“Integrating Research, Education and Extension”
USDA Project Directors Conference Luncheon Speaker
New Orleans, LA
March 31, 2005
Mortimer H. Neufville
Executive Vice President
NASULGC
Ladies and Gentlemen, good afternoon. It is my pleasure to address you at the luncheon session of the Science and Education Resources Development Project Directors Workshop. My assignment is to address the topic of integration of research, education and extension. At the outset I must raise the question: “Why Integration?” The most appropriate answer I could ascribe is that, integration creates greater access to resources, helps to generate support, and may create a greater advocacy team that will facilitate your efforts to be a viable force in adequately responding to science, and education priorities as well as addressing the needs of society.
As I thought about my presentation and the topic assigned, I began to reflect on the legislative acts that have impacted our food and agriculture system. The Land-Grant Act, which was established by Justin Smith Morrill in 1862, was designed to provide educational opportunities for those who did not have access to higher education in the nation. This act established teaching programs throughout the nation and provided opportunities for the working class people. At that time the working class people were engaged in agriculture, home economics, the mechanic arts and military science. Today, the land-grant mission remains the same, to provide educational opportunities for the working class. It so happens that the working class is no longer predominantly engaged in agriculture and the practical subjects identified in 1862. So for those who today wish to challenge the relevance of the Land-Grant Mission, tell them that we are and we must reach out to the working class and not just those who are engaged in agriculture production and food related enterprises.
Following the Morrill Act of 1862, the Hatch Act of 1887 established our state agricultural experiment stations, so that we could conduct research to help an agricultural industry that was in dire need of increasing its productivity, and needed to improve its industrial capacity. An industry that needed to create new knowledge and provide new techniques and applications.
The fact that the experiment stations were tied to the land-grant colleges, demonstrated the intent of the founding fathers that the teaching and research functions were to be integrated, and they should be inextricably linked. The amendment of the Act of 1862 which was passed in 1890 also created institutions which today are a viable part of our system and in many cases appears to be integrated in their functions.
The inability of our structure to lend itself to outreach and extension of the knowledge generated on the experiment stations to meet the needs of farmers, homemakers, and engineers in the early 1900’s led to the passage of the Smith Lever Act in 1914, and the subsequent development of an extension and outreach system with dimensions far beyond the boundaries of the campuses. The extension work was expected to disseminate the knowledge generated by the researchers to the users of this agricultural knowledge system. In essence the research generates new knowledge. The basic research created new knowledge and information to be taught in the classroom. The applied research created knowledge to be used by the farmers, ranchers, and all those engaged in the food chain continuum from production to consumption. The teachers, those engaged in academic programs, used the new knowledge to train the future employees of the food chain, while the extension worker, in her/his delivery of information, was expected to identify the research gaps and the problems that needed solutions, and pass these on to the researchers for action. This appears simple and idealistic, but it is the reality of how the Land-Grant mission was perceived, soon after 1914 and that is why it was and is the envy of the world.
We are still being asked by others how can they emulate our system of teaching, research, and extension, all being housed together and presumably a unified system, joining hands in research, education, and extension. So, why the question of integration? There are those who think that the integrated, unified education, research and extension program, is just a perception, and not a reality. It is confounded by the separation of funding streams with sometimes separate and distinct funding guidelines. This funding separation has perpetuated the separation of the functions and could be perceived as one of the continuing constraints to integration.
Justin Smith Morrill believed that land-grant universities should provide a liberal and practical education, and Hatch expanded the concept of education to the generation of new knowledge, which over time, should be extended through an outreach program as perceived by the Smith Lever Act. The success of the land-grant university in increasing our agricultural productivity, in generating new knowledge, and in creating an agricultural enterprise that is self-sufficient and the envy of the world, has in itself perpetuated a philosophy by those who fund our agricultural education research and extension system that the system is working, and significant increases in funding are no longer necessary. So unless we change the way we do business our plan of doubling our funding portfolio is not realistic.
The fact that today most of our land-grant universities food and agriculture programs are housed within colleges that are no longer solely named colleges of agriculture, but include natural resources, environmental sciences, food systems, & natural sciences, attests to the fact that we must embrace all sectors that are even on the fringes of what we would call the agriculture science discipline. Broadening the education agenda to include other sectors would also suggest to us that we broaden the research agenda to include sectors of engineering, biological sciences, medicine, consumer sciences, and others. Similarly, we should expand the extension agenda and become fully engaged with other societal needs that impact upon the quality of life of people everywhere. Which was the intent of the Smith Leaver Act, to enable our universities to reach beyond our borders to help people improve their quality of life.
And how is this related to integration? If we are expected to identify priorities, influence policy, engage in advocacy activities, and gain access to groups that are connected to the food and agriculture system, we must be unified in our efforts. We must promote an integrated education, research and extension system, and capitalize on our strengths so that others can know and appreciate how we can contribute to their priorities, and how we can be the primary source of information on food and agricultural policy an integrated food system, and is better able to reach out to rural communities, businesses, information technology groups, and others to enable them to compete in the 21st century.
Integration of our programs will significantly improve our advocacy strength. Speaking with one voice is something that we strive for continually, and speaking with one voice does not necessarily imply; stifling our autonomy, and our individuality. It means our total food system being a unified voice in trying to advocate for additional resources. Trying to identify and conduct multi-disciplinary research projects, trying to address the education and social needs of people and trying to build a research portfolio that is relevant and effective.
A couple of decades ago, USDA recognized the need for integration of the education, research, and extension functions, and subsequently reorganized its administration and staffing to showcase its commitment to a unified food and agriculture system. The funding, however, remained separate. Some have recognized this as one of the impediments to the integration of the functions at the university level. Other impediments may also include the line item funding enjoyed in some states for the research and extension functions, while the education programs are supported with in the university wide budget. I want to make it clear that NASULGC nor Mort Neufville is not advocating for a co-mingling of the funds. I am just clearly stating what have been perceived as impediments to integration. So that is my disclaimer.
Another significant impediment, which we have all discussed from time to time, is the promotion and tenure guidelines that exist at many of our institutions. These guidelines have over time, cast a shadow on extension, through the designation of extension work as being less than scholarly. The issue of quality of work continues to be a factor in many colleges of agriculture today. We have tried several ways to address this, but grantsmanship, publications generated, and book chapters written, continue to be the primary focus of promotion and tenure committees. There have been some inroads made by the education programs in terms of curriculum development, number of courses taught and instructional innovations. But they are still secondary to the scientific publications and other research outputs.
A fourth impediment has been the reluctance of other university disciplines to partner with extension and education because of turf protection in terms of campus courses to be taught: The time factor in terms of reaching out to communities is also an issue. While research benefits from interdisciplinary and multi-disciplinary work and assist new faculty in their zest for tenure, and advancement in the university community, some new faculty, however, are still heavily focused on their disciplinary orientation wanting to do only what they know best in a closet environment.
The creation of the Kellogg Commission in the early 1990’s to look at the future of our land-grant universities created new emphases for food systems education, for universities to look at the land-grant mission, and to address the question, “Is our mission of serving the people being fulfilled?”
One of the primary outputs of this commission was the refocusing of what we have traditionally called the tripartite functions of teaching, research, and extension, to the new paradigm of learning, discovery and engagement. The land-grant mission in the 21st century must be about people in all walks of life. For example, we must be about learning and the universities role in creating a learning environment.
The traditional research position should now be about discovery of new knowledge. If one is conducting research for the sake of research and new knowledge is not being generated, new discoveries are not being made the research is of little use or meaning to society.
Universities should not only be concerned with extension and extending its knowledge to the communities, but to be engaged with the communities and with all sectors of society, so that we can appreciate or learn from the users of our system, and recognize their needs while they learn from us. In essence, it’s a two-way flow of information, recognizing peoples needs and societal needs, while contributing to the improvement of the quality of life, and creating new opportunities and access for those beyond the borders of our campuses. The restatement of the tripartite functions to learning, discovery, and engagement connotates also the integration of our system. For one to learn, one must be discovering, and learning and discovering compels us to be engaged with our respective constituents.
Integrating our programs will of necessity cause us to change the way we do things. Integration may involve multi-interdisciplinary partnerships, teams of various sorts, they may be multi-state but above all there must be synergy, and there must be the foundation for motivating the teams so that each member is aware of its interdependence, and its interdependence should convey fairness and value. The playing field must at all times be level, and one must understand the connection as well as the consequences of disconnection. Each must be an integral part, but the connectivity as well as the ability to disconnect at the appropriate times must be clear, precise, and non-threatening. The benefits of integration should be of such that they are attractive, and will constructively contribute to attainment of certain goals and ideals within the reward structure and foundation of the system within which we operate.
And what are the benefits of integration? (1) Team approach to issues. Remembering that we have strength in numbers, and depth in expertise when we work together. (2) Integration creates access to other resources these may be traditional or nontraditional.
(3) Having an integrated system creates greater appeal to those from the outside. These may be funding agencies, foundations, students and users of our system. Next, (4) Integration also promotes a holistic program, and provides students, faculty, researchers, and the users with multiple options in terms of education programs, researchable topics, and the breath of expertise to address societal needs.
(5) Innovations may begin in non-conspicuous places and therefore having an integrated team will allow a system to capitalize on the assets that each element working in consort brings to the table. Through integration these assets can catalyze a system toward efficiency and greater self-sufficiency. Which may not have happened with units operating and functioning independently.
In promoting integration one must set targets and one must realize that there is strength in a partnership, and having a strong sense of personal commitment is necessary for the success of the partnership. Success of integration may be driven by economic, social, political or cultural responsibility. Integration brings people together, so that they can think together, plan together, implement together and solve problems together. It also creates access to the collective thinking of the whole for those outside the enterprise desiring to benefit from the products of the enterprise.