A Review Of Subject Matter Topics Researched In Agricultural And Extension Education

Two premier publications of the agricultural and extension education profession were examined to identify subject matter topics researched in agricultural and extension education. A total of 853 articles (402 in Journal of Agricultural Education and451 in National Agricultural Education Research Meetings) published during 1986-1996 were reviewed. A total of 30 subject matter topics were identified using an expert panel. The 853 articles were categorized into the relevant subject matter topics. The top five subject matter topics researched during this 11 years were: secondary ag programs, learning styles/theory, extension education, professionalism, and ag mechanics/engineering. Emerging topics included.. distance education, international, undergraduate/graduate education, agricultural literacy, diverse audiences and environment/sustainability. Agricultural and extension educators research a variety of subject matter topics which address diverse issues related to the profession. It is recommended that the profession develop a systematic research agenda focusing on: I) critical issues of the profession; 2) collaborative approach to research; and 3) periodic reviews ofpremier publications of the profession The agricultural education profession has a long history and tradition of research and development support (Mannebach, McKenna and Pfau, 1984). Rapid growth of research activities has resulted in enormous growth of the agricultural education literature (Radhakrishna, 1995). Articles appearmg m the Journal of Agricultural Education (JAE) and papers presented at the National Agricultural Education Research Meeting (NAERM) are good indicators of the profession’s scientific activity, philosophy and application. According to Knight (1984) “what a profession writes about in its journals and magazines might be considered a fairly good indicator of what is perceived as being important and the topics researched might give insight into the priorities of a profession.” Effective analysis of subject matter topics researched lies in the categories used for grouping the topics under appropriate categories (Knight, 1984). Over the years, numerous researchers have categorized subject matter topics based on central themes or focus of the journal articles, papers presented, summaries of abstracts and by just looking at the titles of the research study (Burke & Keplinger, 1996; Crunkilton, 1988; Moore, 1987; and Moss, 1986). Other researchers have used established practices, replication and use of review panel to determine subject matter topics (Radhakrishna & Mbaga, 1995; Silvia-Guerrero and Sutphin, 1988). For example, Crunkilton (1988) identified eight categories: administration/supervision; curriculum development; pedagogy; special needs; instructional resources; supervised experience programs; leadership; inservice and evaluation. Moore (1987) ident i f ied nine categories--professional and general; teacher education; extension, international, FFA, SOEP, curriculum/planning, teaching and agricultural mechanics. Radhakrishna and Mbaga using Kahler’s classification identified 18 categories which included adult/post secondary; elementary ag programs; evaluation; experiential learning; extension; inservice education; international; Journal of Agricultural Education 59 Vol. 38, No. 3, I99 7 learning theory; philosophy; policy; program development; recruitment; research methodology; secondary ag programs; special needs; teaching methods; youth/youth organizations; and other. In the last decade, several scholars in the profession have expressed concerns regarding the conduct of research activities in agricultural education. Prominent among these scholars are Warmbrod(1986), Crunkilton (1988), Moss (1985), Moore (1987), Stewart, Shinn and Richardson (1977), Shinn and Buriak (1988), Silvia-Guerrero and Sutphin (1988), Mannebach, et al., (1984), and Radhakrishna (1995). The most striking concern, though expressed by Warmbrod a decade ago, still remains a concern to the profession today. Warmbrod wrote, “Progress during the past years in the technological and methodological aspects of research in agricultural education has not been accompanied by comparable improvement in another very important aspect of research, namely, the relevance, significance, and importance of problems and issues that we investigate. I propose that our highest priority for continuing progress in research in agricultural education must be that we pay greater attention to the significance and importance of the problems and issues that we research” (Warmbrod, 1986, p. 9). Stewart, Shinn and Richardson (1977) determined the problems challenging agricultural education and found 14 areas of concern. The concerns provided both implications for research and a sou rce o f researchable topics. Silvia-Guerrero and Sutphin (1988), in their study of research priorities in agricultnral education in the United States, found that 22 topics should be addressed at the national level and 5 topics at the state level. Based on the examination of summaries of research in agricultural and extension education, Crunkilton (1988) concluded that research in agricultural education is focused, but that focus has come about more by accident rather than through planned activities (p.327). Further, Crunkilton suggested that “If we, as a profession, want to chart a course for our research, , then we need some type of framework that will show us where we have been, where we can or should go, as individual professional researchers, as institutions, and as a total profession. Moss (1985), who analyzed the contents of papers presented at NAERM for the years 1974-1985, found that agricultural educators have examined a variety of topics in agricultural education. Moss concluded that priorities for research in agricultural education are not static (p. 6). Mannebach et al. (1984) analyzed the summaries of research and development activities in agricultural education for the years 1972-1984. They concluded that there is a dearth of research on agricultural education research. They recommended that agricultural educators should conduct more historical and experimental studies and encourage foreign studies. Moore (1987) examined over 900 doctoral dissertations to determine the focus of doctoral research in agricultural education conducted during 1900-1986. He found a variety of topics in agricultural education have been researched and concluded that doctoral research in agricultural education lacked focus. However, Moore said that doctoral research in agricultural education has focused more on addressing the problems of the profession. Shinn and Bmiak (1988) identified obstacles that limit systematic research in agricultural education as viewed by three groups of decision makers (deans of agriculture, deans of education, and directors of experiment stations) who play key roles in the approval and support of research. The Delphi technique was used to determine the views of these three groups of decision makers. They found consensus among the three groups of decision makers for five obstacles to the conduct of research in agricultural education. These included: 1) lack of focus; 2) inadequate qualifications; 3) teaching and service orientations; 4) insufficient Journal of Agricultural Education 60 VoL 38, No. 3,1997 funding; and 5) lack of value for research among agricultural educators. They suggested that agricultural education must identify important researchable problems, which, if pursued rigorously, will lead to clear solutions for the profession (p. 146). Continuing their research efforts, Buriak and Shinn (1993) used internal experts (department heads and facul ty) to ident i fy research initiatives--research problem areas (RPA), research activities (RA), and research objectives (RO). Four RPAs, 10 RAs, and 47 ROs were identified. Comparing findings from their previous study which used external experts (deans and directors of experiment stations) and findings from a study which used internal experts, they found a lack of consensus on the ratings of individual research initiatives by the two groups of experts. Both external and internal experts, however, agreed that research in agricultural education lacked focus. They concluded that the process of structuring and identifying a research agenda for agricultural education can be valuable for: 1) maintaining compatibility with national priorities for the food and agricultural systems; 2) for guiding investments in research, and 3) for communicating our priorities to agencies and organizations which have national responsibilities to plan and budget research (p. 34). McKinney (1987) offered several concerns and challenges to current research paradigms in agricultural and extension education. These included: 1) over reliance on empirical analytical perspectives; 2) expert domination of research framework; 3) insufficient consideration of context; 4) overemphasis on separate and discrete outcomes; 5) managerial orientation of research framework; 6) lack of attention to humanness of human research subject matter; and 7) inadequate conceptualization of what science is. Here are some questions we must ponder, discuss, and debate as we look into our past research efforts to determine future research priorities for the profession. According to a study conducted by Bowen, Radhakrishna and Jackson (1991) responsibilities of agricultural education faculty are changing. To what extent do these changes in responsibilities of faculty reflect the research priorities of the profession? Have we broadened our research focus to other areas such as communications, extension education, agricultural education in higher education and non-vocational areas as suggested by Warmbrod (1987)? Are we researching subject-matter topics which address the most critical issues facing the profession (Flowers, 1995)? Have we, as a profession, focused our attention and resources to address