backcontentsnext

Preparing and upgrading the extension workforce: a comparative analysis of higher agricultural education in Honduras, Malaysia, Nigeria and Peru

W.M. Rivera

W.M. Riviera is an Associate Professor in the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources at the University of Maryland, College Park, United States.

College of Agriculture and Natural Resources,
University of Maryland,
College Park, MD 20742, United States
tel: +1 301405 1253
fax: +1 301314 9343
e-mail: wr11@umail.umd.edu

The following is a synopsis of a comparative study of agricultural higher education institutions undertaken by the author on the basis of four case studies supplied by FAO and completed through self-reports furnished by the institutions involved. The comparative study focuses on the extension preservice education and in-service training programmes at four agricultural higher education institutions.

Introduction

The great majority of the approximately 600 000 agricultural extension agents worldwide (FAO 1990; Swanson, Farmer and Bahal, 1990), especially those in developing countries, have not generally achieved a university education; rather, the large majority (slightly over 72 percent) are products of secondary schools or intermediate technical/vocational schools. Only about 23 percent hold a university degree or equivalent. Once employed in extension services, these agents then receive in-service training through government programmes and/or university outreach programmes.

Accordingly, it follows that: 1) higher education graduates who pursue programmes in extension education, graduate and then seek and find positions in the extension service, are likely to become administrators, researchers or supervisors rather than extension field agents, although not in all cases (Mosher 1976); and 2) participants in university outreach and in-service training programmes are likely to be: extension field agents with secondary or intermediate, vocational school degrees; administrators with advanced degrees in agricultural development but requiring new information on a process or content area in agriculture; or farmers. There is therefore a sharp distinction between students in preservice education programmes and those who are employed or self-employed in the workforce and receiving in-service training.

Preservice programmes as they are discussed here, form a part of the formal education system and include activities such as lectures, laboratory work, applied experience on campus farms and, occasionally, in demonstration projects off-campus. Preservice education involves students who are usually studying in order to find employment and professionals who have returned to school for further upgrading of their knowledge and skills. The other type of programmes compared in the study are in-service training programmes. These programmes address different audiences, such as in-service employees (e.g. extension agents and agricultural development officers) and farmers. They include short-term workshops and seminars aimed at upgrading extension workers in programme planning and evaluation, extension methodology and communications, as well as technical subjects.

This article describes the preservice programmes of four agricultural higher education institutions: the National Agricultural University Abeokuta (UNAAB) in Nigeria; the Universiti Pertanian Malaysia (UPM) in Malaysia; the Escuela Panamericana de Agricultura (Zamorano) in Honduras; and the Universidad Nacional Agrícola La Molina (UNALM) in Peru.

Institutional context

While it is not the purpose of this article to compare the countries in which the four agricultural higher education institutions are located, a review of selected data on the four countries may be useful in situating the four institutions.

Table 1 brings together data on each of the four countries regarding their total land area, percentage of arable land, total and rural populations, agriculture as percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) and the percentage of the labour force in agriculture. Table 2 provides data on the number of higher education institutions and the number of agricultural universities and colleges in the four countries. These data illustrate some of the divergent geographic and population characteristics and the institutional contexts in which the four case study institutions operate.

TABLE 1. Characteristics of the four countries in which the selected institutions operate

 

Honduras

Malaysia

Nigeria

Peru

Total land area (km2)

112 090

329 750

910 770

1 300 000

Arable land (%)

14

3

31

3

Total population (millions)

5.3

17.9

119

22.4

Rural population (% of total)

60

63

70-75

30-35

Agriculture (% of GDP)

30

30

28

12

Labour force in agriculture (%)

over 60

19

54

37

Source: United States Department of Agriculture, 1992.
Foreign agriculture 1990-1991. Washington, DC, Foreign Agricultural Service.

 

TABLE 2. Higher education institutions in the four countries

 

Honduras

Malaysia

Nigeria

Peru

Total number of institutions

8

42

48

46

Number of agricultural universities and colleges

3 (1)

    1

8 (2)

1 (3)

(1) There are three agricultural third-level institutions in Honduras. The Escuela Agricola Panamericana (Zamorano) is a private, non-profit international institution, designed as a college. The other two agricultural colleges are publicly funded.
(2) There are a total of 37 public (federal and state) universities in Nigeria. Three of them are agricultural universities: at Abeokuta, Makurdi, and Umudike. Five are universities of technology with colleges of agriculture. Among the remaining federal and state universities there are 13 faculties of agriculture.
(3) The Universidad Nacional Agricola La Molina, Peru's agricultural university, includes three regional development institutes - one each in the sierra, selva and costa regions.

Source: Information provided by respective embassies in Washington, DC.

 

Table 1 shows that the total area of land is disproportionate to each country's respective percentage of arable land area available (only 3 percent in Malaysia and Peru; 14 percent in Honduras and 31 percent in Nigeria). Population differences are impressive; Peru, a large country in terms of land area, contains a relatively small population, whereas Nigeria, which is smaller in area, contains about 119 million. The percentage of rural population is similar in Honduras (60 percent) and Malaysia (63 percent) but larger in Nigeria (70 to 75 percent) and smaller in Peru (30 to 35 percent). Agriculture as a percentage of GDP is similar in Honduras, Malaysia and Nigeria, but is considerably lower in Peru (12 percent). The percentage of the labour force in agriculture is highest for Nigeria and Honduras (54 and 60 percent respectively), relatively high for Peru (37 percent) and falls to 19 percent for Malaysia.

The four institutions

Zamorano, also known as the Pan-American College of Agriculture, is a private non-profit institution located about 15 km outside Tegucigalpa, the capital of Honduras, on a 6 000-hectare campus. Established over 50 years ago, it prepares students from throughout Latin America for leadership positions in the areas of sustainable agriculture, agribusiness, natural resource management and rural development. In addition, through its continuing education and training activities, extension programmes and impact-oriented research, Zamorano provides practical knowledge and skills to the public, including: small-scale farmers, leaders in agribusiness, primary school teachers, university administrators, rural community leaders and agricultural and environmental policy-makers.

The National Agricultural University Abeokuta (UNAAB) was established in January 1988 with a trimodal mandate of teaching, research and extension. It is located at three campuses - Abeokuta, Makurdi and Umudike - Abeokuta being the largest of the three Nigerian campuses but the smallest of the four agricultural higher education institutions compared in this article, covering only 100 hectare. The key objectives of UNAAB are: achieving national self-sufficiency in food production in a minimum time period, and achieving rural development over the long term.

The Universiti Pertanian Malaysia (UPM, renamed the Universiti Putra Malaysia in 1996) was officially opened as a school of agriculture in May 1931. The University is currently located at two sites, Serdang and Kuala Trenggnu, and its campuses cover 1 597 hectares. Referred to as a semi-government institution, it receives approximately 80 percent of its financial support from the government and approximately 20 percent from private sources. UPM also has a trimodal mandate emphasizing teaching, research and extension. It is the only higher education institution of learning in Malaysia that provides in-service extension training for extension rural development workers.

The Universidad Nacional Agrícola La Molina (UNALM) has its origins in the National School of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences, founded in 1902. In 1960 it became the National Agricultural University (UNALM). It is located at one central campus on the outskirts of Lima and maintains three regional institutes: one in the sierra mountains, one in the selva woodlands and one in the costa coastal region. The total campus area is 6 079 hectares. UNALM's annual budget comes mainly from the government (93 percent) and the rest from its own resources. Policy changes in the early 1990s towards privatization of public-sector agricultural services have strongly affected the university's extension and rural development programmes.

Organization of extension preservice education

The way in which preservice education is organized tends to influence programme quality and the effectiveness of the institutions in producing extension workers and educators. One of the problems evident in the case studies is the lack of distinction between programmes dedicated specifically to agricultural extension and those that are oriented towards agronomy and only peripherally include extension subject matter. Indeed, the programme choices tend to reflect the nature of government priorities on extension and extension education.

Zamorano's undergraduate extension preservice education programme is administered by the department of rural development. Students can select any of three different programmes, each dealing differently with extension preservice education.

At UNAAB, the undergraduate extension preservice education programme is administered by the department of agricultural extension and rural development (AERD). AERD operates within a seven-college semi-autonomous structure.

UPM's extension preservice education programme at the undergraduate level is administered by the Faculty of Agriculture and organized into the following academic departments: agronomy and horticulture; plant protection and soil science; and the Faculty of Human Ecology. The Centre for Extension and Continuing Education (CECE) is responsible for extension preservice education at graduate level as well as the in-service extension training programme.

At UNALM, there is no undergraduate extension preservice programme, although there are various course electives that relate to extension subject matter, for example: principles and methods of rural extension, communication theory, social psychology, and farmer mobilization. At the graduate level, students can pursue a master of science degree in agricultural production and extension.

Table 3 compares the extension preservice education at different student levels at the four institutions.

TABLE 3 Extension preservice education by student level

 

Zamorano

UPM

UNAAB

UNALM

B.Sc.

1. Agronomist: 3 years
2. Agronomic Engineer: 3 years + 1 year in a specific area (e.g. rural development)

1. Diploma in Agriculture
2. Bachelor of Agriculture (with possible concentration in extension

Bachelor of Agriculture

Bachelor of Agriculture

M.Sc.

Master of Professional Studies
Programme for mid-career professionals (offered jointly by Zamorano and Cornell University in the United States

M.Sc. in Agriculture (students can specialize in extension)

No data

M.Sc. in Agricultural Production and Extension (students can specialize in extension)

Ph.D.

No programme

Ph.D. in Agriculture
(students can specialize in extension)

No data

No programme

 

Extension curricula

Issues of particular interest in agricultural education are the methods used for learning and the contribution of relevant organizations to the development of curricula at agricultural higher education institutions.

Zamorano

Background. Since its founding, Zamorano has been involved in outreach activities. In the early 1980s Zamorano became more central in the Honduran school system and, at the same time, its extension activities increased substantially. Zamorano's extension activities respond to the needs of a broad public including small-scale producers, primary school teachers, university administrators, rural development organizations and agricultural policy-makers. Zamorano also implements community development programmes.

Instruction methods. Zamorano students rise before dawn and spend half the day in practical field laboratories. Students may be involved in producing cream and cheeses, growing organic fruit and vegetables, applying computer technology and accounting procedures to production and marketing activities, ploughing fields, harvesting grains and vegetables or building and managing irrigation systems. Whatever the task, learning-by-doing experiences are used to reinforce what students learn in the classroom during the other half of the day. At the same time, it is intended to develop practical skills, confidence, character and respect for hard work.

Curriculum. Extension currently makes up 21.2 percent (11 courses) of course offerings in the entire three-year agronomic programme. Students whose concentration is extension are required to take 31.5 percent of their courses in extension.

The curriculum of the agronomist programme has undergone some major changes. Basic courses on social sciences, general economics, agricultural economics, rural development and others were added to the programme. In the agronomic engineering programme, a rural development concentration was created.

From 1987 to 1991 there were many different efforts to evaluate the needs of the general population and ways in which Zamorano students could be of service. Extension education and in-service activities were seen as one of the answers. Thus, in 1994 the department of rural development was founded as an independent entity with its own resources.

Curriculum development. The general curriculum in the agronomist programme, the agronomic engineering programme and the concentration in rural development are designed by professors whose interests and experiences in these fields are bolstered by direct communication with faculty members of other institutions or through evaluations and surveys. The curriculum for extension and rural development has a strong multidisciplinary character. Zamorano professors undertook an evaluation of different curriculum goals, content and methodologies to obtain the information necessary to develop its extension preservice programme. Zamorano also worked with FAO to develop guidelines for extension and rural development which were used in developing the curriculum. The resulting curriculum has undergone changes since then to ensure that it is up to date.

Institutional curricula and government priorities. Zamorano and the Honduran Government's Natural Resources Office have worked together for more that 20 years in different areas of education and technical training. There is mutual agreement to support one another in order to ensure technical assistance to farmers and producers throughout the country. In addition, Zamorano is part of the National Commission of Education that is in charge of agricultural development. Accordingly, there is continuous communication between the government and Zamorano at different levels, with curriculum development being one area of importance.

UNAAB

Background. The historical origins of universities in Nigeria seem to have made the integration of teaching and research, vis-ŕ-vis extension training, very difficult. Although among Nigeria's 37 public universities there are five Federal Universities of Technology with colleges of agriculture and 13 with faculties of agriculture, the direct involvement of these colleges and faculties in extension education and services is limited. In fact the universities' achievements and role in training and community service have often fallen short of expectations.

The three Nigerian universities of agriculture, including UNAAB, were established as a result of the federal government's effort to make agricultural education and training at the university level more practical and agricultural research more results-oriented and cost-effective. Thus, extension preservice education became a major thrust of UNAAB.

Curriculum. Following the establishment of UNAAB in January 1988, and prior to the establishment of an Agricultural Media Resources and Extension Center (AMREC) in 1991, extension education was operated solely by the department of agricultural extension and rural development (AERD) within the College of Agricultural Management, Rural Development and Consumer Studies. At present, AERD handles all the extension teaching needs of the other departments in the university. Specifically, AERD contributes to the bachelor of agriculture degree programme by offering both core and elective courses. Moreover, it is involved in various practice-oriented adaptive research activities aimed at solving societal problems in the areas of diffusion and adoption of technological innovations in agriculture.

The AERD department has also proposed a postgraduate diploma in agricultural extension education. This programme would involve selected lecturers from related departments who are teaching core courses in crop and animal production. The programme would emphasize extension education through core and compulsory courses.

UNAAB seeks to follow the principles of the United States Land Grant University model. However, given the separation of the national extension system from the university, this goal appears unrealistic in terms of developing cooperative efforts at the federal, state and local levels, although perhaps not in terms of the model's principles.

Curriculum development. The original academic programme that has been in operation since the commencement of the bachelor of agriculture programme in 1988 has received substantial input from AERD.

All the departments involved in the bachelor of agriculture programme are required to include core courses in agricultural extension, thus the degree engenders close collaboration among the various departments. In addition to the department of home science and management, which has an extension and rural development option in its academic programme, the department of forestry and wildlife management and the department of aquaculture and fisheries also have plans to propose extension education options in their new degree programmes.

The curriculum of agricultural extension education was reviewed in response to a need to make the content more relevant and appropriate to the theoretical and practical needs of the programme beneficiaries, in line with the accreditation guidelines of the National Universities Commission which periodically reviews the courses.

Institutional curricula and government priorities. The National University Commission, which oversees and helps design UNAAB's curricula, appears to be influenced by government priorities.

UPM

Background. UPM's extension programme at the baccalaureate level was started in 1973 with the launching of the bachelor of agricultural science programme by the Faculty of Agriculture, in which students were given the option to major in extension education. The bachelor of horticultural science programme introduced in 1986/87 also gives students the option of majoring in extension education. Extension courses are not compulsory and only about 10 to 15 percent of the students in the Faculty of Agriculture major in extension/communication each semester.

The Center for Extension and Continuing Education (CECE) was established in 1976 to coordinate and support the extension function of the university. It was created in response to a need to enlarge and enhance the role of UPM as a mechanism and catalyst for national development. CECE administers the undergraduate and graduate programmes in extension. While CECE does not have its own academic programme at the undergraduate level, it does offer core, elective and non-credit courses to students enrolled in other faculties. At the graduate level, CECE offers masters and Ph.D. programmes in extension education and development communication to qualified Malaysian and foreign candidates.

UPM is oriented toward the national, modified training and visit (T+V) extension system, known as the "impact point system".

Instruction methods. One of UPM's objectives is to produce well-rounded and well-trained personnel in agriculture to meet the national staff requirements in this sector. The university farm aims to provide the necessary facilities and services for students to gain hands-on experience.

The graduate programme adopts a dynamic interdisciplinary approach whereby students are required to master a broad range of knowledge about theory, research and general principles of extension and development communication.

Curriculum. Extension currently makes up 9 percent of the entire programme for agricultural students who are not taking the extension major (six credits of extension theory and two credits of extension practicum). Extension majors are required to take 17.5 percent (or 21 credits) of their courses in extension.

Institutional curricula and government priorities. UMP's Curriculum Review Board presumably ensures the integration of government priorities into university curricula.

UNALM

At UNALM there is no undergraduate extension preservice programme, although there are various course electives relating to extension subject matter, for example: principles and methods of rural extension, communication theory, social psychology, and farmer mobilization. At the graduate level, students can pursue a master of science degree in agricultural production and extension.

Institutional curricula and government priorities. UNALM does not specifically mention a curriculum review board, however, its University Assembly operates as the highest educational and political mechanism of the university and is likely to oversee whether curricula reflect government priorities.

External linkages

The importance of the linkage between research and extension systems is well recognized (Cernea, Coulter and Russell, 1985; Kaimowitz, Snyder and Engel, 1989; Merrill-Sands and Kaimowitz, 1989; Pray and Echeverria 1989; Bennett 1990; Uquillas and Navas 1993) as the three activities are interdependent. Nonetheless, the linkages between the agricultural education system and agricultural researchers, market managers, credit providers and agricultural input suppliers tend to be minimal and the prevailing pattern throughout much of the world is to have them administered separately by different government agencies. Close functional relationships need to be established and maintained.

Zamorano has cooperated with the Honduran National Office of Natural Resources in an ongoing effort for the last 20 years, connecting Zamorano closely with the national agricultural extension service. The Government of Honduras has signed a number of agreements with Zamorano, thus ensuring the importance of the programme. At Zamorano, programmes are supported partially by private institutions. The largest recent donor has been the German Government which, through the German Foundation for International Development, provides approximately 100 full scholarships per year. The second largest donor is the United States Agency for International Development which provides money for scholarships, infrastructure, buildings and maintenance.

UNAAB maintains linkages with a number of federal agencies, including: the Federal Agriculture Coordinating Unit (FACU), the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA), and the National Agricultural Extension Research Liaison Service. Linkages with international organizations include those with FAO, the International Institute for Tropical Agricultural at Ibadan and the University of Reading in the United Kingdom. UNAAB has limited ties with the Nestle corporation and Obasanjo Farms in Nigeria. Linkages at the federal level sometimes bring UNAAB into contact with international projects. Through the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources, the university has links with donor agencies, particularly the World Bank. At the state level, the university has developed links with the Agroservice Corporation which is in charge of agricultural input marketing. At the local level, the local government agencies usually have an understanding with UNAAB through state agencies.

UPM receives 80 percent of its funding from semi-government institutions (specifically from the Rubber Industry Smallholder Development Authority - RISDA, the Federal Land Development Authority - FELDA and the Ministry of Agriculture's Department of Agriculture - MOA-DOA). The remaining 20 percent of funds are developed by UPM's internal support system through student fees, farm sales, room rental, consultancy on research projects, etc. UPM maintains some, but not strong, linkages with its federal funding agencies (RISDA, FELDA and the DOA).

UNALM has not had an extension programme since 1990 when the government shifted authority for agricultural extension to the private sector and dismantled the national extension service. Thus, UNALM's linkages with respect to extension are negligible. Its ties with private agronomic companies and agricultural NGOs appear to be minimal at best.

Extension faculty

Zamorano's department of rural development is comprised of a total of 11 professors with different specializations in social sciences (two professors), education and extension (three), communications (three), systems (two) and economics (one). These professors are supported by other departments and by administrative personnel. In addition, there are 25 assistants who help the professors in field instruction and practices (ten in extension, five in communication, two in training and the rest in other areas). UNAAB has three active faculty members in the department of extension education and rural development (AERD). UPM has 34 total faculty members in the extension department. The number of assistants is unspecified. UNALM's total number of faculty is 187 and the Office of Social Outreach may call upon any of the eight faculties to provide training seminars. The case study does not indicate the specific number of faculty involved.

One major issue confronting agricultural higher education institutions is faculty development, conspicuously absent in the four case studies under examination. As noted in FAO (1997), governments and institutions need to encourage staff by providing adequate resources for them to keep informed of advances and developments in their disciplines. Involvement in research activities and development projects is also needed for university staff to stay in contact with practical developments in their areas of expertise.

Extension students

Financial difficulties confront preservice students (FAO, 1997). Higher education is expensive and, as a result, rural and poor students are virtually excluded from enrolment at many agricultural university-level institutions. Additionally, in many countries many agricultural students come from urban origins and have little knowledge and experience of rural areas, which makes it difficult to teach them. Young rural women are at a particular disadvantage in gaining access to agricultural education and training. Even when they receive a good basic education, they have less access to secondary and higher education. In some cultures, greater numbers of females with agricultural skills are needed since only female extension agents are allowed to work directly with women farmers. Zamorano and UPM are actively seeking to include female students. Table 4 provides information on student enrolment in extension at the four institutions, aggregated by gender.

Extension students

Financial difficulties confront preservice students (FAO, 1997). Higher education is expensive and, as a result, rural and poor students are virtually excluded from enrolment at many agricultural university-level institutions. Additionally, in many countries many agricultural students come from urban origins and have little knowledge and experience of rural areas, which makes it difficult to teach them. Young rural women are at a particular disadvantage in gaining access to agricultural education and training. Even when they receive a good basic education, they have less access to secondary and higher education. In some cultures, greater numbers of females with agricultural skills are needed since only female extension agents are allowed to work directly with women farmers. Zamorano and UPM are actively seeking to include female students. Table 4 provides information on student enrolment in extension at the four institutions, aggregated by gender.

TABLE 4 Extension preservice education student enrolments by gender

 

Zamorano

UPM

UNAAB

UNALM

Males

No data

5

No data

No data

Females

No data

6

No data

No data

Total

10(1)

11(2)

234

200(3)

(1) Agronomic engineering in rural development (B.Sc. programme).
(2) Undergraduate student enrolments only, does not include preservice student enrolments in M.Sc. and Ph.D. programmes.
(3) Total number of students in M.Sc. programme only; Peru does not have an undergraduate extension preservice programme.

 

Undergraduate professional education has come under close scrutiny in recent years, at a time when agricultural, food and natural resource systems face an era of global competitiveness, inequities in worldwide food distribution, environmental and health concerns and the emergence of promising new technologies. These issues are (or should be) encouraging colleges of agriculture away from their former preoccupation with production agriculture, to a strong business approach and greater attention to the sciences. The emphasis is now on the educated person (National Research Council, 1992) which poses challenges to institutions offering extension preservice programmes in this transitional period.

Summary and conclusions

Agricultural higher education institutions currently have, and could have an even greater, impact on development - social, economic and political - by contributing to the advancement of individuals and groups towards improved knowledge and higher standards of living.

The organization of extension training is similar in three of the four agricultural higher education institutions, with a department or centre in charge of extension and rural development education. UNALM is the exception with no department or centre in charge of extension education, largely the result of the government dismantling the public-sector agricultural extension service.

The curricula of the four institutions are periodically modified or changed to accommodate new developments in agriculture and agricultural policy. National or curriculum review boards can provide important oversights of curriculum development.

Three of the four higher education institutions have procedures for maintaining constant communication with their governments regarding the curricula that guide their education agenda. UNALM is the exception where the government has shifted authority for agricultural extension to the private sector. The effectiveness of the linkages reported in the case studies will need to be corroborated by further research.

Recommendations

The recommendations go beyond the findings and conclusions from this study to include other experiences of the researcher and a review of the literature.

Agricultural higher education institutions benefit from procedures intended to help them to maintain a continuing communication with government services for agricultural development. Curricula should be reviewed and modified with reference to global trends and new developments. National or curriculum review boards are recommended as valuable oversight bodies for curriculum development.

A major opportunity for improving the quality of training and reducing its cost may be realized by encouraging faculties of agriculture to modify curricula and teaching methods to produce graduates prepared to undertake extension management and fieldwork without substantial further training by extension systems.

Trends

In developing, as well as in high-income industrialized countries, the declining relative importance of agriculture for economic growth, increasing the education level and affluence of smaller populations of rural producers and increasing use of externally purchased inputs has changed the nature of publicly funded extension services and led to a questioning of the means of delivery of extension services by governments. One inevitable consequence is that agricultural higher education institutions are experiencing new pressures to change in order to meet the demands of a world that is itself changing.

Indeed, agricultural education has come under scrutiny in recent years, at a time when agricultural, food and natural resource systems face an era of global competitiveness, inequities in worldwide food distribution, environmental and health concerns and promising new science and technologies. These issues are (or should be) encouraging universities and colleges of agriculture to leave their former preoccupation with production agriculture in favour of a strong business approach and greater attention to the sciences. The emphasis is now on the educated person. This trend poses difficult and transitional problems for extension preservice programmes and the enrolment of students in this domain, with implications for agricultural extension in-service training as well.

Bibliography

Bennett, C. 1990. Cooperative extension roles and relationships for a new era: a new interdependence model and evaluation synthesis to foster work with other agencies and organizations. Washington, DC, United States Department of Agriculture, Extension Service.

Cernea, M.M., Coulter, J.K. & Russell, J.F.A. 1985. Research, extension farmer: a two-way continuum for agricultural development. Washington, DC, World Bank.

FAO. 1990. Global Consultation on Agricultural Extension, Rome, 4-8 December 1989. FAO, Agricultural Education and Extension Service.

FAO. 1997. Issues and opportunities for agricultural education and training in the 1990s and beyond. Rome, FAO, Agricultural Education Group; Extension, Education and Communication Service (SDRE); Research, Extension and Training Division (SDR).

Kaimowitz, D., Snyder, M. & Engel, P. 1989. A conceptual framework for studying the links between agricultural research and technology transfer in developing countries. The Hague, ISNAR.

Merrill-Sands, D. & Kaimowitz, D. 1989. The technology triangle: linking farmers, technology transfer agents, and agricultural researchers. The Hague, ISNAR.

Mosher, A.T. 1976. Thinking about rural development. New York, NY, Agricultural Development Council Inc. (available through Winrock International)

Pray, C. & Echeverria, R. 1989. Private-sector agricultural research and technology transfer links in developing countries. Linkages Paper No. 3. The Hague, ISNAR.

Swanson, B.E., Farmer, B.J. & Bahal, R. 1990. The current status of agricultural extension worldwide. Rome, FAO, Global Consultation on Agricultural Extension.

Uquillas, J.E. & Navas, B.G. 1993. Linking research, extension and agricultural education: an experience in Ecuador. ODI Agricultural Administration (Research and Extension) Network Paper No. 39. London, ODI.

backcontentsnext