|
April 2007
|
       |
Contents
For the Benefit of JOE ReadersFor the benefit of readers who need to watch their printing budgets, we are starting to offer printer-friendly versions of JOE articles. In the upper-right corner of each article in this issue, under the date, volume and issue numbers, and article number, you'll see a link to a "Printer-Friendly Version." You can use that link to find a version of the article without the space-eating left margin that will be more economical for you to print. Gradually, we will "retrofit" articles from past issues to offer the same feature. For the benefit of readers from around the world, who have varying connection speeds and system capabilities, we are working on additions to the JOE Submission Guidelines that will help authors whip their graphics into reasonable, Web-friendly shape and size. Look for those additions soon. April JOETo continue my theme, "for the benefit of readers," the April issue contains the usual complement of excellent and thought-provoking articles. If space and time permitted, I could write enthusiastically about all of them, but I will content myself with referring to a few. The Commentary "Soft Drinks and Children: Where's the Science?" makes the point that we don't always have to wait until definitive research is available but can--and sometimes should--act on best available evidence. The issue in question is soft drink consumption among children, but that's not the only issue to which the point might apply. Two interesting Features head the list of seven fine ones we offer this issue. "The Extension Hedgehog" contends that it's "critical that Extension identify its education niche, specialties, and the value that only Extension adds to learning" and describes efforts at Oregon State to accomplish this. "Applied Research Initiative: Training in the Scholarship of Engagement" describes a statewide process under way at Ohio State (another OSU) to teach applied research skills to field educators. Service learning is the focus of the first two Ideas at Work articles. And "Sustainable Farm Tourism: Understanding and Managing Environmental Impacts of Visitor Activities," a Research in Brief, and "Experience Economy Strategies: Adding Value to Small Rural Businesses," another Ideas at Work, both address ways to help small rural businesses, a need that is gaining increased attention across Extension. The other 22 articles are also noteworthy, as I said. Read them, and you'll see. Laura Hoelscher, Editor
Soft Drinks and Children: Where's the Science?
Sharon F. Robinson
Alice Kirk
Texas Cooperative Extension IntroductionAccording to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2003-2004, 17% of US children are overweight (Ogden, Carroll, Curtin, McDowell, Tabak, & Flegal, 2006). Overweight is defined as at or above the 95th percentile of body mass index (BMI) for age and gender. Overweight children are at risk for decreased physical and social functioning. The cause of the increased incidence of pediatric overweight has not been determined. An increase in caloric intake and/or a decrease in physical activity may be involved. The type and amount of food and beverages consumed by children have changed over the years. Some have suggested that the consumption of sweetened beverages may, in part, be responsible for the increase in the incidence of overweight. However, evidence is inconclusive at this time. How then, can we provide science-based education and guidance regarding children's beverage choices? This commentary examines selected papers and reviews on the subject of sweetened beverage consumption by children. For the purpose of this commentary, sweetened beverages are those drinks sweetened with sugar or high fructose corn sweetener. Drinks that are sweetened with non-caloric sugar substitutes are not included. Beverage Consumption and Weight GainChildren are consuming larger portions and more servings of sweetened beverages than in 1977 (Nielsen & Popkin, 2004). By age 13 years, children consume more soda than milk (Rampersauld, Bailey, & Kauwell, 2003). The mean intake of soft drinks by children is 12 ounces (French, Lin, & Guthrie, 2003). Soda is served to some young children; 39% of preschool children drink soda (O'Connor, Yang, & Nicklas, 2006). Children obtain soda in a variety of venues. Of the soda that children drink, about half of it is obtained in the home, 22% in fast-food restaurants, and 7% from vending machines and school cafeterias (Wiecha, Finklestein, Troped, Fragala, & Peterson, 2006; French, Lin, & Guthrie, 2003). It may not be surprising that the primary reason why children drink soft drinks is because they enjoy the taste; other reasons include availability of soda in the home and modeling of the behavior by parents and friends (Grimm, Harnack, & Storey, 2004). Is soda responsible for the weight gain that is so prevalent among children? Research regarding sweetened beverages and weight is inconsistent (Bachman, Baronowski, & Nicklas, 2006; Malik, Schulze, & Hu, 2006). Soft drink consumption has been associated with higher energy intakes and may be associated with increased BMI. However, some researchers have found no association between sweetened beverages and weight. One study suggested that children with a higher BMI may be more sensitive to the interaction between weight change and beverage consumption. It is unknown at this time whether sweetened beverages are contributing to childhood obesity. As science-based educators, our rationale for our recommendations must remain consistent with the science. Beverage Consumption and Diet QualityBeverages account for 20% of the daily calories of children. Therefore, an assessment of the contribution of beverages to diet quality may be warranted. Sweetened beverage consumption may affect diet quality. Soft drink consumption is negatively associated with calcium intake. An inverse relationship between sweetened beverage consumption and milk consumption has been shown. However, caution is necessary because association does not demonstrate causation. As with beverages and obesity, the evidence is inconsistent regarding the consumption of sweetened beverages and milk displacement (Bachman, Baranowski, & Nicklas, 2006). Milk is the main source of calcium in the diets of children. Children who do not consume dairy foods may have difficulty in meeting calcium needs and perhaps vitamin D as well. Children who avoid drinking milk tend to have a smaller stature, poor bone health, and increased risk for bone fractures compared to children who drink milk. Limited research suggests that calcium may play a role in helping to maintain a healthful body weight. Therefore, children who do not consume the recommended daily servings of milk, for any reason, need to plan their diets carefully to ensure adequate intakes of calcium, vitamin D, and other important nutrients. Beverages and MyPyramidWhere does that leave Extension educators? Our approach and recommendations should be consistent with the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for American and MyPyramid for Kids. Two of the Dietary Guidelines key recommendations specifically address added sugars.
Children over the age of 9 years need to consume 3 cups of milk (or milk cup equivalents) daily. Serving children milk with meals may help them obtain the recommended intake. Fruit and/or vegetable juice is appropriate. However, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that juice should be limited. Preference should be given to whole fruit and vegetables because of their fiber. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans, MyPyramid, and MyPyramid for Kids introduce the concept of Discretionary Calories. Discretionary calories include added sugars in foods and beverages, and solid fats. For example, discretionary calories should not exceed 195 for an 1,800-calorie eating plan or 9.2% of total calories. One 12-ounce serving of soda contains approximately 140 calories (Table 1). This leaves few calories (55) for food choices such as whole or reduced fat milk and cheese or sweetened cereal.
ImplicationsAs research in the area of beverages, weight, and diet quality continues to evolve, so too will our understanding of best practice principles. However, we need not wait until definitive research is available--we can act on the best available evidence. Although research is inconclusive regarding sweetened beverages and weight gain, we suggest recommending milk with meals and water with snacks and urge the limitation of sweetened beverage consumption to the discretionary calorie allowance. The consumption of one-12 ounce soda requires the judicious attention to added sugar and solid fat calories in order to maintain a healthful diet. Extension educators should help consumers understand that a quality diet necessitates the careful consideration and consumption of added sugars. ReferencesBachman, C. B., Baronowski, T., & Nicklas, T. A. (2006). Is there an association between sweetened beverages and adiposity? Nutrition Reviews 64(4), 153-174. French, S. A., Lin, B. H., & Guthrie, J. F. (2003). National trends in soft drink consumption among children and adolescents age 6 to 17 years: Prevalence, amounts, and sources, 19977/1978 to 1994/1998. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 103(10), 1326-1331. Grimm, G. C., Harnack, L., & Storey, M. (2004). Factors associated with soft drink consumption in school-aged children. Journal of the Dietetic Association 104(8), 1244-1249. Malik, V. S., Schulze, M. B., & Hu, F. B. (2006). Intake of sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain: A systematic review. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 84(2), 274-288. Nielsen, S. J., & Popkin, B. M. (2004). Changes in beverage intake between 1977 and 2001. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 27(3), 205-210. O'Connor, T. M., Yang, S. J., & Nicklas, T. A. (2006). Beverage intake among preschool children and its effect on weight status. Pediatrics 118(4) 1010-1018. Ogden, C. L., Carroll, M. D., Curtin, L. R., McDowell, M. A., Tabak, C. J., & Flegal, K. M. (2006). Prevalence of overweight and obesity in the United States, 1999-2004. JAMA 295(13), 1549-1555. Rampersauld, G. C., Bailey, L. B., & Kauwell, G. P. (2003). National survey beverage consumption data for children and adolescents indicate the need to encourage a shift toward more nutritive beverages. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 103(1), 97-100. Wiecha, J. L., Finklestein, D., Troped, P.J ., Fragala, M., & Peterson, K. E. (2006). School vending machine use and fast-food restaurant use are associated with sugar-sweetened beverage intake in youth. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 106(10), 1624-1630. View reader comments for this Commentary in the JOE Discussion Forum. (This forum is no longer accepting new entries.)
The Extension Hedgehog
Daniel M. McGrath
Flaxen D.L. Conway
Sharon Johnson Oregon State University Extension Reoccurring public dollars available for higher education are in short supply. The current economic climate has placed significant pressure on the budgets of federal, state, and county governments. In turn, those governments demand that Extension defend the continued funding of its programs. Extension is competing for money, attention, and a place in the future of higher education. It is critical that Extension identify and communicate its education niche, its specialties, and the critical value that only Extension adds to learning. Public policy decision-makers at all levels ask questions like the following (Figure 1). Figure 1.
We often hear that to justify our budgets, we need to do a better job of documenting and communicating the relevance and impact of our programs. The call for outcome-based educational funding has been repeated every 5 to 10 years for decades, every time we experience a significant economic recession. Questions about the relevancy of Extension, however, go deeper and must be addressed by a larger vision. It is often said that Extension engages Land-Grant universities with ordinary people and real world problems, and that this adds to Extension's appeal. Is this still a compelling vision? We believe that the future of Extension and the Land-Grant university system as a whole will depend, in part, on how well we listen and respond to the real issues facing our clientele (Fehlis, 2005; McDowell, 2004). Following the recession of 2003, Oregon State University (OSU) Extension initiated a planning process that began with the formation of a "futures task force." The 2004 OSU Extension futures task force built on past efforts by the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP), which concluded that to be successful the Land-Grant university system must do the five things (Russell, 1991) listed below (Table 1).
ECOP further argued that Extension--the offspring of the school of agriculture--must be allowed to mature in its role by coordinating issues-based public service programs from a total university base (Russell, 1991). Issues-based research and education is inherently collaborative and non hierarchic. Extension, which has its roots in the interdependency models of education, should be at the forefront of the modern outreach and engagement movement. Articulating the Extension HedgehogIn order to advance the work of ECOP, the OSU Extension 2004 futures task force applied "hedgehog analysis" to the future of Extension education. The hedgehog concept comes from the book Good to Great (Collins, 2001). In a manner similar to In Search of Excellence (Peters & Waterman, 1982) and other books that evaluated a selected subset of companies and drew conclusions from the findings, the Good to Great study focused on companies that suddenly diverged from their cohort, dramatically out performed the other companies in their business sector, and sustained the performance for over 15 years. Eleven companies were selected. These 11 companies held in common their ability to recognize, understand, and articulate what the authors refer to as their "hedgehog." The hedgehog concept evolves from a children's story. Even though the fox is smarter and faster, the hedgehog always defeats the fox. The hedgehog only knows one trick, but it knows that trick very well. No matter what tactic the fox tries, the hedgehog roles up in a thorny ball and outwits its enemy. An organization finds its "hedgehog" by pursing three lines of inquiry (Figure 2). At the intersection of the three inquiries is the organizational hedgehog. Figure 2.
What Are We Passionate About?Extension educators share in common with successful teaching faculty a sincere desire to make a difference in the world by sharing knowledge, conveying skills, and helping people grow in their capacity to learn. Extension educators do not, however, choose to teach credit courses in a classroom. We choose to teach in an informal, community setting where the focus is on learning and the distinction between the "teacher" and the "student" is not rigid. The voluntary nature of Extension educational relationships is powerful because it demands the highest quality teaching and listening applied to subject matter that is highly relevant to the student.
But we must not use the above as code words for haphazard engagement. Haphazard engagement is no longer competitive or merchantable in the market for learner services. Extension distinguishes itself from the many other informal, community-based educational programs by taking a more scholarly approach. Glassick, Huber, and Maeroff (1997) described a scholarly approach that can be applied to research, teaching, and Extension programs. They describe what we mean by scholarly engagement (Table 2).
Extension education addresses complex social, environmental, and economic problems where the "answers" may not exist. We cannot, therefore, approach complex problems effectively in a didactic manner. Extension education brings the expertise from communities of interest (example: scientific disciplines) to bear on problems relevant to communities of place (example: in the state where the university is located). Research, teaching, and Extension faculty bring specialized knowledge. Practitioners bring systems knowledge.
Boyer (1990) argues that putting knowledge to work (integration and application) in service to the community is fundamentally different from conveying knowledge and building learning capacity (teaching). Putting knowledge to work involves different methods and produces different outcomes.
Extension educators are interested in discovering new knowledge. Unlike university-based research faculty, Extension educators do not conduct their creative intellectual work in a theoretical environment or a laboratory. Instead, they choose to join practitioners in the field in a practical examination of the barriers to the understanding, integration and application of new knowledge. The discovery of relevant information is accelerated when communities are used as a microcosm for testing the usefulness of new ideas and technologies.
What Are We Best At?Extension educators are good at identifying what we are called to do, what we are passionate about. But what are Extension educators best at? Collins (2001) and his group are careful to clarify this question. By "best at," they did not mean what do we aspire to. This second line of inquiry is not about developing goals and objectives or a strategic plan to "become" the best at something. Collins (2002) challenges organizations to ask themselves "What are we truly the very best at in the world today?" It is a valid and demanding question and one that challenges us to go beyond what we want to become or an assessment of our core competencies. Our core competencies as Extension educators may be in areas where we cannot be the "best" at in our local region, much less the world. Extension educators are passionate about the impact of informal community-based educational programs. Are we the best at this? In many Oregon communities there is greater loyalty and more financial support for boys and girls clubs than for the 4-H program. After-school athletic programs are more economically efficient because they use the fewest number of adults to supervise the largest number of young people. They keep young people safe and active between 3 and 6 p.m., when their parents get off work. The 4-H youth development program, however, has a different mission and takes a different approach to after-school programs. 4-H does more than keep youth busy and out of trouble. 4-H does more than help youth develop interpersonal, communication, and leadership skills. The goal of the 4-H youth development program is, in part, to improve the success of young people in school so they will have access and desire to engage in higher education. 4-H is the best in the world at recruiting, training, and managing adult volunteer teachers who compliment the effort of elementary and high school teachers by delivering a science-based curriculum in a variety of subjects. 4-H distinguishes itself from many other informal, community-based educational programs by engaging with the community in a scholarly way. Are we the best at community-based, research-based teaching? The community college system has campuses in 17 of the thirty-six counties in Oregon. They offer well-developed research-based curricula and excellent teaching on just about every subject you can imagine. Many of these credit or non-credit classes are offered with distance technologies; in an informal setting, including work sites; or during evening and weekend hours. Some classes (example: English as a second language) are even offered in the home. Extension may be passionate about community-based teaching, but the community college system may be better equipped to rapidly deliver new research-based curricula to emerging and underserved communities. Extension educators are passionate about information and technology transfer, but we may not be the best in the world at this. Research-based information has become an educational commodity on the open market. Distance learning technologies are faster and less expensive. We can argue about the rigor and the quality of information. But, once end users discover that they can control their Internet domain search (example: knowledge.edu), they do not care whether or not relevant information comes from the local Land-Grant university. Extension, however, goes beyond informal teaching and information/technology transfer. Extension educators live and work off campus, where they gain an understanding of the worldview and decision-making context of practitioners. This allows Extension faculty to more efficiently help their clients to sort through the overwhelming flow of research-based information and discover what is truly useful. Respectful, long-term, collaborative learning relationships increase the rate at which new ideas and technologies are tested and adopted. Extension not only discovers new knowledge (research), it helps individuals and communities to put knowledge to work (integration and application). Extension not only conveys new information and technologies (teaching), it joins individuals and communities in addressing the vital social, environmental, and economic issues of our times.
But, is this sufficient? How do we pay for this service? How Do We Connect Our Work to Its Economic Drivers?There are several revenue sources supporting higher education in the United States. These include competitive grants and contracts, patents and licensing agreements, tuition and fees, endowments and gifts, and reoccurring federal, state, and county dollars. The Land-Grant university system connects with its economic drivers through its threefold mission of research, teaching, and service. Research reputation and productivity connects Land-Grant universities to grant dollars, patents, licensing agreements, and endowments. Teaching reputation and productivity connect Land-Grant universities to tuition, fees, and endowments. The practical application of knowledge in service to society connects Land-Grant universities to reoccurring public dollars available for higher education. Although nearly every statewide Extension organization is diversifying its funding portfolio, most financial support for Extension education will likely continue to come from reoccurring federal, state, and county education dollars. Connecting Extension to its economic drivers, therefore, is largely a political process. Extension does not want to appear to be lobbying for its programs; there are legal constraints. It is arguable, however, that documentation and communication of impact is different than lobbying. How do we overcome our cultural assumption in Extension education that we should not have to justify public funding for Extension to public policy decision-makers? Table 3 lists interests and concerns of today's policy decision-makers.
Policy decision-makers expect credible evidence of impact. This is a very high performance standard. It takes a long time and a significant amount of creative, intellectual work to document and communicate the impact of research and education on the observable behaviors of program participants. It takes years to produce measurable improvements in physical, economic, and social conditions. It is difficult to prove a direct correlation between Extension programs and changing conditions because complex problems are affected by so many variables. To claim that an Extension program resulted in lowered child abuse or fewer high school dropouts is generally inappropriate. Extension must share credit with its many partner organizations. Our ability to generate credible impact data varies across program areas. It is especially difficult to establish the specific value of educational programs designed to prevent the likelihood that someone will need more costly intervention or remediation in the future (Debord, 2005). Kalambokidis (2004) argues that an increasing number of policy decision-makers believe that public sector funding of the Extension service (or any government service) is only justified when the free market fails; when only imperfect information is otherwise available (example: skewed nutritional information); when a natural monopoly prevents the fair and just distribution of resources (example: all families, regardless of their income, should have adequate nutrition); when external costs of production and consumption are not accounted for in the market price (example: building on shore lines and water pollution); and when research and education programs specifically and clearly serve the public good (example: disease prevention and community revitalization). Policy decision-makers ask valid questions that Extension must be able to readily and genuinely answer (Figure 3). Figure 3.
McDowell (2004) argues that in order to effectively connect to its economic drivers, Extension must learn to effectively solicit political support from the people who directly benefit from its programs. Extension clientele must experience a net benefit from our educational services and attribute the benefit to Extension. The cost to our clients of acting politically for us must be less than the value they place on present and anticipated benefits from the programs we offer. We must we go further, however, and ask our clientele to explain the value of our work to those who did not participant or directly benefit from our programs and explain why they should endorse its public funding. Public value is created when a service benefits society as a whole. When a service is recognized as having significant public value, citizens who do not directly benefit from the service may endorse its public funding (Kalambokidis, 2004). By explicitly identifying the public (rather than individual) benefits for our clientele, we may stimulate in our clientele a willingness to act politically for us because they see a broader public interest in our work (McDowell, 2004). In order to connect with its economic drivers, Extension--and the Land-Grant university system as a whole--needs to go beyond research and education. The practical application of research-based knowledge to solve complex social, economic, and environmental problems is inherently a multidisciplinary and collaborative process. Public supported scientists and teachers can and should work shoulder to shoulder with practitioners. A scholarly approach to engagement is required to generate credible evidence and leads naturally to the documentation and communication of impact.
Remaining QuestionsThe process of articulating the Extension hedgehog is ongoing at Oregon State University. The conversation is pulling campus-based research and teaching faculty toward engagement with problems that are highly relevant to the state where the university is located. Many OSU research and teaching faculty greet this idea with cynicism because they are overwhelmed by the demands of their research and teaching assignments. They do not have the resources to apply knowledge directly in service to society. Campus-based research and teaching faculty may not have the training or the inclination to engage with the community. When Extension educators are confronted with demands that they take a more scholarly approach to their engagement activities, their response is equally despairing. Most Extension educators are overwhelmed by their engagement responsibilities. However, if the third mission is to put knowledge to work in the community, then the documentation and communication of impact are not peripheral activities. These scholarly activities are central to our mission and our survival as an organization. We have addressed the "burnout issue" of Extension educators through position descriptions that limit expectations for scholarly engagement to 15%. In other words, Extension faculty members at OSU are expected to continue to spend the majority of their time conducting informal research and education programs. They should, however, have at least one program or initiative that is carefully designed and evaluated for impact and outcomes. To date, campus-based research and teaching faculty at OSU have been very reluctant to take on a reciprocal commitment of 15% scholarly engagement. Many research and teaching faculty believe that scholarly engagement is Extension's job. And this is where we are stuck today. The campus/field gap occurs, in part, because tenured faculty members in academic departments do not "direct" easily. Academic reward and recognition is focused primarily on the documentation and communication of new scientific discoveries to peers within academic disciplines. The traditional campus/field gap remains a significant barrier to broadening the program portfolio for Extension, particularly when the departments that need to be involved have no Extension traditions or experience (McDowell, 2004). Without a commitment by the university as a whole to integration and application of knowledge in service to the communities where the university is located (the third mission), the hedgehog breaks down. Extension alone does not have the human and financial resources needed to accomplish the third mission; it never did. Every truly great Extension program has been an example of scholarly engagement. It resulted from the work of a highly functional, multidisciplinary team of researchers, teachers, and Extension educators working with their clientele (practitioners) on a problem of vital significance to the local or regional community. Funding agencies recognize this. Research proposals that have the highest probability of making an impact are collaborative and multi-disciplinary, and have a strong outreach component. The efficient integration of research, teaching, and application is the raison d' etre of the Land-Grant university system (McGrath, 2006). And it is our competitive edge. Imagine what we could accomplish if all faculty members employed at Land-Grant universities were accountable, at some level, to the threefold mission?
ReferencesBoyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. New York, NY; HarperCollins Publishers Inc. Debord, K. (2005). Communicating program value of family life and parenting education programs to decision makers. Journal of Extension [On-line], 43(2) Article 2IAW2. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2005april/iw2.shtml Fehlis, C. P. (2005). A call for visionary leadership. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 43(1) Article 1COM1. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2005february/comm1.shtml Glassick, C. E., Huber, M.T., & Maeroff, G. I. (1997). Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Kalambokidis, L. (2004). Identifying the public value in Extension programs. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 42(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004april/a1.shtml McDowell, G. (2004) Is Extension an idea whose time has come and gone? Journal of Extension [On-line], 42(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004december/comm1.shtml McGrath, D. M. (2006) The scholarship of application. Journal of Extension [On-line], 44(2) Article 2FEA8. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2006april/a8.shtml Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America's best-run companies. New York: Harpercollins. Russell, M.M. (1991). Cooperative Extension and the land-grant university: A futures history. Journal of Extension [On-line], 29(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1991summer/fut1.html
Applied Research Initiative: Training in the Scholarship of Engagement
Gregory A. Davis
Cynthia Burggraf-Torppa
Thomas M. Archer
Jerold R. Thomas The Ohio State University In 1996, Boyer coined the term "Scholarship of Engagement" when he challenged America's colleges and universities to become more involved with the needs and challenges facing our communities and country. He noted that the public had lost confidence in the ability of institutions of higher education to contribute to the search for solutions to our social, economic, civic, and ethical problems. This perspective may reflect some truth in that the academy has traditionally revered scholarship above teaching and service, and scholarship has traditionally been defined as research activities that formulate, expand, or evaluate theory (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 1996). In contrast, Extension is widely recognized as the arm of the academy that engages the public and directly addresses social, economic, civic, and ethical problems. To this end, many academic units turn to Extension as a conduit to distribute their research findings. Because of this, Extension professionals and systems have been criticized for being soft on scholarship because they do not conduct studies that advance theories. There is no question that colleges and universities--especially Land-Grant universities--are accepting Boyer's (1996) challenge to "connect the rich resources of the university" (p. 11) to community needs and problems (Maurrasee, 2001; Sandmann, 2002; Zimpher, Percy, & Brukardt, 2002). This challenge has created a greater awareness of the importance of applied research and the role that engaged scholarship can play in supporting the mission of Land-Grant universities. While all research attempts to discover or establish facts or principles within a particular field, research has traditionally focused on activities that test and advance theory (Ary et al., 1996). Only recently has the new focus on the scholarship of engagement elevated applied research, which focuses on solving problems or taking advantage of opportunities to serve communities (Andranoich & Riposa, 1993), to an elevated position within the academy. With its rich history of community involvement and solution-oriented action, Extension is poised to take the lead in the scholarship of engagement. This article describes a process that started in the mid-1990s in Northwest Ohio called the "Applied Research Initiative" (ARI). The objectives were [1] To help Extension professionals better understand not only the basics of conducting applied research and [2] To encourage Extension professionals to formally add a scholarship component to their existing work. We argue that Extension professionals already conduct a wide variety of applied and action research (Andranoich & Riposa, 1993; Boyer, 1996) that exemplifies the goal of engaged scholarship. Where Extension often fails is systematically applying scientific tools and procedures to document and share the impact of their programs. A key concept in the Applied Research Initiative was that Extension programming inherently includes substantial elements of scholarship. By making a few minor adjustments, Extension professionals could structure their programs within an applied research framework that would allow those programs to be rigorously evaluated, validated, and shared with peers. History/Development of the ProgramThe current Applied Research Initiative developed from several formal daylong programs that were piloted over the last decade. Most of these programs followed a moderated panel discussion format with professionals, some of whom were Extension. These programs provided a variety of "hands-on" experiences designed to allow participants the opportunity to learn from peers with more applied research experience. Specific objectives were to:
An important outcome goal of these initial programs was the awareness that Extension professionals who were new to the research process needed "mentors" to guide and support them through the various phases of the applied research process. Another outcome goal was identifying the need for program evaluation and data collection assistance. To help meet these needs, mentoring was built into the Applied Research Initiative. In addition, a series of Program Planning & Impact Documentation in-services for all program areas were conducted on a regional level. These in-services introduced the LOGIC model as a tool for program planning and evaluation, and used examples of applied research from each program area for relevancy. These 4-hour in-services, led by personnel from the state program development and evaluation unit, were conducted with the following objectives:
These Program Planning and Impact Documentation in-services evolved into the current four-phase Applied Research Initiative. ARI Program OutlineThe ARI was conceived as an ongoing, four-phase, personal, professional, and organizational development effort. The four phases were designed to take into account participants' varied knowledge levels and degrees of interest. Each phase focused on a discrete part of the applied research process, enabling professionals with little experience to benefit from participating in each of the four phases, while more experienced professionals could participate in the phases they found most beneficial to them. Phase IPhase I provided an overview of ARI's objectives and introduced the content planned for subsequent phases. In this daylong program, a presentation of the LOGIC Model provided participants with a bridge between program evaluation and applied research in terms of inputs, outputs, outcomes, and their relationship to program impact and creating knowledge. Levels of impact were also discussed along with types of evidence and methods of gathering evidence. Participants, including field and campus-based staff and faculty, discussed current programs that could be developed into research projects; potential mentors for these projects were identified; and resources that participants would find helpful in the applied research process were shared. Incentives to encourage ongoing participation included the following.
Phase IIPhase II was designed to introduce participants to the mechanics of applied research. Comprised of three, day-long programs, Phase II resembled an abbreviated Research Methods course and included research design and methods, data collection and management, and data analysis and interpretation. Session objectives included understanding basic terminology such as data, instrumentation, qualitative research, quantitative research, survey, questionnaire, reliability, validity, and types of error in the research process. Data collection strategies were discussed, including sampling procedures, question writing, questionnaire design, and methods for maximizing response rates. Preparing a data analysis plan, using statistics to share results, and levels of measurement (nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio) were presented. Procedures to follow when working with human subjects were also included. Phase IIIPhase III consisted of a District Highlights Conference in which participants would formally present their research project to their peers. The overall objective of Phase III was to provide a forum for Extension professionals to share what was learned about program development; designing evaluation techniques; and managing, analyzing, and interpreting data. The conference would also provide an opportunity to highlight programming suitable for impact evaluation and applied research. It was also envisioned that conference presenters (in a way, "graduates" of the ARI) could serve as mentors for the next group of ARI participants. Phase IVThe final phase of the ARI involved strengthening Extension professionals' capacity to share their scholarly work with peers beyond the Extension District. Phase IV focused on the background and skills necessary to prepare a conference presentation proposal; write an academic abstract and/or author an academic paper; and identify conferences, journals, and other outlets appropriate for sharing their scholarly work. MethodsSampleA total of 26 self-selected Extension professionals took part in the ARI program. Eighteen months after the completion of the program, 81% of participants (n = 21) responded to a Web-based survey. Among those respondents, median length of tenure was 13 years (range = 4 to 31), 68% were county-based professionals, 32% were state-based professionals; slightly more than one third (36%) were tenure track faculty. ProceduresTo document the impact of the ARI, both formative and summative evaluations of the Applied Research Initiative were conducted. Formative evaluation examines whether the procedures undertaken to achieve intended goals are likely to accomplish those goals; it provides ongoing feedback about the strengths and weakness of a process that may facilitate or hinder achievement of its intended outcomes. Summative evaluation, on the other hand, documents whether or not the intended goals were achieved. Formative evaluation has the added benefit of strengthening the confidence with which researchers can attribute changes in outcomes to the influence of their programming. That is, barring an experimental design with random assignment of subjects to conditions, causality cannot be inferred and the ability to generalize findings is limited. To the extent that findings from a formative evaluation suggest that the program created the antecedent conditions for accomplishing the desired and anticipated outcomes, formative evaluations can also serve as a manipulation check on the effectiveness of the program (Patton, 1994; Scriven, 1994). Formative EvaluationProgram planners conducted a variety of formative evaluations throughout the program. Program sessions were often taught by guest speakers, many of whom conducted their own formative evaluations. Having a range of formative evaluation processes had both practical and pragmatic benefits. The practical benefits included allowing various guest speakers the flexibility to design their own post-session assessments of participants' learning. The pragmatic benefits of using a variety of types of formative evaluation procedures is that, to the extent that different measurements create a pattern of similar findings, greater confidence in that pattern validity can be accepted (Dick & Carey, 2001; Ertmer & Quinn, 2003). Formative evaluations were conducted three times during the 18 months of educational programming. In addition, a pre- and post-test assessment of participants' knowledge about the LOGIC model was conducted after the first session. Using paired samples t-tests, statistically significant gains in knowledge and confidence surrounding planning, designing, and conducting applied research were found for each of the various formative evaluations. The final formative evaluation was conducted shortly after the 18-month-long program ended. This questionnaire asked only open-ended questions; a content analysis of the responses revealed four major themes.
ResultsA summative evaluation was conducted roughly 18 months after the final ARI program was conducted using a Web-based instrument. To assess whether or not participants' attitudes toward various components of the applied research process changed (improved) as a result of the ARI, participants were asked to respond to a list of seven topics discussed during the series. Respondents were asked to check a number on a Likert type scale that signified the extent to which their attitude had become more negative (1) to more positive (7) as a result of the Applied Research Initiative. As can be seen in Table 1, findings indicated that on average, roughly 55% of participants developed a more positive attitude toward all the topics measured. More than any of the seven topics discussed, 72% of participants indicated a positive change in attitude toward designing applied research projects. Interestingly, attitudes toward the human subjects review process became more negative (24%) as a result of the educational program on that subject.
To determine whether or not participants perceived themselves to be more competent to conduct applied research as a result of attending the series of classes, participants were asked to respond to a list of 15 topics and skills taught during the series. Respondents were asked to check a number on a Likert type scale that signified the extent to which their competence had greatly decreased (1) to greatly increased (7). As can be seen in Table 2, findings indicated that on average, 48% of the participants reported an increase in competence in all 15 topics taught. Competency in survey research methods (Tailored Design Method) registered the lowest positive change at 30%. Competency in completing a systematic review of literature and conducting research that does not involve human subjects registered the next lowest positive change at 34%. The mean score for perceived competence indicates that all participants developed a degree of research competence as a result of attending the series of classes.
Our ultimate goal for this program was to produce behavioral changes in participants. We measured this in three ways. First, participants were asked to describe one thing they had changed as a result of being a part of the program. Responses ranged from being more willing to conduct applied research, to having a more positive attitude about conducting applied research, to having the ability to think more critically about local research opportunities. It was also noted that new peer contacts were made as a result of the program that could serve as an applied research support network. Second, to assess whether or not participants were using the knowledge and skills gained in the series of classes, participants were asked to respond to a list of 13 behaviors (e.g., Since participating in the ARI, I have used the logic model to design applied research projects). Respondents were asked to check the number of times they had exhibited that behavior and/or taken action in the past 12 months. Consistent with the improvements in attitude toward conducting applied research and with the increase in perceived competence in ability to conduct applied research, more than 8 out of 10 participants reported using research methods since taking part in the Applied Research Initiative. Slightly more than 70% reported designing an applied research project since participating. Two thirds indicated they had used the logic model to design a research project and had used statistics to tell a research story. Finally, we wanted to know if the ARI was successful if participants produced a scholarly study as a result of attending the series of classes. To assess the ultimate success of the program, participants were asked to report whether they had submitted, published, and/or presented a scholarly paper since completing the series of classes approximately 18 months earlier. As can be seen in Table 3, findings indicated that 16 scholarly outputs were reported. Presentation at a national conference was reported by 4 of the 21 participants. Four of the 21 participants indicated they had a submission in the review process.
ConclusionsThe major goal of the Applied Research Initiative was to create engaged scholars. That is, we wanted Extension professionals to better understand not only the basics of conducting applied research, but also to encourage Extension professionals to formally add a scholarship component to their existing work. Our findings indicate that these objectives were met. Extension professionals reported significant increases in knowledge about research processes, improved attitudes toward conducting applied research, and greater competence in their ability to produce applied research. While we did not collect scholarly output figures prior to the ARI, we know that at least 15 of our 26 participants published, submitted, and/or presented research findings in 17 papers that documented their contributions to solving local problems and addressing issues of public concern. Participants found the program format to be useful for learning, networking, and building upon the knowledge they already possessed. Participants' perceptions regarding engaging in applied research activities (both positive and negative) were strengthened. For example, learning more about the hurdles present in conducting applied research (the university's Human Subjects Review process in particular) left participants feeling a bit uneasy. However, participant comments indicated an improved relationship with Extension's Program Development and Evaluation Unit. In addition, participants reported being better able to identify applied research opportunities in the Extension work in which they were already engaged. We cannot be sure whether or not participation in the ARI "caused" our participants to write, present, and/or publish an applied research project. According to the tenets of the philosophy of science, causality can only be established with a scientific (i.e., experimental or quasi-experimental) research design. Our research design lacked parameters necessary to establish causality. Most notably, our sample self selected to take part in our study (was non-random), and our design lacked a control group with which to compare the changes that occurred in our program group. Thus, we cannot know how many of our participants would have produced scholarly works without attending ARI. Despite that limitation, the findings from our formative evaluations suggest that it is likely that at least some of outcomes we documented can be attributed to our program. That is, if findings from the formative evaluations are viewed as "checks" on the effectiveness of the program in creating the antecedent conditions that are necessary for accomplishing the desired and anticipated outcomes (having our participants produce scholarly works), then we may be confident that the ARI contributed to the outcomes our participants achieved. While our evaluation of this program indicated that participants benefited, two shortcomings of the program and the larger organization were exposed. Participants enjoyed the opportunities to learn from peers and mentors, yet they also indicated a need to expand the network of research "mentors" beyond the framework of the program itself. In addition, it was apparent that more encouragement at the organizational level to better integrate applied research activities into local programming would move more Extension professionals to involve applied research activities in their work. If Boyer (1996) was correct in stating that "the public has lost confidence in our institutions of higher education to address the challenges we face in our communities and county," the success of this kind of training may prove to be critical to Extension's ability to sustain its central role in fulfilling the mission of the Land-Grant university. Extension is in a unique position to foster Scholarship of Engagement and to guide and mentor engaged scholars whom universities around the county are scrambling to produce/promote/develop. A second-generation ARI has recently has been initiated, revised to address many of the suggestions put forth by past participants, with more individuals desirous of participating than could be comfortably accommodated. Perhaps the combination of the growing awareness of the need for engaged scholarship, along with positive word-of-mouth advertising from our past participants, may account for the growing desire to participate. ReferencesAdranoich, G. D., & Riposa, G. (1993). Doing urban research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Boyer, E. L. (1996). The scholarship of engagement. Journal of Public Service and Outreach, 1, 11-20. Dick, W., & Carey, L. (2001). The systematic design of instruction (5th Ed.) Longman Publishers. Ertmer, P. A., & Quinn, J. (2003). The ID casebook: Cases studies in instructional design (2nd Ed.) Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Maurrasee, D. (2001). Beyond the campus: How colleges and universities form partnerships with their communities. NY: Routledge. Patton, M. Q. (1994). Developmental evaluation. Evaluation practice, 15, 311-319. Sandmann, L. R. (2002). Serving society: The scholarship of engagement. HERSA News: Higher Education Research and Development Society of Astralasia, 24, 4-7. Scriven, M. (1994). Evaluation thesaurus (5th ed.) Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Zimpher, N. L., Percy, S. L., Brukardt, M. J. (2002). A time for boldness: A story of institutional change. Boston: Anker Publishing.
A Practical Theory-Based Approach to Action-Research in Survivor Communities
Susan Thering IntroductionAn article in the Journal of Extension presented results of research investigating "Extension Staff Response to Increased Programming for At-Risk Audiences" (Klemme, Hausafus, & Shirer, 2005). While that article made it clear that the complexities of at-risk programming require a cooperative approach that includes multiple agencies and community involvement, it also revealed some of the barriers to at-risk programming. That research implied three key needs:
The case studies, fieldwork observations, and literature review presented below illuminate some of the challenges to programming in at-risk communities and illustrate an approach that recognizes these complexities. AMD&ART: A Case StudyIn 1997, a diverse group of professionals agreed to participate in a collaborative approach to revitalization in communities living with the repercussions of their coal mining histories. At that time, federally funded efforts were focused on improving water quality. Under the leadership of Dr. T. Allan Comp, the AMD&ART initiative aspired to generate multiple economic and social benefits from these limited funds (AMD&ART, 2006). The initiative began in Vintondale, Pennsylvania. At that time the "coal flats" occupied the land between the main street and the defunct coal mine. This 35-acre site contained several hundred tons of mine spoils and was contaminated by Acid Mine Drainage (AMD). The median income was $19,150, compared to a statewide median of $29,069. The median value of housing was $24,500, compared to statewide median of $69,700 (Pennsylvania, 1990). Between 1998 and 2000, the AMD&ART staff facilitated a series of workshops and "hands on" activities. The workshops included participatory design charrettes with engineers and landscape architects, and grant writing workshops, during which community members worked with staff to prepare proposals to fund various aspects of the initiative. The projects included a water quality monitoring program and a series of "clean up days" during which residents removed decades' worth of junk that had been dumped into the stream that runs along the coal flats. These activities were designed to raise awareness about community issues and generate support for the redevelopment initiative. In addition, and very important, the activities were designed to enhance organizational capacity within the community so residents might more effectively engage outside resources. As the initiative unfolded and specific needs were identified, AMD&ART staff worked with residents to establish partnerships with over 80 federal, state, and local agencies and organizations. This collaborative effort raised over $800,000 and twice that in in-kind support (AMD&ART, 2006; Reece, 2006). In the summer of 2005, control of the "Remediation Park" (formerly known as the coal flats) was handed over to the community. "Remediation" refers to the ponds and wetlands that filter the drainage (AMD) from the uphill side of the site and discharge potable water into the stream on the downhill side. This passive remediation system is embedded in a park that includes a concert pavilion, sports fields, and an environmental history center. Thus, the AMD&ART staff orchestrated an initiative that brought experts from fields as diverse as hydrogeology, horticulture, fine arts, social work, and economic development together with community members to forward a broad array of shared and highly interrelated community goals. The program evaluation research, conducted in conjunction with the AMD&ART initiative, follows the overview of fieldwork and literature review below. Insights from the FieldIn fieldwork reports at the turn of the last century, Emile Durkheim used the term "anomie" to describe an attitude of people living with persistent constraints to attaining their needs. In addition to the constraints of limited resources, Durkheim described the constraints imposed by social group consciousness and the effects of those deeply embedded constraints over generations (1897). Paolo Freire used the term "fatalism" to describe a similar attitude in very different communities. Important for this study, Freire noted that the behaviors associated with this attitude, because they transcend generations, are sometimes interpreted by uninitiated outsiders as a cultural trait of docility or laziness (1970, p. 61). Case study analysis of reports from practitioners working in situations as diverse as multi-cultural immigrant communities in Appalachia, African American communities in the south, and Native American communities in the Midwest, support Freire's observations. Follow-up interviews with these practitioners contributed additional insights. While the causes of the adverse conditions vary widely, the terms the practitioners use to characterize these communities are similar. These include "despair," "defeatist attitude," "jaded," "disheartened," "futility," and "cynicism." (Carlson, 2004; Comp, 2001; Konechne, 2004; Reece, 2006; Unpublished interviews with colleagues working in at-risk communities, 2006). While not explicit in the reports mentioned above, this case study analysis found a common factor that offers insights about how and why these communities exist through generations of adverse conditions: If real estate in these communities ever had market value, that value dropped at the time of their respective economic devastation. Thus, these communities are characterized by extended families who are economically bound to their houses and/or land, and important, to each other. A corollary to this is often factionalism between extended families. It is very important to note that I am not suggesting blanket characterization for any ethnic group or region; to the contrary, I am describing a dynamic that transcends these distinctions. This suggests it would be helpful to approach programming in these types of at-risk communities in terms that acknowledge the social dynamic they have in common, rather than terms that differentiate them based on ecological, geographic, cultural, and/or ethnic heritage. Survivor CommunitiesI suggest "Survivor Communities" may be a useful term and a useful heuristic for research that will inform programming in communities that display these characteristics. The term will be useful in dialogue with potential partners because it acknowledges community scale trauma; it is not pejorative; it does not focus on deficits; and important, it transcends the differences between communities without discounting the unique heritage at the core of each community's identity. The connections between these insights from the field and education theory are reviewed below. Connecting Theory and PracticeExperiential LearningJohn Dewey's writings have been required reading in education theory since the early 20th century (Menand, 2002). Dewey's challenge to educators is to design activities during which meaningful work is engaged, but higher order learning is the outcome. Dewey's thesis about "experiential education" is exemplified in his statement that there is nothing in an elementary study of botany that cannot be introduced in a "vital way," connecting learning to nature, life, and human relationships, in a vegetable garden (Dewey, 1916, p. 196-200). This is a succinct description of traditional Extension programming. More recent writings by Jurgen Habermas, Paolo Freire, and Jack Mezirow explicate aspects of experiential learning. These ideas, and their implications for at-risk programming are briefly reviewed below. Communicative Learning & Transformative LearningKlemme, Hausafus, and Shirer suggest at-risk programming requires a participatory approach that enhances communication between diverse participants. When writing about the significance of "communicative learning," both Habermas and Freire assert that to teach effectively we must participate as co-learners (Freire, 1970, p. 96; Habermas, 1971, p. 192). Because communicative learning theory recognizes that linguistic codes, social norms, and expectations differ across cultures, including disciplinary cultures, it is a useful philosophical approach to developing participatory programming initiatives. Habermas and Mezirow suggest "transformative," or "emancipatory," learning is characterized by "critical self-reflection" on the assumptions that are fundamental to our understanding of the world. The "emancipation" in transformative learning is emancipation from misperceptions about constraints that limit our control over our lives. Most important, this includes emancipation from misperceptions about our limitations to overcoming these constraints (Habermas, 1971, p. 310; Mezirow, 1991, p. 87; 1996). It is important to note that in communities that fit the description of Survivor Communities, this is not merely about limited resources; it is about recognizing and overcoming the self-reinforcing fatalism--the Survivor Community Dynamic--described above. Implications for programming are offered below. Programming with Survivor CommunitiesFreire's philosophy of education is grounded in his fieldwork with communities that fit our description of Survivor Communities. However, Freire suggests that it is not the pervasive constraints to meeting basic needs that sustain the fatalistic dynamic. Freire's research suggests that once these constraints are perceived as "fetters" rather than insurmountable barriers, people act to "emancipate" themselves from those fetters. Important, Freire refers to this phenomenon as the capacity to act on "untested feasibility." Thus, Freire's philosophy, after Dewey, is founded on the principle that education in these communities must pose a concrete issue as a problem that requires action (Freire, 1970, p. 99-102). It is important to reiterate that Freire's work was focused on communities that fit the description of Survivor Communities and that by concrete issues he means issues that are fundamental to the basic needs of the community. Further analysis of the case studies mentioned above and my own observations in the field confirm Freire's idea about "fetters." In each case study the "fetters" included limitations imposed by social forces both internal and external to the community, specifically, the internal cultural and political forces that are sustained by the Survivor Community Dynamic, and the external forces of politics, economics, and bureaucracy. In each case it was external forces at the core of the devastation. In each case, those who remain have neither the individual capacity to leave nor the community capacity to overcome the repercussions. And, very important, the successes of these initiatives were due to partnerships initiated by external organizations that recognized these complexities and worked collaboratively with the community and other outside agencies to identify and overcome the barriers to meeting community needs. It is very important to reiterate this point: this research suggests that those who remain in the community after the devastating event have neither the individual capacity to leave nor the community capacity to overcome the repercussions. Thus, partnership with external organizations is necessary to overcoming the repercussions, including the Survivor Community Dynamic. This was clearly illustrated in the AMD&ART case study. Thus, the challenge to Extension professionals working with Survivor Communities is to develop an approach to programming that is based on sound education theory, is grounded in practice, and builds within the community the capacity to identify and overcome internal and external barriers. The section below offers a working definition for "Trans-Disciplinary Action-Research" and a rationale for this approach to at-risk programming. Trans-Disciplinary Action-ResearchBecause this approach engages participants in collaborative processes that not only identify the barriers to addressing community needs, but also iteratively develop, implement, and evaluate the effectiveness of strategies to overcome these barriers, the term "action-research" is helpful (Kerry, Marullo, Cutforth, Stoeker & Donohue, 1998; Stringer, 1999). Because this approach transcends not only disciplinary boundaries, but civilian boundaries as well, to include multiple agencies and community members, all of whom are "working to achieve a broad array of shared and highly interrelated community goals," the term "trans-disciplinary action-research" is helpful (Stokols, 2006; CDE, 2006). The AMD&ART initiative reviewed above exemplifies this trans-disciplinary action-research approach. The section below reviews the program evaluation research conducted in conjunction with the AMD&ART initiative. Program Evaluation with AMD&ARTFor the purposes of generating baseline data from which to document the benefits of the AMD&ART initiative, a random sample survey was administered in the summer of 1998, shortly after the first public workshop. That survey was replicated in the summer of 2000, just after construction on the coal flats commenced. In both cases, the surveys were sent to 100 randomly selected households. The population of Vintondale was 546. In 1998, 33% of the surveys were returned completed; in 2001, 41% were returned completed. The 1998 survey included 15 questions (Button, Stough, Comp, Arena, & Casper, 1998). The 2000 survey included several additional experimental questions (Thering, 2001). The experimental questions were informed by insights generated through interviews with residents and staff, and a body of literature on "social capital" and "community capacity" (Brady, Verba, & Schlozman, 1995; Goodman et al., 1999). This multi-method program evaluation research was founded on a hypothesis that the community's capacity to organize themselves and access outside resources would be increased through AMD&ART's trans-disciplinary action-research approach and that this increase would be measurable. While that research will likely be of interest to many Extension professionals, it is not the focus of this article. (That research found evidence of the community capacity building benefits of the AMD&ART initiative. [Thering, 2001; Thering & Comp, 2000; Unpublished interviews with AMD&ART staff and community members conducted in conjunction with the AMD&ART History Symposium, 2005]). However, that investigation generated a considerable amount of data that, at the time, seemed ambiguous, and thus was set aside. In the 5-year interim, I have worked with other at-risk communities and conducted the case study research and literature search reviewed above. With the insights gleaned from that investigation, I revisited the data from the AMD&ART initiative. The results are reviewed below. Measuring the Capacity to Imagine a Better FutureOne set of the ambiguous response data was generated from a question that asked about the "possible benefits of cleaning up acid mine drainage and redeveloping contaminated lands" (Button et al., 1998). Nine "possible benefits" were listed. Respondents were asked to rate the importance of each "possible benefit" on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being "Very Unimportant" and 5 being "Very Important." Response data from the baseline survey showed that, of the nine possible benefits listed, four were considered less than important (mean < 4.00). The follow-up survey showed none of the nine were considered less than important. The change was statistically significant in three of the nine (Table 1). Initial analysis interpreted this change as an increase in community consensus about redevelopment issues. Since consensus about issues is a characteristic of community capacity (Goodman et al., 1998), this interpretation was consistent with our interpretation of the other data.
However, this interpretation implied the respondents thought issues like community cooperation and increased tourism less than important in 1998 and then thought these issues important in 2000. In addition, changes in standard deviations suggested there was a lack of consensus about the importance of educational and recreation opportunities in 1998 and more consensus about these issues in 2000 (a standard deviation <1.00 was interpreted as consensus). These interpretations were not consistent with what we knew of the community through our interactions during workshops and interviews conducted between 1998 and 2000. That qualitative material showed that the community consistently demonstrated concerns for all these issues. Thus that set of survey data was set aside as ambiguous. However, revisiting that data |