extension education finally merging In process orientation
(from linear and responsive techniques to Interactive methods}?
-Products can only be defined against a system's mission and Hs services against Its
methods. International study helps us learn more about the treasures of our systems and
also (sometimes) whs fa missing.

a. 0 0
1 0
2 1
Not always, needs special planning. 3 1
4 4
#1 and 99 go together, never either one without the others. 8 $
Depends on the activities; care should be taken to Identity the best ones. 8 3
Usybe need CElTs (Continuing Education Units) as In other professions?
Knowledge of global Issues OK. but let’s get focused on economic security Issues.
 214

LEV EL O F IM PO R TA N C E
ORGANIZATIONAL INPUTS AND PROCESSES (C lic k O i m )

I I----- 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

9. Staff development activities Increase skills In

Internationalization.

10. Exchange progra.ms with extension organizations 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

in other countries are institutionalized.

11. Exchange programs with extension organizations 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

In other countries are planned and conducted on
an on-going basis.
 215

Comments made by members of the expert Frequency of Responses

panel In response to Round 1 : N =14 4 i:';.
Importance
Level — j
!. 0 0
If conducted overseas.
1 0
2
Net always, needs special planning. 3 2
4 S
Net happening yet, ahould
5 4
Suggested rewording: Staff development activities Increase skills In International Issues. 1 1
Missing 1
Depends on the activities: care should be taken to Identify the best ones.
#< and #9 go together, never either one without the other.
Depends, of course, on activities. They (the activities) must be felt to be needed.
#8 and #9 very similar. What are International skills? Not very clear! 1 think Extension personnel
ahould be knowledgeable about how other countries Impact the U.S. economy, eg., agriculture,
GATT, etc.
Mere, and more easily organized, opportunities for faculty agents to participate In, or lead, study
tours, especially In summer.

10. 0 0
Important - long range goat.
1 1
2 1
This is one wsy to gain experience, but not the only way. 3 3
4 3
A cflmale of openness to such exchanges la critical.
5 4
We can learn from them, but the key Is to get appropriate programming materials Incorporated 8 2
Into the stale extension system.
Greattdea? Mutual exchange, mutual learning. Exchange should have a definite purpose: to
review the organizational structure, fo r Instance; to develop series of seminars for discussion and
exchange of Ideas on specific subjects, e.g. — food safety, NRM (natural resource management),
support services, linkage mechanisms, etc. Exchanges are probably good In and o f themselves,
but best If planned with a strong and accountable purpose.
Institutionalised doesnt mean much until it Is operationatlsed. 1 think question #11 Is better.
Ejdenslon systems (policy • organization operations) benefit from International development.

11. 0 0
This Is one way to gain experience, but not the only way.
1 1
2 0
SuggesUd rewording: Delete *ar>d regular*. 3 1
4 5
‘On-going4 • continuity overtime Is very Important.
5 4
Great Idea • but we (Americans) also need to learn other tanguagesl 1 3
Very Important tf tt can reach a sizeable number over time. One/year Is not too Important.
 216

L EV EL O F IM PORTANCE
{C k c l* O m )
ORGANIZATIONAL INPUTS AND PR O C ESSES

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

12. Tha organization's best senior faculty/agents are

identified to participate in overseas assignments.

13. The organization's best Junior faculty/agents are 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Identified to participate in overseas assignments.

14. Financial support for Internationalizing activities Is 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

available.

15. A database of extension personnel with 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

International experience, interest, and language
capabilities exists.
 217

Comments made by members of the expert Frequency of Responses

panel In response to Round 1 y N = 14
Importance
.Level N

12. 0 0
1 2
fm not sure I know what ‘ besfm eans. Perhaps a more descriptive adjective could bo used.
2 1
Suggested rawordlng: The organization'* senior faculty aro selected to participate In ovoraaaa
assignments.
4 3
Doesn't always havo to bo tho boat people, maybo thoy Just nood a now experience. 5 5
1
Not just ‘ senior* • In fact, wo often aro too oonlor.
Young at w*Q as experienced agenta/faeulty ahould bo Involved,
Bost faculty Jr. or Sr.
‘Senior taeuffy/agent** • Yes, BUT, reward eystoms should bo modified so that untonured and
junior faculty,'agonta can participate and still build credit toward promotion.
Clarifying way to determine ‘ best senior* would bo Im portant 1 feel the word senior Is
Inappropriate. Are we rewarding longevity?
Not sure about this one • what do we moan by ‘ best*?
Shows Institutional commitment, but seldom Is the case. This Is a good Indication of International
commitment
At thia point on (Item 2), 1 felt that many o f the 0 ‘s were an overlap of each other, or redundant
because so closely Interdependent on responses to 0 's asked In the earlier parts.

IX 0 1
1 1
Yes, prep young staff for continuoua In and out International Involvement.
2 1
OK, but should got their program going firs t 3 0
1
Again, I'm not sure what ‘ best* means.
I «
Probably more Important than senior faculty, but worry about P A T . • 2
Delete the word ‘best*.
Ditto #12 - best faculty Jr. or Sr.
Same concern as with #12 • clarifying way to determine ‘ best* would be Im portant The w ord
junior la Inappropriate.
This worries me. Faculty/agents need to get tenured/estabQshed before they get too enamored
with International work.

14. 0 0
1 1
Needs to be there In S to be successful.
2 0
It needs to be financial, but It could be funding from grants. 3 1
4 2
The question I* how much support
5 7
It w ool happen without some resources. 1 3

15. 0 0
Database needs to be maintained and used, exist Is not enough
1 0
2 2
Oatabasas c in be dark horses - OK, but only a toot - not the answer. 3 2
4 a
Yes, but It too needs to have a clear purpose and utility.
5 3
OK to have, but mainly useful In Identifying people for overseas projects. c 1
 218

LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE
ORGANIZATIONAL INPUTS AND PROCESSES (C lrc l* O n*)

I----- 1-----1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

16. A person(s) Is Identified to provide leadership to 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

internationalizing efforts.

17. A com m ittee(s) Is established to guide 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

internationalization efforts.

18. Proposals for International work are developed 0 1.2 3 4 5 6

and funded.

19. The organization culture expects International 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

activity.
 219

Com m ents m ade by m em bers of the expert : Frequency o( R esponese

panel In resp o n se to Round / . N = 14 ’
Importance
Level N ’• -
1C 0 0
Very necessary.
0
2 0
Some central contaet point needed, even tf responsibilities are decentralized. 3 2
4 4
Wore tup pest for Individual*.
5 4
A key point; tho 'righP person h a t to bo Identified. 8 4
Yes, and not Just tho College of Ag dlroetora of OtP1*.

17. 0 0
Ym
1 0
2 0
. Don't hang too much hopo on committee*. 3
8
Committees tako too much time. Commlttooa havo limited vlow of situations.
S 8
Key once again to havo tho ‘ right* poopto on tho committee. • 0
Good Idea.

ia. 0 0
Yo#
1 0
2 1
Depends how tho organization oporatoa • *proposals* toom vary form at 3 1
Without this, Ira ’ all talk and no action*. 8 8
For initiates, tarty success la vory Im portant C 2
Yes, but again not for tholr own sake and not without knowing what othor universities and
consultants, International and bilateral organization*, aro doing and havo dono — an omlaalon of
knowledge too often tho caoo.

19. 0 0
1 1
Thla may not always bo true.
2 1
7 Organization culture expect* International activity. 3 1
Suggoated rewording: Tho organization culture demand* International activity.
2
S 3
Yet - redundant question a. 8
!1
Tho beet way to ehango tho aocla! norma Is to set up the program and Invest the resources. Also,
not )ust any International activity.
One of the major problema with tho successful Internationalization o f Cooperative Extension Is
lack of recognition that International content, activities, etc. aro an integral part of what clientele
need. Instead tho development assistance mentality prevails which continues to Identify within
extension International as something separate and different from what faculty are supposed to do.
Our research which Included data from 163 research universities Indicated that faculty
experiences (professional experiences In a foreign setting); resources; and supportive
administrators are the 3 most Important variables for successful Internationalization. Faculty need
to know/Team about the potentials of International programs and activities to enhance the quality,
relevance and Impaet of their programs/responsibilities.
 LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE
ORGANIZATIONAL INPUTS AND PROCESSES (Clrci? ° n*)

I I I
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

20. Extension Is Involved with International 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

development activities.

21. Opportunities for International experiences are 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

provided for faculty.

(Origin*) aUtam ant International oxperiancaa aro provided for

ia cutty.]

22. Opportunities for International experiences are 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

provided for adm inistrators.

(Original ataUm ant International experience* aro

provided for admlnlairatora.]

23. International experiences are provided for 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

county agents who do not have faculty statu s.

(Original atatement: Intarnadonal experiences ara provldad

for rvon*!a cutty agent*.]
 221

Com ments m ade by m em bers of th e expert Frequency of Response

panel In re sp o n se to Round 1 N = 14

.Importance
. Level N
30.
Necessary for an Extension program of tha 21 at eentury.
1
0 00 II
2 o 1
Vary broadly speaking: Institution building projects, training, consulting, research, extension
outreach.
9
4
3
2
1
5 S
Obviously • not a eora question/reword.
C 4
This U ona avenue to Internationalize; a vary Important ona.
Dtto • redundant question.
Development projects ara okay, but not tha erHJeal eoncarn of Extension vU*a*vle our clientele.
U.S. Universities hava a long hlalory In davalopmant projects, but 1 think Extanalon naads to focua
on economic security Issues, broadly da fin ad. I d o n l think wa hava many paopla In our eollaga
who can avan bagln to address thaaa Issues. No wondar Extanalon h a t nothing to past along to
(U c&entsle. Lara do aoma capacity building In a raa i that wlU maka a dlffaranca In our paopla.

21. 0 0
Faculty ahould alao find thalr own opportunities.
1 0
2 0
A m u tt 3 1
4 6
L a ri not provide tha experience, le f t do provide tha opportunity. Tha opportunity provides tha
5 4
experience.
t 3
Reword: *Soughi by*U? to replace 'provided for*.
#21,22,23 • International experience creates awareness, but generally doesn't result In changed
performance.
Comment 1 don't think you are gM ng enough attention to Extensions capacity to generate
Extension massages. Wa assume If Extension personnel gat exposed they wtU pass It along.
Actually they are .0001 of tha Intarnadonal scene whan they go abroad. That wets tha appetite,
but you must give them tha material If you want them to carry out effective International programs.

22. 0 0
1 0
More Important for faculty.
2 0
A must. 3 1
4 s
#21*23 - Important for a ll The w o rd ‘ provided* worries me. How about encouraged, supported,
5
faeQRatsd?
c
L e ft not provide the experience, le ts do provide the opportunity. The opportunity proves the
experience.
Reword: *Created by*!!? to replace 'provided fort.

23. 0 0
1 0
1 docrt know what a ’ non-fa cutty agent* Is. 1 d o n l think we hava such s category.
2 1
Yas. 3 1
*4 4
Lets not provide the experience, le f a do provide tha opportunity. Tha opportunity provides tha
5 3
experience.
6 2
Missing 3
 LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE
ORGANIZATIONAL INPUTS AND PROCESSES
(Circle One)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
24. Human and physical resources are allocated to 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
support the Integration of International activities
In the overall Institution effort

(Original ataUment: Human and phyateal raaowreaa ara

afioeaUd to International aetfvttfaa.]

25. Regular encouragem ent/accom m odation of 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

visitation by scholars from other countries
occurs.

NEW ITEMS ADDED, BASED ON EXPERT PANEL MEMBERS SUGGESTIONS:

A. Extension clientele support Incorporation of 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

International concepts Into on-going localized
.program s.

B. Extension clientele support Extension agents/faculty 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

conducting educational program s In other countries.
 223

Com m ents m ade by m em bers of the expert . Frequency of Response

panel In resp o n se to Round 1. N = 14
Importance
Level N .
24. 0 0
1 0
Yat.
2
Suacaatad rawordlno: Human and ohvalcal ratourcaa ara allocated to auDoort tha Inlacratlon of 3 1
Intarnadonal actfvWaa In tha ovarall Institution affort. 4 4
5 4
Tha qusstiona (1 ^ 2 4 ) sasm rsdundant lo ma.
1
Yaal

25. 0 0
1 0
Not Just aoholars • administrators, dlantata, govarnmant officials, ate.
2
For many staff whoaa par tonal situations praefuda axtanatvs travat, v lt lu ara THE critical Unk. 3 2
4 3
Fm not happy wtth word •ragutar*. Suggaatad rawordlng: tustalnsd.
5 7
Suggaaiad rawordlng: Ragular sncouragamant'accommodatfon ’ and support*— 5 1
B u t thay m u tt atao ba programmad to banaflt our aztanalon program.
But wtth a purposa; scholars m u tt lactura, angaga In flald trips, analyst ty s ltm , structure,
problems, ate.

'
A.
Support from d J tn U lt.
Tha tfa batwaan Intarnadonal plaeaa/m arktU/cufturtt/axlansion parsonnat and atata constituents,
(arm (amlUet, urban dwetlara, industry, ate. must ba mads or ft wlU ba politically d ifficult to
maintain.*

B.
Support from clientele.
 224

ORGANIZATIONAL INPUTS AND PROCESSES

C. Faculty Increase their understanding of other 0 1 Z 3 4 5 6

cultures through Interaction with International
students and scholars.

D. Faculty/agents Interact with faculty In other 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

schools w ho are involved In International
projects.

E. Extension faculty/agents recognize th e 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

relationship betw een b asic International
issu es (e.g. know ledge of International
agriculture, com mitm ent to human
developm ent, significance of privatization)
and the Extension m ission.

Additional sp a c e for com m ents Is provided on the final p ag e of th e questionnaire.

 225

C om m ents m ade by m em bers of th e expert /

panel In resp o n se to Round I >vv , .

c.
More faculty Interaction with a broad*base of international students — Those outside agriculture • paired by personal Interest, e.g. music,
ate.

D.
Opportunities for extension facufty/agenta to Interact with faculty In other aehoola Involved In International project* -e.g. Education
(CETE), Butina**, Engineering. Biological Sciences.
Project feeders from othar aehoola (aducadon, ate.) raguUriy aaak Extanalon participation In thalr Intarnadonal projects.
Larger Intarnadonal programa on campus ara awara and supportive of CES International

E.
A recognition of basic Intarnadonal Issues rotated to extension mission: knowledge o f Intarnadonal agriculture, oommdment to human
development (see UNDP’s last three annual reports on Human Development, and tha significance of tha debate on *prfvafizadon' and the
experiences of extension services (e.g. public extension services) In seeking new ways o f funding services. These Intarnadonal Issues
must utdmatafy affect organizational efforts and results.
Think more about the goals and obloctfvoa o f Internationalisation, not Just getting to know each othar —although this Is part of tha
mission.
 226

ORGANIZATIONAL PRODUCTS AND SERVICES

Laval of Impovurtca
(CUcU Ona)

Your round I rating on a*eh quaation I t hlghJIghtad In yatlow.

Ravfaw commanta, raflacL and RESCORE aach quattion tf your i * I

vtawpolnt h a t modtflod. •
I i I
A tpaea U provfdad following t t e h quattion for YOUR eommanla.
i!ftl
a a 2 0
I 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

26. Educational program s planned by Extension 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

help clientele se cu re a better understanding
of com plex worldwide Issues.

27. Clientele develop a fundam ental understanding 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

of global and national Interdependence.

28. Extension educational program s offered to 4-H 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

m em bers help develop International aw areness.

[Original atalamant: D tvo lo p m tn l o f Inlamatfonat

a w tr tn a tt by 4-H m tm b o rt ro tu tla from Extanalon
taadarshJp.]
 227

C om m ents m ade by m em bers of th e expert Frequency of R esponse

panel In re sp o n se to Round I N ** 14 •

Importance
Level

They need to took at things from a global perspective as well.

Suggested rawordlng: Educational program* planned by Extanalon halp cllantala aacura an
understanding ot complex worldwide Issues.
Tha objective ot Internationalizing artanalon m u tt ba that of helping cllantala undarttand tha
global marketplace and tha cultural contaxt In which It I* embedded. Thla la tha daalrad outcome.
Yea, b>A tha programa muat Include travel to (work) aaalat In project* abroad.
International Exlanalon programa contribute to tha neada of American clientele.
Think human health, tha environment, renewable reaourcee and regional davalopmant a t a baals
for advancing eoncerna wtth tha International arena. Whafa In International undaratandlng of
IntematloAal eg, human davalopmant, and agricultural aupport aarvlca davalopmant
("privatization”) that eanAvfft Impact tha American paopla? What la tha Importance of AID* to
agriculture and agricultural development (Health)? What la tha Importance of human deveopment
elaewhere for American trade? etc. etc.
Extanalon typically trie a to ba reaponaive to local neada. But few paopla recognize a need for
International 'education*. Thla la where International education neada leaderahlp from extension
programmers who can aea a need that may ba Invisible to the general populace.

27.
They need to took at things from a global perspective as w e lt
h m utt Include Interdependence and connections to local laauaa.
Review the CICHE projectl Why did ft die?
Similar to Q. 26. If you understand tha complex Issues, you w ill understand Interdependence.

28.
Important for youth • coming generations to learn International.
Somewhat vague. ?? International awareness.
Stronger than "awareness*, prep for life In an Interdependent world, careers. Interaction skills, ate.
Thla la not clear to me.
Missing
Thla la the FUTURE.
Developing world perspectives for new generations has to ba top priority. Youth are the future.
Begins hers.
 LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE
ORGANIZATIONAL PRODUCTS AND SERVICES (Clrcta Ona)

I I I
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

29. Rural clientele are targeted for educational 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

programming related to th e current International
m arketplace.

[TUaaarchart not* • also rafar to turn K on paga is.]

SO. Educational program s Increase participant's 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

understanding of other cultures.

31. Training program s are provided for foreign 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Immigrants living In the United States.

32. U.S. and foreign citizen exchange

occurs.

(Ortglnat aUtamanb Pairing of U.S. and foralgn

groups for oMson aichangaa occur*.]
 229

Com ments m ade by m em bers of th e expert Frequency of Responses

panel In re sp o n se to Round 1 N = 14
Importance
Level - N - -

21. 0 0
Marketplace. i t R It used here could be too narrow. In tha e ta iile a t aconom lci ta n tc ,
1 0
marketplace could also Include a place of trade, Information, natural resources, cuRura goods and
services.
4
Not Just rural, gsnaral public. S •
Doesnthave to ba Just ru ra l Urban paopla should ba targatad as w a ll
$ 2
Missing 1
1 hava difficulty wtth word •ruraP • too limiting. Suggastad rawordlng: 'Production' clientele.*
This should also lnduda 'urban* cllantala, although thalr Dvetlhood may ba lass critically In
balanca.
Important!
tt h is baan dttficuR for agricultural producers to understand that International marketing Is more
than finding a buyer overseas. tt takas careful study o f needs, product 'shaping* to fit a niche,
and the inU<cultural personal skills to conclude agreements. We have generally been
unsuccessful In assisting our agricultural cllantala In this area.

30. 0 0
1 0
2
Yes, but also belUtate Interacting across cultures. 3 1
4 4
Nice, but not essential
5 3
International Extension programa ara essential fo r broadening cllantala knowledge o f othar S S
cultures.

31. 0 0
If targeted to specific programming Oka EFNEP, etc.
1 1
2 3
YES. 3 1
4 1
Important
5 3
Isntejfiension tha logical provider? 1 0
a. wa ware all Immigrants whan wa started.
b. tha network and Infrastructure ara In place.
I am not sura this Is a major task except as a resource.
Flan and encouraee. assist - not orovlde. Do vou raallv mean 'orovlded to Immigrants'?
Immigrants ara already Internationalized. Perhaps more Important Is how to use them to make
others more globally aware.
What kind of training programs? Ag literacy? Ag education? Food safety? NRM (water
quaCy]? Need to think goals and programs. Remember tha Lifelong Learning Act o f 1976 (Tha
Uandste Act*) failed because R d ld n l have clearly targatad Institutional programs that Congress
could relate to!

32. 0 0
This Is one way.
1 1
2 1
Soggesbd rawordlng: U.S. and foreign citizen exchange occurs. 3 3
t
Lota of agencies already do. Can be over planned. Micro management w ill k ill
S 2
Not sure about 'groups', certainly Individuals; and occasionally groups. e 0
Useful but not critical
Missing 1
 230

LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE
ORGANIZATIONAL PRODUCTS AND SERVICES (C ircle One)

0 1 .2 3 4 5 6

33. Key leaders participate In Interdisciplinary 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

International experiences.

34. Extension educators assist communities In building 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

a se n se of responsibility for w ise u se of natural
resources In the context of global trends.

35.' Specific groups (I.e. commodity groups) are 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

targeted for public policy education on global
decision-making.

36. Extension educational program s within th e U.S. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

stre ss the Impact of International econom ic forces
on agricultural m arkets.
 231

Com m ents m ade by m em bers of th e expert: . Frequency of Response 1

panel In re sp o n se to Round 1 ^ ^ 'r;.:V ' N ** 14 - •
Importance
Level . / N
33. 0 0
Y«*.
1 0
2
Interdisciplinary • eross cutting la critical. 3 2
Critical.
4 2
s
Cara muat b« given to crafting appropriate experiences. S 4
With a purpose! Or alaa participation U id a to ttttie.
Leaders hava to ba convinced firs t

34. 0 0
Yaa.
1 0
2 1
Thla U Important, BUT not a tflmanalon of Intarnationanzatlon for ma. 3 2
4 4
Probably critical for extension In tha future. 5
Yes! A specific program goal!! 4 3

35. 0 0
1 0
What U 'global decision making?*
2
An Intarasting Rem, 111 be anxious to sea tha responses. 3 1
4 4
They ara ona group.
5
This might bring public poficy education out from under. Good. • 4
Ulsslng 1
Agree.

34. 0 0
1 0
Global market • Important
2
Yaa. 3
4 1
Global economics and global markets.
s
An tnterssting Ram. 1 will ba anxious to see the responses. « 7
This is central to affective U.S. participation In global economy.
For cSentefe who depend on agriculture for thalr livelihood, this Is of utmost Importance.
OefinRalyl
In addition. Extension ahould help our clientele to understand how batter to exploit economic
opportmftfes overseas.
 232

LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE
ORGANIZATIONAL PRODUCTS AND SERVICES (CIrcto On«)

I-------- 1------1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

37. Extension educational program s within th e U.S. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

present th e underlying cau ses of hunger and
poverty In other nations and th e effect on U.S.
citizens.

[Original s&aUmanb Extanalon aducatfona! programs

wQhln tha U.S. praaant tha undartytng cauaai of hungar
and pova/ty In davatoplng nations and aftact on \JS,
ciflxaoa.)

38. Extension educators Incorporate International 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

perspectives Into on-going educational
activities:

39. Linkage agreem ents are developed with 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

international counterparts.

NEW ITEMS ADDED, BASED ON EXPERT PANEL MEMBERS SUGGESTIONS:

F. Extension clientele Interact with visiting scholars 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

and students to becom e more globally aware.
 233

Com ments m ade by m em bers of the expert Frequency of Responses

panel In resp o n se to Round 1 N = 14

Importance
Level N
ST. 0 0
Suggested rewording: Extension educational programs within tha U.S. show ths underlying
1 0
causes of hunger and poverty In othar nations and Its affect on U.S. citizens.
2 1
3
Hmml This Is s tough ona to do affectively. 4 3
Can wa do this? I feel ara can handle 'affect on U.S.*
4 6
4
Only tf this Is a mission, and It looks as though It Is becoming ona. Missing 1
I donl think many paopla care that much. Bleeding heart liberals d o n l hold sway with most
people - Hk tha Bread and Butter Issues to gat people's attention.

34. 0 0
1 think aeademlc faculty ara already doing so. Note tha AlAEE • Association for International
1 0
AgrfeuSure and Extension Education.
2 1
3 2
Good to do, but I think wa need a strong International thrust that deals with economic security 4 0
Issues. 5 3
« S

3 a. 0 0
Depends how formal this Is? Formality Is not necessary.
1 1
2 0
Agreements are pieces of paper • people working together on mutually beneficial activities Is the 3 3
goal 4 4
$ 3
Depends whaVwhleh linkage agreements.
4 1
Important to regularize exchange programs.

* F.
It may not be possible to provide sufficient International experience to targe groups of Individuals.
However, we need to use International resources at our disposal • students, visiting scholars, etc.
more effectively to make clientele more globally aware. They are a low cost program option. The
kay !j to decide how effectively to use them.
 234

ORGANIZATIONAL PRODUCTS AND SERVICES

G. Urban clientele are targeted for educational 0 1 2 3 4 5 S

programming related to the current
international marketplace.

Dissemination of U.S. extension Information Is. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

extended to people In other nations.

Community development programs adapt Idea3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

from International models.

J. Local business persons are trained for participation 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

In international markets.
 235

Comments made by members ot the expert

panel In response to Round I.

c.
Sm to nun♦nLi In ttam #20

H.
Dissemination, Inlamatlonal Extanalon Information ta n ba useful to paopla In many nations.

L
Rural davalopmant (ehango procassas) adapt tdaas from IntsmatfonaL
Economic davalopmant • broadly • banaflls from tha modals and axparlancaa of othars.
Davaloplng eommuntty»w(da Intamationa! awaranass/lntsrsst/llnkagss (raduclng Isolation, athnocantrtsm).

J.
Training of local buslnasaas for Intarnadonal participation.
 236

K. Extension promotes Interagency cooperation on 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

International Initiatives.

L. Sensitivity to diversity issues by Extension 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

clientele Is enhanced.

Additional space for comments Is provided below.

Please make any additional comments:

ORGANIZATIONAL INPUTS AND PROCESSES

 237

Comments made by members of the expert

panel In response to Round I

K.
Should tha#a ba any Rama that raflact tha naad tor FAO/UN Input*?
Promoting Qnkagaa acroM organlxatJona and agonclaa on Joint Intarnational andaavora (NGO'a atata agandaa, ate.).

L
GraaUr aantSfvfty to dlvarafty within tha atata.

Additional space for comments is provided below.

Please make any additional comments:

ORGANIZATIONAL PRODUCTS AND SERVICES

 Please return in the envelope provided by

SATURDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1993

No.

Return to: Barbara G. Ludwig

Northeast District Extension Director
1680 Madison Avenue
O A R D C Administration
Wooster, Ohio 44691
APPENDIX G

Round III

239
 240

T • H • E N o rth e a s t D istric t
1680 M ad iso n A v e n u e
A d m in is tra tio n B uilding, O A R D C
W o o ste r, O H 44691-4096

December 24, 1993 P h o n e 216-263-3831

216-263-3832
UNIVERSITY Fax 216-263-3667

Dear

Thank you tor your continued participation In this study. Once again, the suggestions (rom the last
questionnaireby yourself and otherswere aggregated. Based on the panel's ratings, consensus was reached
on nine statements. .

There were 42 statements on which consensus has not been achieved. On QuestionnaireIIIthose statements
are listed and statistical feedback Is provided in the form of the group response and your own individual
response. A summary of "reasons' given is included for each statement.

In this thirdquestionnaire, you are asked to:

1. Review allitems on the questionnaire. Comment on any items you wish.

2. Rerate the characteristics. On those statements where your finalranking varies more than two points from
the mode, please explain why you view the statement differentlyfrom other expert panel members.

3. Return your response Inthe enclosed, self-addressed, stamped envelope as soon as you can. Ifpossible,
Iwould like all questionnaires returned by January 8, 1994. An answer sheet which can be faxed Is
Included.

Allreplieswillbe kept confidential. When results ofthe study are available, Iwill share them withyou. Iwould
liketo express my appreciationto you foryour effortthrough appropriate acknowledgements. Please let me
know ifIshould not use your name In thisway.

Thankingyou inadvance,

Sincerely,

Bart________ e
Northeast DistrictDirector
Ohio State University Extension

T h e O h io S la te U n iv e rs ity , T h e U n ite d S ta le s D e p a rtm e n t o f A g ric u ltu re , a n d C o u n ty C o m m is s io n e rs C o o p era tin g

 241

If you’re saying to yourself, 'Well, rm very busy right

now. I’ll answer this and send it back as soon as I get a
round to i f . YOUR TROUBLES ARE OVER!

Here’s ’around tuit". Please complete the questionnaire

and send it back immediately. Keep the' ’TUIT’ handy,
it may prove helpful again or pass it along to a
procrastinator you know.

Thank you.
 Internationalizing
U.S. Extension Systems

Fall 1993

RO U N D III
 243

A Brief Overview of the Study

Extension systems across the country are being challenged to integrate

international perspectives into programs and assist staff and clientele in developing global
competency. For the past decade, national Extension leaders have encouraged state
Extension systems to Internationalize. This Interest appears to be the result of many
factors and Influences, both within and outside Extension and the university.

Few studies have been conducted related to internationalization of the extension

component of the land grant university system. None define Internationalizing in terms of
objectively verifiable indicators of success. A need exists to examine and Improve the
understanding of internationalizing of a state university extension system.

T h e p u r p o s e o f t h e s t u d y i s t o i d e n t i f y t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t w il l d e s c r i b e a n
INTERNATIONALIZED ST A T E EX T EN SIO N S Y S T E M .

Characteristics of Internationalization: The characteristics studied Include inputs,

processes, products, and outputs. Kaufman's (1983) model of Organizational Elements
was used as the basis for exploring the characteristics of Internationalization. Two
elements of the extension organization will be studied: organizational efforts and
organizational results.

Organizational efforts are comprised of Inputs and processes. Inputs are the existing
starting conditions affecting organizational activities. These include, but are not limited
to, human and physical resources, existing needs, goals and objectives, and policies.
Processes are the means, methods and procedures necessary for managing and
Implementing inputs. Organizational development, performance analysis and
requirements, In-service training, curriculum development and staffing patterns and
networking are examples.

Organizational results include products and outputs. Products are internal results
accomplished through application of inputs and processes. Learning materials developed,
reports completed, knowledge or skill acquired, services developed would be product
examples. Outputs are represented by services, goods and products delivered to
external clientele and the programming efforts made.
 244

Questionnaire III
Hi

Consensus was reach ed by your 15 m em ber pane! o f experts on nine Items on the
Round II Questionnaire. Please, rerate the Importance o f each Hem. Following
review and reflection on the comments of other expert panel members. Circle the
number corresponding to your rating. Your personal rating on each Item for Round
II Is Indicated by yellow highlighting. The ratings for a|I questionnaire items range
from ‘0* - No Importance to *6" - Critical Importance.

IF YOUR RATING VARIES TW O POINTS OR MORE FROM THE MODE, PLEASE

CLARIFY YOUR RATIONALE. A space is provided following each Item.

LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE
(Circle One)
Example:

5. Personnel evaluation systems recognize

International efforts as a critical component.

A rating of *4*,moderately high was the rating you Indicated on

Round IIand you have not modified your position. 0 1 2 3 © 5 6

Example:

5. Personnel evaluation systems recognize

International efforts a3 a critical component. 0 1 2 3 4 5 ©

A ratingof*4*moderately high was the ratingyou Indicated on Round II. You have modifiedyourpositionand
now Indicate your rating Is'6* which would Indicate critical Importance.
ORGANIZATIONAL INPUTS AND P R O C E SSE S
Laval ol Importance
(Clrcla Orit)
Your Round II rating on oach quoatlon la highlighted In yaltow.

Revtaw comments, reflect, and RESCORE aach question If your

viewpoint has modified. Plaasa clarify your position If your rating
I* 2 points or mors from tha moda sco ra ..

i i
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. The central m ission of th e Extension sy stem Includes 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

a commitment to international education.

2. A dm inistrators clearly com m unicate su p p o rt 0 1 2 3 4 -5 6

for internationalization.

3. A dm inistrators engage in experiences w hich 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

will internationalize their own professional lives.
 246

Com m ents m ade by m em bers of th e expert ' Frequency of R esponses

panel. Com m ents from Round II are printed . N = 13 V; ...
, In Italics. ’. :..... ;
Importance ' n ;-v : '
Level (Mode Is
circled) ;
1. 0 0
HTShJrt land grant mission, H la Implied that we prepare our students and citizens to bo active
1 0
participants In society and ocooomy. 77ioso aro IntomatJonat today}. Our society and economy aro
2 0
3 0
becoming mom global In nature.
4
Extension d o t not have a mandats to deliver educational programs In other countries, tt d ost, 5
however, nood to Incorporato International dimensions Into domestic programs. To accomplish tills 1 ®
2
Extension must bo Internationally engaged In developed and developing countries.
Yes, F 1 promotes understanding and capacity to operate In a global economy. Term needs to be
clarified and made more specific.
Tniamatfonal education* U too broad. Tm not sure tf you moan education about tha countries and
cyfci/M of how to do business wfth other countries, or International currant events, or?
There must ba a commltmant of tha organization.
Most do; not • should.
Globalization of agriculture and markets.
Two problems: (1) baste perhaps, not necessarily *centrar mission. (3) Not International
education In general so much a t International extension education Issues. ’
1 beCave many faculty, staff and administrators think of International s s a sort o f 4th dimension:
Teaching, Research, Extension & International We have seen structures th a t encourage that
coApartmentaOzation. If we are successful, we must Integrate International/global thought and
reaction patterns Into our basic mandate of Teaching, Research and Extension.

2. 0 0
Leadership must Inform any effort of Internationalizing extension. The organization must be
1 0
commlsed. 2 0
Must be action, nof Up service. 4 3
5 6
If Administrators do not communicate their support, faculty and staff vritl bo reluctant to participate
4
Commitment from the top Is always an Important factor for Incentives and motivation.
Mod do not state such

3. 0 0
Highly Important for administrators to be participants.
t 0
2
Critical 3 0
4 2
Yes, # 1, but should not just be 'jaunts* to other countries.
©
6 4
 LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE
ORGANIZATIONAL INPUTS AND PROCESSES (C ircle One)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

4. Policy and operating procedures facilitate 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

International program efforts.

5. Personnel evaluation system s recognize 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

international efforts.

6. Reward structure recognizes internationalization CONSENSUS

in its system of rew ards. T hese Include merit REACHED
adjustments, tenure, promotion, and peer -NO FURTHER
recognition. SCORING
REQUIRED
(Origin*! tU U m o n t R«w»rd structure r»cognls»t
Ini# m i ISon* n o tio n In tl* *yst*m of rtwrardt. Th«»#
Indud* m#rft adjustment*, tanura, tn d promotion.)
 248

C om m ents m ade by m em bers of th e expert ; ■: . Frequency of R esponses

panel. C om m ents from Round II a re printed N = 13
In I ta lic s .... :...
Importance * N.-:
- Level (Mode Is
circled)
4. 0 0
77i# purpose for Internationalizing extension must be d e a r and dearty stated.
1 0
2 0
Must be a part o f the operational procedures. 3 0
4 3
Again, this requires modification. Which International program* efforts?!
5
1
©
3

5. 0 0
Incentives/reward* for International Interests and effort a r t Imporativo to r Internationalization to 1 0
occur. 0

But they must bo recognhod In tho same way as other extension efforts. 4 4
5 2
This ts Important • but V h a fa In tt for mo typos* should not bo ovetty encourages.
S
©
People m utt b t rewarded before doing International work.
#5 and PS are the moat Im portant
Thi* la an otd fig h t can only be won K all the above la clearly exercised.

e. 0 0
1 0
The stmcture Is Important fog. P IT gu ld ollno s), but a pattom otm ortt/P&Tbotng awardod to thoso
involved In International work la Just as Im portant 0
3
t agree that Internal motivation and Interest • not Just external reword* aro Im portant 4 1
S
Some more structure needa to be put In place for the carrot to be there. It la not there y e t ®
5
Balance la alto needed - hard to know how reward ayatema are applied.
#S and PS are the moat Im portant
Suggeated rewording: Reward structure recognizes Internationalization In It* system b y Including
merit adjustments, tenure, and promotion.
•Not oceurrino now. but they should.
Critical!
1 marked *5* not *6* because some of the reward should come from Internal motivation, Interest!
Incentives are key, but International experiences must be considered to be an Integral part o f
everyday activities, rather than a separate domain of activity.
Visibility among peers.
A routine, annual process fo r highlighting accomplishments - so that others become aware o f this
productive stream of actM ty.
 LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE
ORGANIZATIONAL INPUTS AND PROCESSES
(Circle Orw)

Sight
I----- I-----1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

7. Faculty Increase their expertise by Interacting 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

with faculty and scholars from other cultures.

(Original tU la m a n t Faculty Incraaao axportJto In thatr own

domain by Interacting with faculty and achotan from othor
cultural.]

8. Professional Improvement activities Increase 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

knowledge of global Issues.
 250

Com m ents m ade by m em bers o f th e expert. . Frequency of R esponses

panel. Com m ents from Round II a re printed , N = 13 ; : .
... In Italics. .. ... . ............
Importance
Level (Mode Is
• circled)
7. 0 0
1 0
Helpful, but you’re really not there until you have t u c c id v t t y worked w/peera from other cultural
2 0
and jointly created something of worth.
3
Faculty should Increase their expertise. 4 1
5
Suggested rewording: delete *ln own domain*.
«
©
*ln their own domain* • This Is only o f ssvarsl ways, In somo arsas faculty wlU vlaw this as lass
desirable because tha foreign situation may ba far lass sophisticated. Faculty should be
aneouragad to raaeh outalda tha If araa of expertise — parsonal growth Is Just as vital.
Yes, but whars naadad Is Isnguaga training. Otharwlaa, sll 'Interactions* w ill ba with English
speaking countries. Tha question 1 ralsa In particular rafars to foralgn (1 should say othar)
lanouaoa trslnlno. Wa naad to learn eulturas and tha knowledoe o f anothar lanausae Is Its ftha
country’s) cultura at tha deepest lavaL
Suggested rawordlng: datata ‘ expertise In thalr own domain* and raplaca with *thalr gtobsl
parspactlva*.
As a first step, 1 think this typa of Interaction Is usaful to eraata swaranass and Interest
Intamatlonat Extension Information axehanga programs ean economize duplicated research
efforts.
Better linkages between research and extension through International collaboration.
How does UJS. Extension compare with othar systems • In developed and lass developed
countries? What are thalr products and services as compared with ours? What do wa have to
kam ? What do they have to learn?
•How are adult education and extension education finally merging In process orientation
(from Bnesr and responsive techniques to Interactive methods)?
'•Products can only be defined against a system’s mission and Its services against Its
methods. International study helps us learn more about the treasures of our systems and
also (sometimes) whars missing.

a. 0 0
1 0
Internationalprofessional Improvement
2
Working outslda our norma/ environment Is the key. 3 1
4
In-service training Is necessary to Increase awareness.
5
Not always, needs special planning. 8
©
2
#8 and #9 go together, never either one without the others.
Depends on the activities; care should be taken to Identify the best ones.
Uaybe need CElTs (Continuing Education Units) as In other professions?
Knowledge of global Issues OK. but lefs get focused on economic security Issues.
 LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE
.ORGANIZATIONAL INPUTS AND PROCESSES (Cird* On«)

I I I
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

9. Staff developm ent activities Increase skills In 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Internationalization.

10. Exchange program s with extension organizations

In other countries are institutionalized.
 252

C om m ents m ade by m em bers of th e expert Frequency of R esponses

panel. C om m ents from Round II are printed > N = 13
in Italics.
Importance
■ *Ueve! (Mode Is
•• v • ^ • ’ circled)
t. 0 0
Croa* culture an coonfers In our own backyards* Is a good starting place. tf extension staff show
1 0
apodal Interest In j/io th o r culture then an Investment In Infemat/onaJ travel could follow. 0
3 2
Knowledge of agricultural extension systems wortdwtds la needed, along with familiarity with trends 4
5
©
and Issues In Institutional evaluation of extension Infem it/onj//y. Why has extension developed 2
differently In other countries! 8 3
Depends on nature of development acthrftles.
Suggested rewording: Staff development activities Increase skills to help others gain better
International perspectives and experiences.
if conducted overseas.
Not always, needs special planning.
Not happening yet, should.
Suggested rewording: Staff development activities Increase akJIIa In International Issues.
Depends on tha aetlvltlaa; care ahould ba takan to Idantify tha b a tt ones.
#8 and #9 go together, never either ona without tha othar.
Depends, of eouria. on activities. Thay (tha activities) must ba fa it to ba needed.
#8 and #9 vary simitar. What ara International skills? Not vary elaar! 1 think Extension personnel
ahould ba knowtadgsabla about how othar eountrlaa Impaettha U.S. aconomy, eg., agriculture,
GATT, ate.
Mora, and more aaslly organized, opportunities for faculty agants to participate In, or laad, study
tours, especially In summer.

10. 0 0
Question 10 8 1 f mean essentially the same thing, but 1 prefer the wording In 011.
1 0
2 0
Important - long range g oa l 3 3
4 4
This Is ona wsy to gsln experience, but not tha only way.
5 ©
A climate of openness to such exchanges Is erltfcat. S 1
Wa ean team from them, but tha key Is to gat appropriate programming materials Incorporated
into tha state extension system.
Great Idas? Mutual exchange, mutual learning. Exchange should have a definite purpose: to
review tha organizational structure, for Instance: to develop series o f seminars for discussion and
exchange of Ideas on specific subjects, e.g. — food safety, NRM (natural resource management),
support services, linkage mechanisms, ate. Exchanges are probably good In and of themseh/es,
but best If planned with a strong and accountable purpose.
Institutionalized doe ant mean much until It Is operationalized. 1 think question #11 Is batter.
Extension systems (policy • organization operations) benefit from International developm ent
ORGANIZATIONAL INPUTS AND PROCESSES LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE
(Circle One)

UodwinyHbh
I I------- 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

11. Exchange program s with extension organizations 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

In other countries are planned and conducted on
an on-going basis.

12. The organization's best senior faculty/agents are 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Identified to participate In overseas assignm ents.
 254

Com m ents m ade by m em bers of th e expert - , Frequency of R esponses

panel. C om m ents from Round II a re printed ; .1; N = 1 3 ...
In Italics.
Importance V ;N
■Level . (Mode Is J
circled) • : j
11. 0 0
1 0
As cities hsva developed 'slste r-clty relationships, perhaps extension stats systems (or even
2 0
c o w Us*) could develop 'slster^exteoslon system* relationships.
9 o
This U on* way to gain experience, but not tha only way. 4
8
©
Suggested rewording: Daloto 'and regular*. 4
6 3
•On-going- • continuity overtime la vary Im portant
Craat tdaa • but wa (Americans) alao need to laarn othar languagaal
Vary Important If It can raaeh a sizeable numbar ovar tima. One/year la not too Im portant

iz 0 0
1 0
Suggest you substitute 'successful * fo r 'baxT,
2
1 stSS question the use o f *besT 9 2
4
Making an Investment Inlrecognlzlng meritorious faculty makes sense to me.
.©
Delete tha word 'senior*. Don't send oversees the deed wood - a frequent problem where « 1
Department Heads want to shift s liability overseas.
rm not aura I know what 'baafm aana. Parhapa a mora daacrfpUv* adjective could ba utad.
Suggaatad rawordlng: Tha organization's aanlor faculty ara aalactad to participata In ovaraaaa
assignments.
Doesn't alwaya hava to ba tha boat people, maybe thay Just naad a naw experience.
Hot juat 'aanlor* • In fa c t wa onan ara too aanlor.
Young aa wall a * experienced agents/faculty ahould ba Involved.
Bast faculty Jr. or Sr.
•Senior faculty/aganta* • Yes, BUT. raward aystama ahould ba modified ao that untanurad and
Junior faculty/aganta can participata and atiU build credit toward promotion.
Clarifying way to datarmlna 'beat aanlor* would ba im portant I faat tha word aanlor Is
Inappropriate. Ara wa rawardlng longevity?
Hot aura about this ona • what do wa mean by 'b ea r?
Shows Institutional comm itment but seldom la tha case. This la a good Indication of International
commitment
At this point on (Item 2), I fa it that many of tha Q*a w ar* an overlap o f each other, or redundant
because ao elosefy Interdependent on responses to O'a asked In tha earlier parts.
 255

LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE
ORGANIZATIONAL INPUTS AND PROCESSES • (C lre l. O n .)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

13. Tha organization's b est Junior faculty/agents are 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Identified to participate In overseas assignm ents.

14. Financial support for Internationalizing activities Is 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

available.

15. A d atab a se of extension personnel with 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

International experience, Interest, and language
capabilities exists.
 256

C om m ents m ade by m em bers of the expert Frequency of R esponses

panel. C om m ents from Round II are printed N = 13
In Italics.
Importance 7 V nV ?
r Level (Mode Is
-/circled) ■
is. 0 0
1 0
Suggsst you svbsiHuto *succstsful * to r 'b e e f
2
This silll worries ms. I have eeen msny Junior Is cutty g»t their careers dsrsUsd duo lo sn 3 i
Jnfemat/onaf assignment 4 0
5
Yes, prep young staff for continuous In and out International Involvement
e ®
2
OK, but should get their program going fir s t
Again, fm not sure what *b«st* means.
Probably more Important than senior faculty, but worry about P A T .
Delete the word "best*.
Ditto #12 • best faculty Jr. or Sr.
Same concern as with #12 • clarifying way to determine 'beat* would be Im portant The word
Junior Is Inappropriate.
This worries me. Faculty/agents need to got tenured/established before they get too enamored
with International work.

14. 0 0
1 0
EssonilsL ff needs to be vfewed a s s key investm ent not just something we do when extra J are
avaOib/e.
3 • 0
Needs to be there In S to be successful. 4 2
6
It needs to be financial, but It could be funding from grants. ®
6 4
The question Is how much support
U w ont happen without some resources.

15. 0 0
1 0
Dsspsrststy needs fo be advanced.
2
Database needs to be maintained and used, exist Is not enough 3 2
4
Databases can be dark horses - OK, but only a toot - not the answer.
5
®
Yes, but It too needs to have ■ clear purpose and utility. 6 1
OK to have, but mainly useful In Identifying people for overseas projects.
 257

L E V EL O F IM PO R TA N C E
ORGANIZATIONAL INPUTS AND PROCESSES (cifd. oM )

I I i
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

16. A person(s) is Identified to provide leadership to 0 1 2 .3 4 5 6

internationalizing efforts.

17. A com m ittee(s) Is established to guide 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Internationalization efforts.

18. P roposals for international work are developed CONSENSUS

and funded. REACHED
-NO FURTHER
SCORING
REQUIRED
 258

C om m ents m ade by m em bers of the expert Frequency of R esponse ]

panel. C om m ents from Round II are p r i n t e d / / / / / / / N = 13/ ; |
; In Italics. .................
Importance j
' ■ Level • (Mode Is
. : ::'-v ■ ....... circled) •
a 0 0
1 0
Very neces aary.
2 o
Some central contact point needed, even If responsibilities are decentralised. 3 0
4 3
Wore support for Individuals.
8 $
A kay p o in t tha 'right* parson has to ba Identified. 8 8
Yes, and not Just tha College of Ag directors of OIP*s.

17. 0 0
1 0
This may broadan Invo/vsment.
2
Committee is mors useful In d ^ v io p ln g criteria fo eva/uafe ftcufty performance In infamaf/ona/ 3 3
programs. H U o i UmHod use In determining directions. 4 5
5 .
Yas ©
e ‘ 0
D o d hang too much hops on committees.
Committees lake too much time. Committees hava Ilmllad view of situations.
Kay ones again to hava tha 'right* psopla on tha committee.
Good Idas.

18. 0 0
1 0
Yu
2 0
Dapands how tha organisation oparatas • 'proposals' saam vary format. 9 0
4 3
WShout this, frs *aD talk and no action*.
s ©
For Initiates, aarty sueeasa Is vary important. « 0
Yas, but again not for thsir own saka and not without knowing what othar universities and
consultants. International and bilateral organisations, ara doing and hava dona - an omission of
knowledge too oftan tha ease.
 259

ORGANIZATIONAL INPUTS AND PROCESSES LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE

(C ircle One)

I------- 1------- 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

19. The organization culture expects International 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

activity.

20. Extension Is Involved with International 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

development activities.
 260

Com m ents m ade by m em bers of th e expert . . ^ Frequency of R esponse

panel. C om m ents from Round II are printed N = 13
* ‘ iI n
n Iitalics
tn lln a ’ ^ <
......v_.-v.v-
Importance
•<- .
Level (Mode Is
circled) >■*
19. 0 0
1 0
Statement is tCO vague. / suggest this Horn bo de/#fed_tf H m N n t whal / think H w h*t wUJ
2 0
you do Yrtth tho Into? i t H n /c t to know o r necessary to know?
3 «•
Should bo port of mission statement 4 2
S
Tho key i t incentive system w hh h should, b ut wilt not necessarily correspond lo organization ®
culture. I 4

This may not always bo true.

7 Organization eutture expects International activity.
Suggested rewording: Tho organization culture demands International activity.
Yes - redundant questions.
Tha b att way to chango tho social norma I t to ta t up tha program and Invott tho resources. A lto ,
not Just any International activity.
Ona of tha major problam t with tha auecataful Internationalization of Cooporativa Extanalon la
lack of recognition that tntarnational content, activities, ate. ara an Intagrat part of what cllantala
naad. Inataad tho davalopmant assistance mentality prevail* which continuaa to Identify within
extension International a t aomethlng aaparato and different from what faculty aro auppoaad to do.
Our rataarch which Included data from 1&3 roaaarch universities Indicated that faculty
experiences (profatatonal experience* In a foreign setting); resource*; and supportive
administrators are tha 3 most Important variables fo r successful Internationalization. Faculty need
to know,loam about tha potentials o f International programs and activities to enhance tho quality,
relevance and Impact of thalr programs/responsibilities.

2a 0 0
Extension should focus on domestic sppltestlons o f know/edge acquired from Intomstlons! 1 0
id frtlis x . Extension Is not USAID. 2 0
3 A
e
in tho psst this was vory Important, and wttl probably romsln an Important window to gain 4 0
International experiences, however, tha tuturo foralgn policy agenda w ill emphasize economic 5
advantage for the U.S. rathor than defense, and torolgn asslstanco programs wIP chango C
®
4
accordingly.

In practical terms, this Is ono of the tow waya to got Imdopth oxposo fo r pooplo from our system.
Kacosaary for an Extension program of tha 21st century.
Vary broadly speaking: Institution building projects, training, consulting, research, extension .
outieaeh.
Obviously • not a core question/reword.
This Is ons avenue to Internationalize; a very Important one.
Otto • redundant question.
Development projects are okay, but not the erlUcal eoncern of Extension vls*a»vis our clientele.
U.S. Universities have a long history In development projects, but 1 think Extension needs to focus
on economic security Issues, broadly defined. 1 don't think we have many people In our college
who can even begin to address these Issues. No wonder Extension has nothing to pass along to
ft* cSenlele. Lets do some capacity building In areas that w ill make a difference In our people.
 261

LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE
ORGANIZATIONAL INPUTS AND PROCESSES (c w * 0n*>

i i l
0 1 2 3 4 S 6

21. Opportunities for International experiences are 0 1 2 3 4 5 S

provided for faculty.

(Original sta ttm an t InUmatfonat axpariancM ara provided for

faculty.]

22. Opportunities for International experiences are 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

provided for adm inistrators.

[Original aSattmant; Intamatlona! axporfancn ar#

provided for administrators.)

23. International experiences are provided for CONSENSUS

county agents who do not have faculty statu s. REACHED
-NO FURTHER
SCORING
[Original Inlarnational axp«rianc.a a r . providad REQUIRED
for no<vfacuJry agonta.]
 262

Com m ents m ade by m em bers of th e expert Frequency of R esponses I

panel. Com m ents from Round II a re printed
• : In Italics. - .
n = 1 3 ;; ; r . I
Importance .. . n j
; . Level (M odels I
circled); I
21. 0 0 '
1 0
Faculty should also flnd their own opportunities*
2 0
A m ust 3 0
4
Lets not provide the experience, tsrs do provids the opportunity. Ths opportunity provides the ®
experts nee.
5 4
s . 2
Reword: •Sought by*!!? to replace 'provided for*.

performance.
Comment 1 dont think you ir e gM ng enough attention to Extension's capacity to generate
Extension messages. We assume H Extension personnel get exposed they wtli pass K along.
Actually they are .0001 o f the International scene when they go abroad, TT\at wets the appetite,
but you must give them the material If you want them to carry out effective International programs.

22. 0 0
More Important for faeutty.
1 0
0 I
A must 3 0
4 3
#21*23 - Important for a ll The w ord'provided* worries me. How about encouraged, supported,
tadSUUd?
5 ® ‘
6
Lets not provide the experience, le fs do provide the opportunity. The opportunity proves the
experience.
Reword: "Created by*!!? to replace 'provided for*.

23. 0
1
0
0
AJf ot our agents are faculty members.
2
Ghren the degree of domestic Isolation resident In our agent population, this Is essential. 3 1
4 5
Rewording: Opportunities for International experiences are provided fo r county agents who do not
5
hare faculty status.
<
®
1 don't know what a 'non*facufty agent* is* 1 d o n t think we have such a category.
Yes.
Lefs not provide the experience. le ts do provide the opportunity. The opportunity provides the
experience.
 LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE
ORGANIZATIONAL INPUTS AND PR O C ESSES
(Clrcfct On*)

I I I
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

24. Human and physical reso u rce s ara allocated to 0 1 2 3 4 5 $

support th s Integration of International activities
In the overall Institution effort.

[Origin*] B taU m tnt H um tn and physical r« sourest srs

tOocstod to tntsmattonst sctMtlsa.)

25. Regular encouragem ent/accom m odation of 0 1 2 3 4 5 $

visitation by sch o lars from other countries
' occurs.

A. Extension clientele support Incorporation of 0 1 2 3 4 5 $

international concepts Into on-going localized
program s.

B.. Extension clientele support Extension agents/faculty

conducting educational program s In oth er countries.
 264

Com m ents m ade by m em bers of th e expert Frequency of R esponse I

panel. Com m ents from Round 11 are printed V N = 13 j
In Italics. ....
Importance N. j
Level (Mode Is' |
circled) ' I

3*. 0 0
1 0
Yu.
2
Suggested rewording: Human and physical resources ars allocated to support the Integration of 3 0
lntamatfonal activities In the overall Institution s h o rt 4 3
5
Ths qusstlons {19-24} seem redundant to ms.
6
®
3
Yssl

25. 0 0
1 0
Not Just sehotars • administrators, clientele, govsrnmsnt officials, etc.
2
For msny staff whoss psrsonai situations preclude extensive travel, visits ars THE critical link. 3 0
4 s
fm not happy wtth word 'regular*. Suggested rewording: sustained.
5 ©
Suggested rewording: Regular encouragement/accommodation *snd support*.. 6 2 [
But, they must also be programmed to benefit our extension program.
But with a purpose: scholars must lecture, engage In field trips, analyze system, structure,
problems, etc.

A. 0
0 I
1
Good Hem. International work In exfens/on needs fo be s mutual s/rangemenf whereby our °
constituents and overseas partners bene/7L
3
It Extension wtB focus on domestic applications this wlU be much eas/er. It Is essential fo sustain 4
®
the program. 5
6
1
5
Suggested rewording? Extension c//enfe/e *do n o t oppose incorporation* o f International concepts
info on-going localised programs. • This woo/d permit educations/ procsss fo beg/n; do n ot
support does not necessarily mean oppose.

Support from clientele.

The tie between International plaees/marketa/cultures/extenslon personnel and stale constituents,
farm famines, urban dwellers. Industry, etc. must be made or It wlU be politically difficult to
maintain.*

B. 0 0
1 0
Probaby extension ei/enfeie in reatlty, af the membenf, would not support their extension agents
2
being away from their Jots tor extended periods ot time, however Its Important that agents sharo °
their expertise in other countries. In the long run, everyone w ill be a winner.
4 4 I
Also support specialists from other countries fo conduct educations/ programs on exfens/on tor S 4
Americans. 8 2
Extension agents conducting educational programs overseas is not a necessary condition, (Input or
process} to infemstions/be the system.
Support from cOenteta.

■
 265

LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE
ORGANIZATIONAL INPUTS AND PROCESSES
(Clrcl* O n*)

I I l
0 12 3 4 5 6

C. Faculty Increase their understanding of oth er 0 1 2 3 4 5 $

cultures through Interaction with International
students and scholars.

D. Faculty/agents Interact with faculty In oth er 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

schools who are Involved In International
projects.

E. Extension faculty/agents recognize the CONSENSUS

relationship betw een basic International REACHED
Issues {e.g. knowledge of International -NO FURTHER
agriculture, commitment to human SCORING
development, significance of privatization) REQUIRED
and the Extension m ission.
 266

Com m ents m ade by m em bers of th e expert Frequency of R esponses

panel. Com m ents from R ound II are printed , n = 1 3 ,
In Italics. : „--y ;
Importance ' ‘ N
Level (Mode I s '
circled)';.
c. 0 0
1 0
Uo<i faeulty Interaction wfth a broad-base of International students - Those outside agriculture • 4
paired by personal Interest, o.g. music, ate. 0
3 2
4 4
5 3
< 4

0. 0 0
1 0
Suggested rewordfog: Facurty/agenU Interact with /aeu/fy/aganU in olher school* who are Involved 4
* 0
In inlematfona/ projects.
3 2
Opportunities for extension faculty/agents to Interact wfth faeufty In othar achoola Invofvad In 4 3
Inlamatfonal projects -e.g. Education (CETE), Business, Engineering, Biological Sciences. 6
©
6 1
Project leader* from other achoola (education, ale.) regularly seek Ezlanalon participation In thalr
International projects.
Larger Intamational programa on campua ara awara and aupportiva o f CES IntamaUonaL

£. 0 0
1 0
Suggaxfad rewording; £rfanx/on faeu/fy/agenfs •appreciate* the«
2 o
7hi* aho d d ba the tin t sfep In the process. 3 0
4 1
And tha reiat/onshlp between Jnfemat/on#/ ogrfcutturo deve/opmenf and the hearth oi tha I/.S. j
sg/icuttuni economy.
6
©
A recognition of basic Intamational tssuaa ra ttle d to extension mission: knowledge of
International agriculture, commitment to human development (see UNDP's U st three annual
reports on Human Development and the significance o f the debate on *pr!vati2ationa and the
experiences of extension services (e.g. public extension services) In seeking new ways of funding
services. These International Issues must ultimately affect organizational efforts and results.
Think more about the ooals and oblectivee of Internationalization, not fust aettina to know each
other - although this la part o f the mission.
ORGANIZATIONAL PRODUCTS AND SERVICES
Laval of Importance
(Circle Cna)

Your Round U rating on aach quaaUon It hlghllghtod In yatlow. ...

Ravtaw comments, reflect, and RESCORE each question K your *'

viewpoint has modified. Plaasa clarify your position If your -
rating !s 2 points or mora from tha mode score.

r 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

26. Educational program s planned by Extension CONSENSUS

help clientele se cu re a better understanding REACHED
of com plex worldwide Issues. -NO FURTHER
SCORING
REQUIRED

27. Clientele develop a fundam ental und erstan d in g CONSENSUS

of global and national Interdependence. REACHED
-NO FURTHER
SCORING
REQUIRED
 268

C om m ents m ad e by m em bers of th e expert Frequency of R esponse

panel. Com m ents from Round II are printed : N = 13
In Italics
Importance V •.
Level . (Mode Is
circled)
it 0 0
This I ocjI usidwxiandtng Is gr*atly naodad.
i 0
o
This comment says It s tt Exfens/on typically tries fo 6* responsive to /oca/ needs. But taw people a 0
racogntia s need for Intamational 'education*. This Is where International education needs 4 0
Iejrfe<»Mp from extension programmers who csn see a need that may bo Invlslbla to tha g a n a n l S
®
population 1 s
They need to took at things from a global perspective as wall.
Suggested rewording: Educational program ! planned by Extension help ellantala secure an
understanding of complex worldwide Issues.
Tha objective of Internationalizing extension must ba that of halplng ellantala undarstand tha
global marketplace and tha cultural context In which ft Is embedded. This la tha daalrad ouleoma.
Yes, but tha programs must Include travel to (work) assist In projacta abroad.
Intamational Extension programs cont/Ibuta to tha naads of American ellantala.
Think human health, tha environment, renewable resources and regional development as a basis
for advancing concerns wfth tha International arena. What’s In International understanding of
International eg, human development, and agricultural support service development
("privatization*) that ean/wfll Impact tha American people? What Is tha Importance o f AJOs to
agriculture and agricultural development (Health)? What Is the Importance of human development
elsewhere for American trade? etc. ate.
Extension typically tries to be responsive to local needs. But few people recognize a need for
International 'education*. This Is where International education needs leadership from extension
programmers who can see a need that may be Invisible to the general populace.

ar. 0 0
0
They need to look at things from a global perspective as well.
2 p
II must Include Interdependence and connections to local Issues. a 0
4 0
Review the CICHE project] Why did It die?
6 2
Similar to Q. 26. tt you understand the complex Issues, you w ill understand Interdependence. 6
©
 LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE
ORGANIZATIONAL PRODUCTS AND SERVICES 0m)

28. Extension educational program s offered to 4-H 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

members help develop International aw areness.

[O rijb u t cteUmont: D«v«topm»ni of International

i w i r » n i i i by 4-H m*mb#r» ra tu tU from Extension

29. Rural clientele are targeted for educational 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

programming related to the current International
marketplace.

note • a)»o roter lo Item K on pogo 18.}

 270

C om m ents m ade by m em bers of th e expert Frequency of R esponses

panel. C om m ents from Round II are printed N a 13
: In Italics ........ .
Importance . N ,..:/’ - ’
. ■■ r . ' .■ V '-' ■-:V . \ ■■ " /VLevel (Mode I s "
circled ) ' !
21. 0 0
1 0
The parents i l u j bonodt from tholr c h fltft education.
2
The effort* of 4-H In this area nood to bo n efw oried with others who provldo youth education. Aro 3 0
4-H feeders lo off or looming In this area? 4
®
Not Just rural
5 2
1 5
Import*rtf (or youth - coming generations to learn Intamational.
Somewhat vague. 77 International awareness.
Stronger than 'awaranaaa*, prap for Ufa In an Interdependent world, careers, tntaraction skills, ate.
This Is not claar to ma.
Thia It tha FUTURE.
Oavatoplng world perspectives for naw ganaratlona has to ba lop priority. Youth ara tha futura.
Begins here.

29. 0 0
Yfhy torgot Yuraf cllontolo?
1 0
2
1 ogroo thot this should not bo restricted to rural pooplo. H Is needed by a ll and Extension should 3 0
provfdo K. 4 2
5
Ma/tstptace, a t It Is usad hara could ba too narrow. In tha classical economics sansa,
€
®
marketplace could also Include a plaea o f trade, Information, natural resources, culture goods and 4
Missing 1
services.
Not Just rural, general public.
D oetnl have to ba Just rural. Urban people should ba targeted as w a ll
t have difficulty wfth word 'rural* • too limiting. Suggested rewording: P roduction* clientele—
This should also Include 'urban* ellantala, although their Uvellhood may ba lass critically In
balance.
important!
It has bean difficult for agricultural producers to understand that International marketing Is more
than finding a buyer overseas. It takas careful study o f needs, product 'shaping* to fit a niche,
and tha Intareultural personal skilla to conclude agreements. We have generally bean
unsuccessful In assisting our agricultural ellantala In this area.
ORGANIZATIONAL PRODUCTS AND SERVICES L£VEL 0 F IMPORTANCE
(C lrd a On*)

I----- r---- 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

30. Educational programs Increase participant's 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

understanding of other cultures.

31. Training programs are provided forforeign 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Immigrants living Inthe United States.

32. U.S.and foreign cltl2en exchange 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

occurs.

{Origin*! abtamont: Pairing o f U.S. and foralgn

group* to t cttizvn tzehangoa occur*.]
 272

Com ments m ade by m em bers of th e expert Frequency of R esponses

panel. C om m ents from Round II are printed . N = 13 . v
In Italics. ; ■'
Importance C J .N S .S -,
Level r (Mode;*ls'L
•y -
- ■: ■:■■■ •/ clrcled)^'-

30. 0 0
1 0
£fpecbOy ne i l l a t i o n educrt/on
Very important This I* (/>• m m o m of d tv n tty *n d piunllsm . 3 0
4
Yes.
8
©
4
Yes, but also fscRHata Interacting across cultures, 6 3
Nice, but r>ot essential
International Extension programs ars essential fo r broadening cflsntsts knowledge o f other
cultures.

31. 0 0
1 0
If targeted to specific programming Dke EFNEP, etc.
2
YES. 3 1
4 4
Important
5
Is n l extension the logical provider? 6
©
a. we were all Immigrant* when we started. 0
b. the network and Infrastructure are In place.
1 am not aure this Is a major task except as a resource.
Plan end encouraoe. assist - not provide. Do you really mean 'provided to tmmtarants*?
Immigrants are already Internationalized. Perhaps more Important Is how to use them to make
others more globally aware.
What Und of fralnlng programs? Ag Dteraey? Ag education? Food safety? NRM (water
quality)? Need to think goals and programs. Remember the Ufetong Learning Act of 1976 (The
'Mandate Act-) failed because It d id n l have elearty targeted Institutional programs that Congress
could relate to!

32. 0
1
0
This Is one way.
2 2
0
Suggested rewording: U.S. and foreign citizen exchange occurs. 3 3
4
Lota of agencies already do. Can be over planned. Micro management w ill k ill ®
8
Not sure about 'groups', certainly Individuals; and occasionally groups. 6 1
Useful, but not critical.
 273

ORGANIZATIONAL PRODUCTS AND SERVICES LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE

(ClrcJ* On#)

I I---------------- 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

33. Key leaders participate In Interdisciplinary 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

International experiences.

34. Extension ed ucators a s sist com munities In building 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

a se n se of responsibility for w ise u se of natural
resources In the context of global trends.

35. Specific groups (i.e. commodity groups) are 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

targeted for public policy education on global
decision-making.

36. Extension educational program s within the U.S. CONSENSUS

stre ss th e Impact of International econom ic forces REACHED
on agricultural m arkets. -NO FURTHER
SCORING
REQUIRED
 274

C om m ents m ade by m em bers of th e expert Frequency of R esponse

panel. C om m ents from Round II a re printed N = 13 -
in Italics -
Importance N
Level (Mode is
' circled) -
0
Why IntordUclpflntry? I agree tfu f Intordtadpftnary experience* ere usefu/, but betfeve th tt ih • 0
irrtemetiooaI It tire most Im portant 0
1
Yet. 1
Interdisciplinary • cross cutting is critical. 5

Critical.
©
Cars must ba given to crafting appropriate experiences.
With s purpose! Or else participation leads to Uttie.
Leaders have to be convinced first.

34. 0
YVh/ch commun/tie* • domestic or foreign? 0
0
Yes. 2
This Is important, BUT not a dimension o f Intem ationatlation for me.
2

Probably critical for extension In the future.

©3
Yes! A specific program goal!!

35. 0 0
/ xtiB don't understand *gtobt! decIs/on m tU ng0 [ no rating indicated on tire question/
1 0
And o tte r markets • not Juxt Ag
2 0
3 1
What Is ‘ global decision making?” 4 2
An Interesting item. I’ll be arudous to see the responses.
5
6 ©4
They are one group. Missing 1
This might bring public policy education out from under. Good.
Agree.

34. 0
Global market • Important
0
0
Yes. 1
Global economics and global markets. 0
1
An Interesting Item. I will be arudous to see the responses.
©
This Is central to effective U.S. participation In global economy.
For clientele who depend on agriculture for their livelihood, this Is o f utmost importance.
Definite tyl
In addition, Extension should help our clientele to understand how bettsr to exploit economic
opportunities overseas.
 LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE
ORGANIZATIONAL PRODUCTS AND SERVICES (CIrck On.)

I I l
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

37. Extension educational program s within th e U.S. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

present th e underlying ca u se s of hunger and
poverty In other nations and the effect on U.S.
citizens.

(Ortgtnal sU U m snt Extension oducadorval programs

within tha U.S. prasorU tha underlying eausaa of hungar
and poverty In developing nations and oftect on U*$.
eltixsnt.)

38. Extension educators Incorporate International CONSENSUS

perspectives Into on-going educational REACHED
activities. -NO FURTHER
SCORING
REQUIRED

39. Linkage agreem ents a re developed with 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

International counterparts.

Extension clientele Interact with visiting sch o lars CONSENSUS

and students to becom e more globally aw are. REACHED
-NO FURTHER
SCORING
REQUIRED
 276

Comments made by members ofthe expert Frequency ofResponses

panel. Comments from Round I
Iare printed N = 13 V r ' - v '
InItalics
Importance N. .
Level (Mode1 IsV
circled)

97. • 0 0
1 0
1 do not feet we u n do this (present the underlying causes] alone, Km loo lim ited In view o t work
2 o
Suggested rewording: Extension educational p rogram ! wtthln tha U.S. show tha underlying 3 1
ca u ta t ot hunger and poverty In other nations and Ha affect on U.S. citizens. 4 s
S 5
Hmml This la a tough one to do effectively.
« 1
Can we do thla? 1 feat wa can handle "effect on U.S.” Misting 1
Only If thla Is a mission, and K looks as though H la becoming one.
1 don't think many people care that much. Bleeding heart liberals don't hold away with moat
people - HR the Bread and Butter Issues to get people's attention.

M. 0 0
1 0
1 think academic faculty are already doing so. Note the AIAEE • Association for International
Agriculture and Extension Education.
3
Good to do, but 1 think we need a strong International thrust that deals with economic security 4 t
Issues. S 4
4
©

39. 0 0
1 0
Legitimizes In tfactio n .
2 o
Depends how formal this la? Formality is not necessary. 3 2
4
Agreements are pieces of paper • people w orking together on mutually beneficial activities Is the ®
goal
f 2
Depends w hatVhlch linkage agreements.
Important to regularize exchange programs.

F. 0 0
1 0
For many agents, th/s may be a primary veh/e/e to /nfemat/ona/tze (become more globslty aware.)
2 o
Our universities ars fu ll ot graduate students and visiting scholars that cooce/vab/e could enhance 3 0
global awareness tf they were appropriately Invltod to Interact with Extsnston clientele. 4 6
Furthermore, fm not too sure It Extension clientele *ln general are Interested In enhancing their S 6
global awareness. Of course there are exceptions. Perhaps generating clientele Interests should s 1
be parf ot the Extension m/as/on.
tt may not be possible to provide sufficient International experience to large groups o f Individuals.
However, we need to use International resources at our disposal • students, visiting scholars, etc.
more effectively to make clientele more globally aware. They are a low cost program option. The
key is to decide how effectively to use them.
 277

LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE
ORGANIZATIONAL PRODUCTS A N D SERVICES (cird. On.)

I I i
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

G. Urban clienteleare targeted for educational 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

programming relatedtothe current
International marketplace.

H. U.S. extension Information Is disseminated- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

to people Inother nations.

(Original cUUmanb Dlaaamlnation o f U.S. axtantlon

Information I t axtantiod to poopfo In othor nation*.]

I
. Community development programs adapt Ideas 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
from International models.

J. Local business persons are trained forparticipation 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

InInternational markets.

K. Extension promotes Interagency cooperation on 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

International initiatives.
 278

Comments mado by members ofthe expert Frequency ofResponses

panel. Comments from Round I
Iare printed N = 13
InItalics.
Importance 'N
Level (Mode Is
circled)

c. 0 0
1 0
As well aa rural clientele.
2
This shoo/d be rural and urban or Just clientele. 3 2
4 S
eommanta In Kom #29
5
®
1 0

H. 0 2
1 1
Doas not h a w much to do with procoaa In this country.
2 2
Ditaamlnation, Intamational Extension Information can ba umM to paopla In many nation*. 3 2

5
®
6 2

L 0
1
0
Rural davatopmant (change processes) adapt Ideas from International
2
0
3 I
Economic davalopmant • broadly • benefits from the modals and experiences o f others. 3
A
Developing community-wide International awareness/lnteresVUnkages (raduclng Isolation, ©
ethnocentrlsm}.
e 3

J. 0
1
0
tm not c /a ir whose mission this Is - surely Its Important - but should CBS cooperate with tho °
Collage ot Business In thla context?
3 2
Training of local businesses for Intamational participation. 4 1
S ©
4 3

K. 0 0
In our system our Intamational program office handles this. 1 don't think this la extension's
1
comparative advantage.
3 0
Should thara ba any Itsmc that raflact tha naad for FAO/UN Inputs? 4 4
S 3
Promoting linkages across organizations and aganclas on Joint Intamational andaavors (NGO's
stata aganclas, ate.}.
Missing 1
 LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE
ORGANIZATIONAL PRODUCTS AND SERVICES (Clrcl* On*)

I I------- 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

L. Sensitivityto diversity Issues by Extension 2 3 4 5 6

clienteleIsenhanced.
 280

Comments made by'mernbers ofthe isxpeit.-^.^VV Frequency ofResponses

panel. Comments from Round 1 1are printed. ;. N s 13 ..
.>:
'■
•InItalics. .. . . .
.. ■,. .:
Importance
Level * (Mode Is
circled)

L 0 0
Suggasiad m ro rdln g: SanaltMty to d fra n lty Uauaa by Extanalon staff and ellantala la anhancad.
1 0
2 t
G ru U r M nsttvfty t
otftvofttty wtthin th« i t i U . 3 ■
2
4 3
5 2
e
©
 Please return in the envelope provided by

MONDAY, JANUARY 8,1994

No.

Return to: Barbara G. Ludwig

Northeast District Extension Director
1680 Madison Avenue
OARDC Administration
Wooster, Ohio 44691
 282

Comments from Round III

ORGANIZATIONAL EFFORTS

1.
These two comments say it all [repeating from Round II]:
"Within land grant mission, it is implied that we prepare our
students and citizens.... and I believe many faculty, staff
and administrators think of international as a sort of 4th
dimension..."

2.
In general they do not, but administrators need to clearly
communicate and provide resources. My previous response
related to what they now do, not what needs to be done.

3.
Again, response (previous) relates to what they do. This
response relates to what needs to occur if
internationalization is to be effective.

4.
Response (current) relates to what needs to occur, not what
actually occurs. Previous response related to what now
occurs.

5.
Repeat of 4 above.

10 .
In the "basket" of professional improvement activities that
lead to internationalization of extension educators, exchange
programs represent a moderately important element. I believe
there are many elements of such professional improvement and
d o n ’t want to rate exchanges any higher for fear that it might
be viewed as a panacea for internationalization. They are
not, in my opinion.

I suggest you delete item #10 and use item #11. Both
essentially mean the same and I tend to prefer the wording in
#1 1 .
 283

Organizational Efforts (continued)

10. (continued)
Not clear what exchange programs mean - faculty, students,
clientele, all?? Exchange programs for all can be beneficial
one of multiple ways of impacting internationalization.

11 .
See #4

12 .
Suggest rewording: The organization demonstrates the
priority placed on international activity by its willingness
to commit scarce resources, i.e. its best senior
faculty/agents, to participate in international assignments.

? "best"

Until criteria for "best" has been determined, I have

problems.

Important, but not what happens now. A an example, for

development activities (projects) the poorest performing
faculty are frequently approved for participation, not the
best. Need to have involvement of the best for multiple
reasons.

13.
See number 12 (Suggested rewording)

? "best"

Same as above (#12)

Not what happens now. Need to involve junior faculty. Not

clear about definition of "best".

14.
Budget allocations are the clearest signal of priorities an
organization can send to its staff. Thus this is critical.

See #4 above.

15.
Helpful but often impractical. Rather than maintaining
such a data base, it is often just as easy to distribute
international opportunity announcements via e-mail to ALL
extension personnel...thus not excluding those that didn't
express an interest during the latest info collection round.
 284

Organizational Efforts (continued)

19.
Very important. Again not current.

20.
Provides one of multiple mechanics for faculty involvement.

21.
Critical for success because impacts faculty/agent
development and understanding.

24.
See #4.

A.
Extension is a partnership. Traditionally it has been
county, state and federal. In the future it may be county,
state, federal and international . We can't ignore our local
constituent base as we expand to embrace the world. We must
do it with them not for them.

If programs are to succeed in convincing those who are

ambivalent regarding international, they work best from
successful local programs that are already on-going. Start
with people "where they are" and move them into international.

B.
This is helpful but not critical.

C.
See 25. It's the easiest way to internationalize.

D.
Other than ag? Other universities? Assume means within
the University.
 285

ORGANIZATIONAL RESULTS

28.
I now understand this item and need to lower my rating. In
my opinion, extension programs offered to 4-H members do not
adequately develop international awareness amongst 4-H
members.

If global awareness is not developed in the 4-H program,

then where?

30.
What else should they do, regarding international. What
else th e r e .

See comment on item # 28.

This is critical to global thinking.

32.
I question the feasibility and political support for using
public funds for such exchanges on a large scale. It is
already underway without extension help and should probably
not be pursued.

33.
If this were reworded to drop "interdisciplinary" I would
score it a "5". The purpose of this study has to do with
internationalization. While interdisciplinary approaches
certainly have a role to play in international work there are
also many other tools and approaches needed for success.
I think this is the way to make "it" work.

35.
Go with (Play to) someone's self-interest.

39.
Replace "linkage agreements" with "Collaborative
arrangements" - not necessarily formal Mace. Formality is not
necessary. Agreements are pieces of paper - people working
together on mutually beneficial activities is the goal.

Linkage agreements legitimizes interactions. However, if

there are no funds to enable extension agents or faculty to
interact, then linkage agreements lose their importance.

G.
I would score it "5" if it said urban and rural.

Suggested rewording: "Urban and rural..."

 286

Organizational Results (continued)

I.
This form of reverse technology (or methodology) transfer
is more important than is readily evident. We have
successfully used LDC's as testing grounds for such programs
and have used the results in the US.

I just don't see any connection. Obviously others see

something that I don't.

J.
Local agribusiness persons are trained for participation...
[repeating round II comment]: I'm not clear whose mission this
is — surely it's important...

K.
I buy the argument that [repeating round II comment] - In
our system our international program office handles this. I
don't think this is extension's comparative advantage.
 APPENDIX H

General Comments by Delphi Panel

287
 288

Round II Comments:

1) I'm not certain this comment will be terribly helpful, but here
goes: I have the feeling that something important is missing from
the Q ' s it relates to "what could stimulate an uninvolved CES
to change — to seek to become involved?" We have overlooked the
identification of the sparkplug for the process, or critical
threshold of awareness that sets the whole thing in motion. the
"dynamic" of ignition seem missing from the conversation —
similarly, it lacks focus on the "critical obstacles" to CES
internationalization process. Some are identified implicitly
through the reverse of your Q's — but should the Q2 be put in so
many words?

1. What would start the process?

\
POINT A__________________ \____________________ >POINT B
TODAY \ Goal-Internationalized CES
\
2. What barriers might cause problems?

2) In completing this round, I felt a general sense of score

inflation. I.E. each item seemed to be getting a higher score, in
part, due to the frequency counts now observed in Round I. I have
tried to score my original scores more widely, but found the
general trend of ranking most items more positively. At this point
its hard to differentiate between what is essential, valuable or
nice. I suggest you eliminate the frequency counts in Round 3.

Round III Comments:

My response to this questionnaire is based upon my opinion of what

needs to happen i.e. its importance for the optional
internationalization of Cooperative Extension. Questionnaire #1
was completed in regard to what is currently happening. I may have
completed #1 inappropriately.

In other studies:

* Faculty are key with appropriate incentives, opportunities,

etc. for global participation;
* Administrators must be supportive;
* Resources must be available - your study is somewhat silent
in this point;
* Recognition of importance/relevance by clientele also
important; need educational programs for clientele.
 APPENDIX I

Correspondence

289
 290

T • H • E O h io C o o p e r a tiv e E x te n s io n S e rv ic e N o rth e a s t D istric t

1680 M a d iso n A v en u e
OHIO A d m in is tra tio n B uilding,
OARDC

SPftE
UNIVERSITY
December 27, 1993
W o o ste r, O H 44691-4096
Phone 216-263-3831
216-263-3832
FAX 216-263-3667

Cc'rwin Press, Inc

A'Sage Publicsib to Company
2465 Teller Read
Newbury Perk, California 91320
Attrition: Mery Gallagher

Deer Mi. Gallagher

I would Eka to request permission to reprint a table In my dissertation fiom Mapping

educational Success: Strataab Thinking and Planning far School Administrators by
Roger-Kaufman; publication data; 1992/

It a TebI# 2.1 found on page 41 cf the paperback book and titled Tne Organizatfcral
Elements Model (OEM) and an Educational Example of Each'. I would prcYWe proper
crtatbra acknowledging the author end publisher.

If possible, please respond by FAX prbr fa January 15,1994. My FAX number is 215-
253-3957. Should ysu have any questions you can reach me by FAX or by tslaphcne
st the numbers fisted on the letterhead.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

Barba
Northeast District Director

:C4S«y.

The Ohio S u it Univetsily. The United Stales Department of Agriculture and County Commissioners Cooperating
 291

T • H • E C o lle g e o f A g ric u ltu re R o o m 100

2120 Fyffe Road

OHIO C o lu m b u s , O H 43210-1066
P h o n e 614-292-6S91

UNIVERSITY
September 27,1993

Dear

We approach you as a person who has thought deeply about internationalization of teaching,
research and/or extension. Your name was brought to our attention through a review of articlesyou have
written, at the suggestion of other knowledgeable people, or as a result of a personal association.

Barbara Ludwig isinitiating a study designed todevelop, ifpossible, a convergence ofideas about
what internationalization of a state land-grant university extension system means. Our experiences, a
review ofthe literatureand discussion with informed educators and administrators, indicate a serious need
exists for empirical information on verifiable indicators of success.

The Delphi Research Technique, characterized by individual evaluation and response leading to
a convergence of ideas, has been chosen to collect data. The technique requires the identification of
fifteen informed respondents or experts who have unique knowledge to share. This iswhere we would
likeyour participation. Responding tothe firstquestionnaire willtake about thirtyminutes ofyour valuable
time. Following summarization of the various opinions and suggestions received, Barbara will send a
second questionnaire and ask that you prioritize the characteristics identified. Once again opinions and
suggestions will be summarized and a third questionnaire will be sent to you. Completion time for the
second and third questionnaires will each take about thirty minutes. When the results are available,we
will share them with you.

We hope you willagree to participate. Your reply to each questionnaire willbe kept confidential.
Barbara will be calling within a few days to give you an opportunity to question her further about this
endeavor. We eagerly look forward to your response.

Thanking you in advance.

Bobby D. Moser Barbara G. Ludwig

Vice President for Northeast District Director
Agricultural Administration Ohio State University Extension

DEES
The Ohio State University. The United States Department of Agriculture and County Commissioners Cooperating
 292

O h io C o o p e ra tiv e E x ten sio n S e rv ic e N o rth e a st D istric t

1680 M adison A v e n u e
November 9, 1993 Ad0r^“ on Bui!din^
W ooster, O H 44691-4096
Phone 216-263-3831
UNIVERSITY 216-263-3832
FAX 216-263-3667

Dear Expert Panel Member:

Thank you for your prompt completion and return of the Internationalizing U.S. Extension
Systems questionnaire. I am still awaiting the return of several, but plan to have the next
round of the questionnaire in your hands by November 20,1994.

I’m looking forward to sharing the opinions and suggestions gathered through the first
round and learning your reaction. The response has been terrific!

Sincerely,

Barbara G. Ludwig
N.E. District Director

Internationalizing
U.S. Extension Systems

cces
T h e O h io S ta le U n iv ersity , T h e U n ite d S ta te s D e p a rtm e n t o f A g ric u ltu re a n d C o u n ty C o m m issio n er* C o o p era tin g
 293

T • H • E O h io C o o p e ra tiv e E x ten sio n S e rv ic e N o rth e a st D istrict

1680 M adison A v en u e
OHIO November 22, 1993
A dm inistratio n B uilding,
O A RD C
W ooster, O H +4691-4096
Phone 216-263-3831
UNIVERSITY 216-263-3832
FAX 216-263-3667

[Dear

Recently, Dr. should have recejved the third questionnaire onthe Internationalizing
U.S. Extension Systems study I am conducting. It's easily recognizable by its bright
yellow cover sheet I am hoping he will be able to complete and return it to me by .
Please let me know if the questionnaire has not arrived (telephone 216-263-3831).

I will probably be talking with you or contacting you again before this study is completed.
It involves three rounds of questionnaires and I greatly appreciate Dr.
participation and ideas. I also appreciate your assistance in helping me communicate
with and receive the questionnaires back in a timely fashion. Enclosed is a small token
of appreciation.

Thank you!

Sincerely,

Barbara G. Ludwig U
NE District Extension Director

(EES
T h e O h io S ta te U n iv e rs ity , T h e U n ite d S tate* D e p a rtm e n t o f A g r ic u ltu r e a n d C o u n ty C o m m is s io n e rs C o o p era tin g
 294

To:

From: Barbara G. Ludwig

' Northeast District Director
Ohio State University Extension

Re: Internationalizing U. S. Extension Systems - Delphi Study

THANK Y O U for your prompt

return o f the second
questionnaire. I will soon begin
summarizing the results and
sharing them with you in the
final round of this Delphi
Study. Look for the third
questionnaire to arrive the
week of December 27, 1993.
 Northern District
1650 Msdlson Avenue
Administration Building, OARDC
Wooster, OH 44691-40S6
Phone 216-263-3831
UNIVERSITY 216-263-3832
Fax 216-263-3667

JUST A REMINDER ...

Y our Im m ediate re tu r n o f th e q u e s tio n n a ir e on

INTERNATIONALIZING U.S. EXTENSION SYSTEMS will
enable m e to Include y o u r v ie w p o i n ts In t h e n e x t ro und of
th is Delphi s tu d y .

If y ou n e e d a n o t h e r c o p y o f th e q u e s tio n n a ir e ,
ple ase call (216/263-3831) o r FAX (216/263-3667).

TO:
FROM:

The Ohio Stile University, The United Sines Department of Agriculture, and County Commissioners Cooperating
 296

T • H • E N o rth e a s t D istric t
1680 M a d iso n A v enue
OHIO A d m in is tra tio n B uilding, O A R D C
W o o ste r, O H 44691-1096

SPJE
UNIVERSITY
P h o n e 216-263-3831

Fax
216-263-3832

January 28, 1994

To: David A aker

M ary Andrews
Ada Demb
James Diam ond
David Hansen
Jam es Hensen
Violet M alone
Robert M axwell
Bobby M oser
Fred Poston
W illiam Rivera
Keith Sm ith
Ayse Som ersan
Burt Swanson
Earl T eeter, Jr.

Barbara G. Ludwig
N ortheast District
Extension Director

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THE STUDY I

UNDERTOOK ON INTERNATIONALIZING EXTENSION. I AM IN THE
PROCESS OF DATA ANALYSIS AND WILL SHARE A SUMMARY OF
THE RESULTS WITH YOU AS SOON AS THEY ARE COMPLETED.

WITHOUT YOUR ASSISTANCE THIS STUDY WOULD NOT HAVE

BEEN POSSIBLE.

The Ohio State University, The United States Department o f Agriculture, and County Commissioners Cooperating