The Productivity Effects of Extension Appointments in Land-Grant Colleges

Abstract

This article analyzes the primary activities of agricultural college faculty with and without extension appointments using survey data. The evidence suggests that differences between extension professors and others in agricultural colleges in terms of research production are small for minor extension appointments, but show significant and increasing trade-offs between extension and research outputs above a 40% extension appointment. The evidence is broadly suggestive of the potential for gains from exploiting complementarities between extension and research rather than from pursuing high levels of specialization. The work concludes with implications for the role of state specialists in Cooperative Extension.O ver the past several decades, commentators and experts have debated the role and function of Cooperative Extension in land-grant universities, and have even called into question its very survival (Hoag; Ilvento; National Research Council; Peters; Wolf and Zilberman). Budgetary pressures, an expanding scope of thematic activities, a decline in the relative importance of agriculture, growing private extension services, and demands for better integration of research and extension have all been factors driving discussions on the future of Cooperative Extension. Significant changes in organizational form and direction have been discussed, but the literature has paid relatively little attention to the productivity of "state specialists"-in particular, tenure-track faculty with extension appointments-in the Land-Grant system. 1 Some have viewed these state specialists as the "intellectual cutting edge" of the Cooperative Extension system because their appointments require scholarly research explicitly oriented toward concerns of the public and private clientele of the system (see e.g., Radhakrishna; Woeste, Waddill, and Arrington). Certainly, who state specialists are, how they perform in research and extension, and how

Public engagement: Faculty lived experiences and perspectives underscore barriers and a changing culture in academia

“…Our faculty perceptions of public engagement might have otherwise been skewed by the inclusion of extension faculty since they may experience different motivations and barriers than non-extension faculty. In fact, previous research shows that having an extension appointment is positively associated with more frequent participation in public engagement activities [ 42 ]. Excluding extension faculty allowed us to focus on perspectives from faculty who are not formally expected to engage with the public based on their appointment, but rather must choose to engage with the public on their own accord.…”

Are Productive Scientists More Willing to Engage With the Public?

“…For instance, female scientists are somewhat less willing to engage through the media than their male counterparts, though the gender differences in participating in some other activities are small (Besley et al, 2018). Having an extension appointment was also controlled for because public engagement is heavily weighted and explicitly incentivized for those with extension appointments (e.g., Foltz & Barham, 2009). Finally, research fields can influence the type of engagement activities that scientists participate in.…”

How institutional factors at US land-grant universities impact scientists’ public scholarship

“…As such, it is expected that faculty with extension appointments regularly engage and collaborate with multiple stakeholders, necessitating the development of skills to effectively engage with these stakeholders and the public, more broadly. Research on the impact of extension appointments on engagement participation showed that holding an extension appointment above 40% drastically increased the number of extension clientele presentations a researcher had with stakeholders (Foltz and Barham, 2009). Therefore, extension appointments represent an active, institutionalized form of public engagement.…”