This chapter discusses the methodology used in capturing the lived experiences of extension workers in a state university.
Research Design
The methodology is qualitative in nature. The research is grounded on interpretivism [or the interpretive design] as it investigated lived experiences and interpretations. In the interpretive paradigm, meanings are assigned by humans in unique ways based on their context and personal frames of reference as they engage in the world (Crotty, 1998 as cited by Ajjawi & Higgs, 2007).
The main goal of the interpretive design is clarity of focus. My task is to pull these parts together to make sense of [interpret] the situation as expressed by the participants (McGregor, 2018).
Site Selection and Access
This study was conducted at a state university in the Cagayan Valley Region actively implementing extension activities. For this paper, it is referred to as XY University. As a state university, it is mandated to conduct research, develop technologies, and do extension work.
XY University started as a farm school established by an American teacher in 1918. Around this period, the extension movement had started proliferating around the world, especially in the USA where non-academic work of land-grant colleges, i.e.
addressing the needs of farm families, was becoming more common and institutionalized (Leeuwis, 2013; Jones & Garforth, 1997).
In the earlier years of XY University, it was repetitively converted and reverted from being a farm school to a rural high school. This went on for more than 40 years until it became an agricultural and forestry school with the integration of forestry into its founding agricultural courses. It earned its status as an agriculture school in the whole region with the addition of academic programs, in support of the then newly created Bureau of Vocational Education, now the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA).
After a few years, the School was designated as the Manpower Training Center in the region, and not long after, the School was converted into a state college by a House bill passed by the Seventh Congress and the Philippine Senate. With this status, the new state college offered more academic programs expanding its pioneering courses in agriculture, forestry, and home economics to agricultural engineering and agri-business. Post-secondary courses were likewise opened at that time.
Towards the end of that decade, a presidential decree was promulgated to merge two existing state colleges in the province to finally establish what is now the XY University. All college-level courses in all state schools in the province were also transferred to XY University. The decree also stipulated its mandate to provide education and training in the arts, agriculture, natural sciences, and technological and professional fields through its four major functions—instruction, research, extension, and production—which it still serves to date (Extension Services Manual of Operations, 2014).
In the same year, XY University was designated as the base agency of a research consortium, reinforcing its identity as a regional R&D center for agriculture, aquatic, and natural resources. In 1997, its extension mandate was strengthened by virtue of Republic Act No. 8292, s. 1997, or the Higher Education Modernization Act, mandating state universities and colleges (SUCs) to establish research and extension centers and create guidelines and procedures for participative decision-making and transparency within the institution. Further, this was intensified with the passage of Republic Act No. 8435, s. 1997, or the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act, giving priority to the use of research results through formal and non-formal education, extension, and training services. The Act also directed SUCs to focus their extension services to enhance the capability of LGUs to deliver extension services (Extension Services Manual of Operations, 2014).
I have been a research staff of the University since 2016 which enabled me better access to the needed participants and documents. Nevertheless, prior to conducting the study, I obtained the consent and approval of the University
President, including the University and Campus Directors for Extension, through a formal letter. I initially identified the participants with the help of the University and Campus Directors for Extension.
I approached those who responded to the invitation to set up an interview appointment based on their convenient date, time, and place. The interviews were conducted either face-to-face or through video call, whichever was convenient and safe for both the researcher and the participant.
The Research Participants
Because of the phenomenological nature of this study, participants who are information-rich cases were purposefully selected. Thus, to qualify as participants, the extension staff should have worked or been working full-time at the extension office for at least three years. I believe that a three-year work experience is enough for a person to understand fully the nature of his/her job.
Furthermore, the extension staff should have first-hand experience in implementing extension activities in the university. He/She should be willing and voluntarily takes part in this study. Anyone who does not meet the said criteria was excluded.
Lastly, it should be noted that the exact number of participants was not pre- determined. Recruiting of participants ended soon as the study reached data saturation—the point where emerging themes of the study become repetitive.
The University and Campus Directors for Extension were consulted to identify potential participants of the study. Additional participants were recruited using the snowball technique.
Ethical Consideration
In addition to obtaining administrative consent, I also explained to each participant pre-interview the nature and purpose of this research. The participants were informed that their participation should be voluntary and that no compensation shall be given.
Before the interview, they were requested to sign a letter of consent to take part in the study and to record the interview. Interview protocols were strictly observed.
For data security and management, all interviews were transferred to a laptop computer. Transcription of interviews and manual coding were done using MS Excel and MS Word applications. All documents were saved to the same laptop computer.
Only the researcher and her adviser have access to the transcriptions and codes.
My Role as Researcher and Ontological, Epistemological, and Axiological Stands
I have been with XY University for the last five years as a research staff. My position allowed me to observe the research-extension process of the university. I saw differing practices when it comes to the involvement of the extension office in knowledge and technology dissemination. While some faculty members engage the office in their extension activities as manifested through their presentations in in- house reviews, some are independently conducting their own extension projects.
These are big projects and programs usually handled by the faculty and their R&D activities revolve around their niche. This further cements the notion that university faculty members are now not only boxed within the sphere of instruction but are capable of doing both research and extension. If that is the case, what then will be the purpose of the extension office?
The “doing away” with the traditional linear process of technology development and dissemination—the research office cascading technologies developed to the extension office for dissemination—places confusion on the extension office as to where they stand in such circumstances. This inspired me to look into the roles of extension workers and the extension office given that the faculty, even the research staff, are now capable of doing extension and they are good at that.
I further observe this “doing away” when I was involved in a technology dissemination project, which was highly extension in nature. Our project leader and experts are faculty members while the rest of the team are from the research office.
In our conceptualization and implementation of the project, the extension office was only involved in the monitoring and evaluation aspect, specifically during the in- house review and submission of accomplishment reports. I wondered whether such practice is the current norm as far as their engagement in extension projects of the university.
I worked on the research with the following ontological, epistemological, and axiological stands:
Ontology. This research aims to understand human phenomenon and the participants’ experience of the phenomenon. It intends to understand the lived
experience of extension workers in a state university. Hence, reality is believed to be multiple. This goal fits the philosophy, strategies, and intentions of an interpretive research paradigm. Interpretivism is “an orientation to social reality based on the goal of understanding” (Littlejohn & Foss, 2009).
Epistemology. As the researcher, I am not apart from the research but am the research instrument. I co-construct reality and meanings with the participants of the study. This approach allows the use of researcher’s subjectivity in the study (Wa- Mbaleka, 2018), thus, subjectivity will be an important element in this research in acknowledgment that total objectivity will be difficult to observe.
This paradigm is based on the epistemology of idealism, which views knowledge as a social construction. Investigative approaches anchored in the interpretive research paradigm focused on the interpretive understanding of the
meanings of participant’s experiences in contrast to a quantitative paradigm that explains or predicts behavior (Smith, 1983).
Axiology. As the research instrument, my values, biases, and prejudices come into play. The coding of answers, for example, is a judgmental call because the researcher (or myself) brings in his/her subjectivities, personality,
predispositions, and quirks in the process (Sipe and Ghiso (2004 as cited in Saldaña, 2013).
Data Instrument and Data Collection
The study was conducted from May 2020-May 2021 to cover necessary research steps such as acquiring administrative approval, document retrieval and analysis, participant observation, data gathering, and validation.
I developed a two-part instrument to guide my data gathering. The first part focused on generating demographic data such as the participants’ names, gender, position, educational attainment, and years of extension experience. The second part was a semi-structured in-depth interview, which consisted of open-ended questions that helped me in exploring, probing, and asking about the views and perceptions of the study participants.
I did the actual interviews face-to-face and through video call from August 2020 to February 2021 at the most convenient time for the participants and when no major activities or events were being prepared or implemented in the university. Eight of the participants were interviewed face-to-face and the other two were done through video call.
It is also important to note that during the study, different levels of community quarantine were imposed in accordance with the COVID-19 protocols. These
restricted many of the research activities, especially in setting up appointments with the participants and in conducting the actual interviews when Internet connectivity was unreliable, hence, the extended duration of the study.
The study intended to understand the lived experience of the extension workers. Lived experience is described as a direct, first-hand account of a particular phenomenon whether an object, event, or condition (Litchman, 2012, 2013; Husserl, 1970 as cited by Wojnar & Swanson, 2007).
In extracting meanings from lived experiences, phenomenology requires one- to-one transactions, attentive listening, observation, and interaction. To comply with these requirements, this study used one-to-one, in-depth interviews.
Further, I analyzed documents to investigate files and documented works of the extension workers, which suggested more about their roles in extension work.
Being part of the university since 2016, I have better access to the
participants; hence, it was easier for me to do participant observation and prolonged engagement to gain insights into how extension works in the subject university.
Data Analysis
The study involved extensive coding, which Saldaña (2013) described as “an act of personal signature.” People have different lived realities that influence his/her perception of the world and personal bias. Therefore, researchers are likely to experience, interpret, document, code, analyze, and write differently about a phenomenon under study (Saldaña, 2013).
I analyzed the data collected through the procedures spelled out by Saldaña (2013). First, recorded interviews were manually transcribed and spot-checked to ensure the accuracy of field text. The field text and observation field notes were
subjected to Initial/Open Coding as the first stage of analysis. Initial Coding breaks down the data into separate parts for close examination and comparison of
similarities and differences. It allows for deeper reflection on the contents and
nuances of the data. After the initial stage, Axial Coding was done to further manage, filter, highlight, and focus on the salient features of the data. Axial Coding determines which codes are the dominant and which are less important. It reorganizes the data set, crossing out synonyms and redundant codes, then selecting the best
representative codes. At this stage, categories and subcategories are developed based on their respective contexts, conditions, interactions, and consequences (Saldaña, 2013).
Finally, data were themed to provide an identity of what it is about or what it means. Themes that are generated describe and give meaning to recurrent patterns of experience of the phenomenon. It “summarize[s] what is going on, explain[s] what is happening, or suggest[s] why something is done the way it is” (Rubin & Rubin, 2012 as cited by Saldaña, 2013). They are interpretive insights that attempt to make sense of the data.
To increase the credibility and dependability of data, I conducted member checking. After collecting, analyzing, and interpreting the data, the participants were asked to read the findings and provide feedback on the report (Creswell, et. al, 2007;
Wa-Mbaleka, 2018). At the end of each interview, I discussed the summary and the important points with the participants to check the accuracy of the insights. Follow-up interviews served as a venue for member checking.
To establish the trustworthiness and credibility of data, interviews were transcribed verbatim as much as possible. Excerpts of transcribed data are
presented alongside its rough English translation in the discussion of results. After
collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data, the participants were asked to review the findings and provide feedback through the member check procedure.
Further, I spent time reading and re-reading the field texts to come up with appropriate codes and themes that would capture and reflect the experiences of the participants. Lastly, I did triangulation - document analysis, in-depth interviews, and participant observation - to compare the findings from different perspectives.
Chapter IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents the research findings organized according to the
research questions. The full history of the extension system of XY University and the participants’ concepts of extension are found in Appendix A. This manuscript focuses more on the concepts of the communication roles – both current and emerging – of the faculty, research, and extension staff of XY University.
Considering the volume of the field texts, only excerpts of the participants’
statements are included. Repetitive words and statements were likewise omitted and only the reduced version is reflected in the discussion. The participants’ statements are in italics and the rough translations in English are enclosed in parentheses.
The BIDANI Extension Program and the Participants
The BIDANI (Barangay Integrated Development Approach for Nutrition Improvement) program was a special project considered a landmark program attached to XY University’s extension office. Almost all of its extensionists either started as BIDANI staff or have been part of the program.
Based on participants’ narratives and documents, the BIDANI Extension program passed through three stages (Table 1).
Table 1. Stages of the BIDANI extension program
Stage Historical Milestone Approx. Years Covered 1 Early BIDANI
A. Phase 1 B. Phase 2
1986-1990 1991-1994
2 Last Phase of BIDANI 1995-2002
3 Present set-up in the University and Campus Extension System
2003-present
Early BIDANI
Extension in the early phases of BIDANI was heavily based on community service (i.e., community cleaning, gift-giving activities) and livelihood and skills training such as dressmaking, manicure and pedicure, cosmetology, and food preservation and processing. The use of information, education, and communication (IEC) materials then was low, and recipient barangays were coordinated mostly by the Municipal Agricultural Office (MAO). Most of the extension staff were technical and vocational instructors who were then faculty on-call to the different colleges at the University. They serve as experts and subject matter specialists, doing lectures and hands-on demonstrations in project sites. By the early 1990s, these extension staff were instructed to affiliate fully with the colleges.
In the mid-phase of BIDANI, initiatives were undertaken to change the approach in extension. From community service and livelihood and skills training, technology dissemination was seen as the fitting approach to university extension. It was also during this period that the main programs of extension were established, namely: 1) Adopt-a-Barangay; 2) LGU Strengthening and Capability Building; 3) Community Outreach and Support Services; and, 4) Gender and Development, with the first two programs as the centerpiece. The Adopt-a-Barangay has become the focus program that intends to promote complementation and supplementation of expertise from the
colleges. However, the program was not strengthened until the BIDANI approach was adopted into its implementation.
Last Phase of BIDANI
The last phase of BIDANI witnessed the full adoption of the BIDANI model into the Adopt-a-Barangay program. The extension staff who were involved in the earlier phases of BIDANI have taught its approach to both the faculty and other extensionists.
The faculty were involved as consultants and subject matter specialists and they rarely serve as extension staff, unlike the earlier setup.
Technology dissemination has also become the principal focus. In this initiative, the development of IEC materials started to complement trainings on featured technologies. Further, criteria for recipient barangays were also set. Deprived, depressed, and underprivileged barangays were the target recipients but those who request trainings directly to the Office of the President were still considered. Moreover, the BIDANI program also expanded its coverage in the region, establishing satellite SUCs with XY University as the regional coordinator. This opened XY University to more collaborations with other higher education institutions and partnerships with government and non-government organizations. In addition, the research consortium based at XY University was also leveraged to involve extension staff in different activities around the region.
Present Set-up in the University and Campus Extension System
In the early 2000s, XY University’s extension was under the College of Agriculture, the mother college of the extension director at that time. Adopt-a-barangay was still the hallmark program of extension where it became the biggest platform to
introduce and disseminate university-developed technologies to different communities around XY University. The earlier nature of skills training (i.e. dressmaking, cosmetology, manicure and pedicure) were completely dissolved and replaced with trainings in agriculture since most research and development activities of XY University were highly concentrated on agriculture.
With the growing recognition of extension, more government agencies are doing their respective extension programs and activities. During this period, the extension office was also elevated to a university extension office; extension offices on the different campuses were eventually established. Technologies from other campuses were then also used in extension programs, departing from the earlier practice of using only the products and outputs of the main campus. Moreover, a laboratory radio station was established on the main campus around 2008 strengthening XY University’s capability to disseminate technologies through radio programs.
By the time the university and campus extension offices were created, extension had new and different targets. The university extension office became a coordinating body that consolidates reports from different campuses. It also takes charge of fulfilling the regulatory requirements of the Commission on Higher Education and of liaising between the University and the campuses. University extension staff rarely go on the field and only assist in activities where the university extension director is needed. At the campus level, the faculty are handling three to four functions of the University such as instruction, research and development, extension, and production.
They are mainly tapped as experts and subject matter specialists. On the other hand, extensionists primarily served as coordinating staff. The actual implementation of programs and projects is done at the campus level.