Doorway, Doormat, or Doghouse? The Challenges Facing 4-H Youth Development Scholarship in Land-Grant Universities

While the dogs bark, the caravan moves on.
--Arab Proverb

County Extension offices are often lauded as the portals, or the local doorways, to the land-grant university. Even those most insular within the "ivory tower" of land-grant universities recognize the valuable contributions of Extension to student recruitment and public support. And when Extension needs to have its bacon saved, it usually turns to 4-H to muster the political support to protect its funding base. Yet, in academic circles, 4-H continues to suffer from the Rodney Dangerfield Syndrome: 4-H doesn't get any respect.

As recent events have shown, 4-H is good enough to save Extension's funding, but not good enough for the academy. In fact, 4-H often gets treated as a doormat in the academy, or worse--banished to the doghouse. For example, the University of Massachusetts (a land grant) recently decided to cut all funding for 4-H outreach in favor of funding research and teaching because these two functions were considered more "core" to the mission of the university (Burge, 2003). Such pronouncements are filled with much pointless woofing designed to distract any rigorous scrutiny. Meanwhile, the caravan moves on.

Not surprisingly, some have begun to question whether UMass is reneging on its land-grant mission by cutting out 4-H youth development from Extension outreach. And this action comes despite evidence like a survey at Purdue University that found that more than 50% of the incoming freshmen class in the School of Agriculture were former 4-H members (Goecker, 2001).

De-Institutionalizing 4-H Professionals

Sadly, among certain circles of Extension and university administrators, there is a misguided and pernicious belief that 4-H faculty certainly are not scholarly and should be accorded neither academic rank nor tenure. As a result, universities have tried to "de-affiliate" 4-H youth professionals, removing all semblances of academic rank and tenure. As a result, 4-H professionals who once enjoyed academic status that distinguished them from other youth development practitioners find themselves cut off from academia like some pariah class. Meanwhile, the caravan moves on. Those who would try and turn the clock backwards remain tethered back in camp, barking and howling.

In other cases, there have been attempts to "de-professionalize" the ranks of 4-H youth development professionals, substituting paraprofessionals or program assistants where once full-time faculty provided program leadership. After all, "anyone can do 4-H work," or so the saying goes. Meanwhile, the rest of the nation moves on. Woof, woof.

Because of 4-H's unique ties to the land-grant universities, land-grant universities have an opportunity to give visionary leadership to the field of youth development. Instead, it appears that land-grant universities like UMass are going in the opposite direction. Ironically, though, increasing the scholarly status of 4-H professionals will only serve to enhance the engaged university's standing in the public eye. Eliminating this status or leaving 4-H professionals outside the hallowed walls of the academy will not. Clearly, on the national level, the field of youth development is moving in the opposite direction. (See, for example, the recent report of the National Research Council, 2002). Universities should be leading this movement, not stifling it.

4-H Youth Development's Academic Foundations

The academic credentials and foundations for 4-H youth development work are strong. Since 1986, the 4-H professional research and knowledge taxonomy has provided a scholarly and theoretical framework for this kind of work. The taxonomy was deemed important enough to include in the AGRICOLA database and has been added to and updated ever since (National Association of Extension 4-H Agents, 1994). The taxonomy is used in many states as a basis for designing job descriptions, performance evaluation, and professional development plans.

This past year, a consortium of land-grant universities involved with the Great Plains Interactive Distance Education Alliance pooled resources to offer the first ever on-line master's degree and graduate certificate in youth development, giving added credence to youth development's scholarly foundations as a discipline and a profession <http://www.gpidea.org>. These universities are giving leadership to professionalizing youth development work that will further elevate the field.

Most recently, the U.S. Department of Labor has weighed in on the future importance of the youth development field by identifying "youth development" as one of over 850 apprenticeable occupations <http://www.levitan.org/ydpa>. Since the apprencticeship model has only recently been adapted to occupations in the social services, several national organizations were awarded competitive grants to develop, register, and implement youth development practitioner apprenticeship certificate programs through the U.S. Department of Labor. 4-H was one of those organizations receiving a grant <http://www.nae4ha.org>.

Challenges to Articulating Youth Development Scholarship

Across the nation, more enlightened Extension leadership has called upon 4-H to define and articulate appropriate standards for scholarship in the field of youth development. Because of 4-H's diverse expectations, 4-H professionals within even a state or county often have widely varying job descriptions. These differences in expectations result in gradients of scholarship--some have higher scholarly expectations than others and thus more freedom of action and thought. Some are on tenure and promotion tracks; others are not. These kinds of uniquenesses must be accounted for and included in any articulation of youth development scholarship. That is the challenge, and it remains largely unresolved.

The National Association of Extension 4-H Agents has waded into this challenge. It's taking a leading role to articulate scholarship for 4-H professionals and define it in ways that are appropriate and relevant through the development of a concept paper that has been endorsed by both NAE4-HA and the National 4-H Leadership Trust. "4-H Youth Development: Scholarship in an Engaged University--A Blueprint for the Future" was also selected for presentation at the 2003 Outreach Scholarship Conference in Madison, Wisconsin in October 2003 <http://www1.uwex.edu/outreach/presentations.cfm>.

By describing the importance of 4-H youth development scholarship and giving examples within the four categories described by Boyer (1990), we can begin to change the culture of promotion and tenure within land-grant universities. Moreover, we can also enhance the credential of 4-H youth development professionals who are an integral component of Extension, but who are often regarded as less than scholarly practitioners, unworthy of academic status.

What we need today is a more validated and inclusive view of what it means to be a 4-H youth development scholar. This will mean a change in university culture (Lerner & Simon, 1998; McDowell, 2001) that we believe must begin with organizations like the National Association of Extension 4-H Agents, the Joint Council of Extension Professionals (JCEP), and the National 4-H Leadership Trust (Small & Bogenschneider, 1998). This work has already begun.

Leading the Caravan or Just Barking?

Clearly, the future lies in strengthening the scholarly attributions of 4-H professionals, not weakening their connection to land-grant universities. Nationally, the caravan is moving on. Youth development is becoming more professionalized. Youth development is being recognized as a discipline worthy of consideration as scholarly. Others are anxious to fill the void if universities won't help lead the movement to credential youth development professionals.

Land-grant universities should partner with 4-H professionals in the effort to enhance the scholarship of 4-H youth development professionals. This connection to scholarship, after all, is what makes 4-H different from Scouts, Boys and Girls Clubs, the Y's, and all the other youth development organizations across the country. It's our scholarly edge, and we should take every opportunity to hone it. Let's hope that land-grant universities are not left behind, yipping and barking in camp, as the rest of the nation travels over the horizon and into the future.

View reader comments for this Commentary in the JOE Discussion Forum. (This forum is no longer accepting new entries.)

References

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professorate. Special report. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Burge, K. (2003). 4-H clubs hang on. Boston Globe, October 13.

Goecker, A. D. (2001). Characteristics of freshmen and factors which influenced their enrollment in the Purdue University school of agriculture during 1992-2000. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University, School of Agriculture.

Lerner, R. M., & Simon, L. K. (1998). Directions for the American outreach university in the twenty-first century. In R. M. Lerner & L. K. Simon (Eds.) University-community collaborations for the twenty-first century. (pp. 463-481). New York: Garland Publishing.

McDowell, G. R. (2001). Land-grant universities and Extension into the 21^st century. Ames: Iowa State University Press.

National Association of Extension 4-H Agents (NAE4-HA). (1994). 4-HPRK: A professional research and knowledge taxonomy for 4-H youth development. Chevy Chase, MD: National 4-H Council. Available on-line at: http://www.cyfernet.org/prof/prk.html

National Research Council. (2002). Community programs to promote youth development. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Small, S. A., & Bogenschneider, K. (1998). Toward a scholarship of relevance. In R. M. Lerner & L. K. Simon (Eds.) University-community collaborations for the twenty-first century. (pp. 255-274). New York: Garland Publishing.