
































Microsoft Word - 215-Final.docx


Caillouet et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 3, Issue 3, 2022 
  agdevresearch.org 

1. Olivia Caillouet, Doctoral student, University of Florida, 11901 Pleasant Ridge Rd. #913, Little Rock, AR 72223, 

ocaillouet@gmail.com,  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2401-2682 
2. Amy Harder, Professor, University of Florida, 117B Bryant Hall, PO Box 112060, Gainesville, FL 32611, amharder@ufl.edu, 

 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7042-2028 

3. Grady Roberts, Professor, University of Florida, 200 Rolfs Hall, PO Box 112060, Gainesville, FL 32611, groberts@ufl.edu,  
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7618-7850 

4. J.C. Bunch, Assistant Professor, University of Florida, 307A Rolfs Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611, bunchj@ufl.edu,  

 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8729-2349 
5. Heidi Radunovich, Associate Professor, University of Florida, 3008-B McCarty D, Gainesville, FL 32611, hliss@ufl.edu,  

 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4973-1480  
63 

 

Transactional Factors Influencing the Implementation of 
Intercollegiate Extension Programs at United States Land-

Grant Universities 
 

O. Caillouet 1, A. Harder2, G. Roberts3, J. C. Bunch4, H. Radunovich5 

 
  

Abstract 

University engagement within communities is becoming more important, and public land-grant 
universities (LGUs) are uniquely situated to create knowledge that benefits society. Intercollegiate 
Extension programs could be a novel approach to improving university engagement by using the 
Extension mission as a catalyst for socially relevant programs. However, a gap remains in the 
literature regarding specific guidelines to overcome barriers toward intercollegiate Extension 
programs. The purpose of this study was to explore how transactional factors influenced the 
implementation of intercollegiate Extension programs at LGUs. A qualitative descriptive 
phenomenological research design was used. The Organizational Change model guided the interview 
protocol creation. All eight participants were employed by LGUs. Template analysis was applied to 
the data combined with the constant comparative method. Four themes and six sub-themes 
emerged from the interviews. The transactional themes were: (a) promotion and tenure, (b) utilizing 
LGUs’ organizational structures to support intercollegiate Extension programs, (c) task and individual 
skills required for successful intercollegiate programs, and (d) professional recognition. Utilizing 
LGUs’ organizational structures to support intercollegiate Extension programs was most relevant to 
the success of intercollegiate programs. Intercollegiate Extension programs should use existing 
assets like the county-based infrastructure to assist in disseminating university knowledge relevant 
for addressing public needs. 
 

Keywords 

Collaboration, interdisciplinary, Organizational Change model, complex problems 



Caillouet et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.215  64 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
University engagement within communities is becoming more important for society and 
research (Engagement Scholarship Consortium [ESC], n.d.). Public land-grant universities (LGUs) 
are uniquely situated to create knowledge that benefits society and prepares students to 
become active citizens (Fitzgerald et al., 2012). The Kellogg Commission Report (1998) called for 
LGUs to go beyond service to what was termed engagement wherein institutions “redesign 
their teaching, research, and extension and service functions to become more involved with 
their communities” (p. 9). Three important aspects to university engagement are better quality 
research, socially relevant science, and universities providing valued degrees (McDowell, 2001). 
The Community Engagement Carnegie Classification is a prestigious accreditation metric that 
ranks universities based on community engagement efforts (New England Higher Education, 
n.d.).  
 
Intercollegiate Extension programs have been a novel approach to improving university 
engagement by using the Extension mission as a catalyst for socially relevant programs; 
however, a gap exists in the literature regarding guidelines for managing these collaborations. 
Intercollegiate Extension programs were operationally defined as Extension programs involving 
personnel from at least two colleges within an LGU. The ESC (n.d.) reported 17 LGU member 
institutions but the exact number of intercollegiate Extension programs was unknown. Previous 
research has documented some interdisciplinary university engagement efforts designed to 
address complex challenges of the 21st century such as drug addiction (Caillouet & Harder, 
2021), rural economic revitalization (Caillouet & Harder, 2021), technology accessibility (King, 
2018; Warner et al., 2017), and healthcare concerns such as recycling medical equipment, 
diabetes, and food safety (Buys & Koukel, 2018; Condo & Martin, 2002; Walsh et al., 2018). 
Although, previous literature documented many types of intercollegiate Extension programs 
and their importance (Culp, 2009; Garrett & Belle, 2022; Holland et al., 2019), a vagueness 
exists about how these collaborations function within LGUs. 
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
The Organizational Change model (Burke & Litwin, 1992) was developed to explain the sources 
of organizational change. The model illustrates the interrelated nature of external and internal 
forces at work within organizations. Burke and Litwin (1992) suggested the model be used “as a 
guide for what to look for and as a predictor for what and how to manage large-scale 
organizational change” (p. 541). The Organizational Change model helped frame the 
investigation of organizational factors impacting the implementation of intercollegiate 
Extension programs and provided insight into how these collaborations work within LGUs.  
 
The Organizational Change model (Burke & Litwin, 1992) can be explained in terms of 
transformational and transactional factors. Five of the external and internal forces in the model 
are classified as transformational factors: (a) external environment, (b) mission and strategy, (c) 
leadership, (d) culture, and (e) individual and organizational performance. Transformational 



Caillouet et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.215  65 
 

factors are likely caused by environmental influences, which require entirely new behaviors 
from individual members (Burke & Litwin, 1992).  
 
In contrast, transactional factors are the short-term, mutually beneficial exchanges that occur 
between members of an organization (Burke & Litwin, 1992). Transactional factors create 
change via short-term exchanges among people through a mentality of “you do this for me, and 
I’ll do that for you” (Burke & Litwin, 1992, p. 530). Transactional factors within the 
Organizational Change model are: (a) management practices, (b) structure, (c) systems (policies 
and procedures), (d) work unit climate, (e) task and individual skills, (f) motivation, and (g) 
individual needs and values (Burke & Litwin, 1992). Transactional factors affect a greater 
number of organizational change variables than transformational variables (Caillouet et al., 
2022); however, all factors are equally important to explore (Burke & Litwin, 1992). Therefore, 
this research focuses on transactional factors that influence adoption of intercollegiate 
Extension programs.  
 
Leahey and Barringer (2020) found universities that made a formal commitment to 
interdisciplinary research efforts typically underwent a reorganization of university units (e.g., 
academic departments and centers). This type of organizational restructuring has led to 
increased research and awarded grants, but universities likely need to move beyond structural 
commitment to produce higher impact research (Leahey & Barringer, 2020). Specifically, Lyons 
and Mann (2018) suggested LGUs “move beyond agriculture to encourage innovation in a 
diversity of industries” (p. 43), and that LGUs should utilize Extension to strengthen university-
community linkages. The Organizational Change model is well suited for examining 
organizational changes because many of the model factors are relevant to intercollegiate 
Extension programs. For example, Rubens et al. (2017) provided recommendations for 
improving Extension outreach at institutions of higher education including: (a) restructuring 
faculty assessment procedures (e.g., promotion and tenure) and incentivizing faculty for their 
efforts, (b) developing partnerships within and external to the university, and (c) investing in 
support structures which encourage entrepreneurial activities (e.g., sufficient human resources, 
administrative support, etc.) which were similar factors as those included in the Organizational 
Change model. LGUs are complex organizations and change can be challenging; however, 
organizational restructuring, revisions to promotion and tenure processes, and employee skill 
development can be used to increase interdisciplinary Extension efforts aimed at solving real-
world challenges faced by communities (Kellogg Commission, 1998). 
 

Purpose 
 
The purpose of this study was to explore which transactional factors influenced the 
implementation of intercollegiate Extension programs at LGUs in the United States, and then 
better understand how they did so. 
 
 
 



Caillouet et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.215  66 
 

Methods 
 
This study was part of a larger-scale study (Caillouet, 2022) examining the implementation of 
intercollegiate Extension programs at LGUs in the United States. A qualitative descriptive 
phenomenological research design was used (Thompson et al., 1989). The phenomena under 
investigation were the lived experiences of individuals working within intercollegiate Extension 
programs at LGUs and the organizational factors influencing the implementation of those 
programs. 
 
Criterion sampling determined participants’ eligibility (Cohen et al., 2018; Creswell & Poth, 
2018). Potential participants had to fit the criteria of being employed by a university-based 
Extension system and working with and having some leadership responsibility for an 
intercollegiate Extension program. The Engagement Scholarship Consortium (n.d.) was used to 
identify LGUs conducting intercollegiate programs. Then, after additional internet searches 
documenting program details, 10 potential participants were identified. Two individuals were 
later excluded because they were not employed by Extension. The eight selected participants 
were employees at LGUs with R1 research status (Carnegie Classification of Institutions, 2018) 
and held a variety of positions employed full-time by Extension including: (a) LGU 
administrators, (b) Extension specialists, (c) center directors, and (d) program coordinators. 
They worked within intercollegiate programs covering topics related to community-driven 
challenges like business development, rural revitalization, sustainable tourism, and healthcare 
access. For example, respondents were connected with the following colleges but not 
necessarily employed by them: (a) College of Liberal Arts, (b) College of Business and 
Economics, (c) College of Landscape Architecture, (d) College of Communication, (e) College of 
Human Ecology, (f) School of Nursing, (g) College of Design, (h) Colleges of Health, and (i) 
College of Education and Human Development. During the member-checking process, 
participants were asked to provide a pseudonym (Allen & Wiles, 2015). One participant opted 
to create a pseudonym, while the remaining participants requested that a pseudonym be 
assigned to them by the researcher. 
 
The Organizational Change model (Burke & Litwin, 1992) influenced the semi-structured 
interview guide creation. The semi-structured interview guide was comprised of 15 main 
questions and six probing questions. Questions used in the interview guide included asking 
about the individual’s background and current LGU Extension structure and were based off the 
Organizational Change model (Burke & Litwin, 1992) such as “What has the change meant for 
Extension policies and procedures?”. Prior to data collection, the instrument was reviewed by a 
content expert whose knowledge about the functioning of LGUs came from 20 years of 
employment in various Extension roles at three LGUs. Then, interviews were conducted by 
phone or Zoom by the lead researcher from July 20, 2021 to August 18, 2021. Interviews ranged 
from 51 minutes to 63 minutes and were audio recorded using Zoom or Otter.ai. The interview 
protocol documented information such as: (a) pseudonyms; (b) meeting date, time, and length 
of meeting; (c) meeting type (e.g., phone or zoom); and (d) specific questions asked. Individual 



Caillouet et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.215  67 
 

expertise and applicability of questions were taken into consideration when selecting which 
questions to prioritize within the agreed-upon time limit of an hour for the interview.  
 
Data was analyzed using template analysis (Brooks et al., 2015) influenced by the Burke and 
Litwin (1992) Organizational Change model and the constant comparative method (Saldaña, 
2015). Member-checking was performed after transcriptions were complete (Creswell & 
Creswell, 2018). A methodological decision was made which required themes and sub-themes 
to be statements provided from three or more interview participants which helped increase the 
credibility of the results (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). A review of the data procedures was 
conducted by the primary researcher to determine accuracy of transcription and possible 
research conclusions (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Detailed audit trail records were kept (Creswell & 
Creswell, 2018). Two peer debriefings with an Extension faculty member knowledgeable in the 
subject area, but not associated with the research as recommended by Lincoln and Guba 
(1985), led the primary researcher to reorganize two themes into more well-defined themes 
and sub-themes. In total, there were 24 template iterations. 
 
Recognizing possible sources of researcher bias is important when establishing trustworthiness 
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The research team had life experiences as students and employees of 
LGUs; all received at least one degree from a LGU and were employed by the same LGU at the 
time of this study. The team’s Extension experience included roles as an intern, an agent, and 
administration. Two researchers were relative outsiders to Extension with no formal experience 
in the field but who had expertise in formal education. In addition, the research team provided 
input regarding the research design, data analysis, and individual subject matter expertise. 
 

Findings 
 
Four themes and six sub-themes emerged. The transactional themes were: (a) promotion and 
tenure, (b) utilizing LGUs’ organizational structure to support intercollegiate Extension 
programs, (c) task and individual skills required for successful intercollegiate programs, and (d) 
professional recognition. Each theme will be presented in detail in the following text with the 
associated transactional factor provided in paratheses.  
 
Promotion and Tenure (Management Practices) 
 
Promotion and tenure are important considerations for university system employees and can 
have varying effects on intercollegiate Extension programs. Faculty are more likely to engage in 
intercollegiate Extension programs when they see how that work helps their pursuit of 
promotion and tenure. Leah, who led a research and Extension outreach unit, explained that 
faculty were motivated by “publications, and however much funding they get to have on a 
particular project or a grant [that] gets added to their funding on their vita.” Levi said, “it can't 
just be ‘Hey, bring a class in and help us do this work’.” Levi explained that successful 
intercollegiate Extension programs may have “some limited success” regarding positive 
community impacts by having students in a class complete a project; however, true faculty 



Caillouet et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.215  68 
 

engagement comes “if there's also funding and publication opportunities then that's really 
helping them [faculty] in their tenure process as well.” 
 
Anna raised some concerns about administrators creating positions for intercollegiate 
Extension programs without taking into consideration how faculty in those positions will 
successfully navigate promotion and tenure. Anna explained how the intercollegiate Extension 
positions have been “creatively designed … which is great, and administration has been forward 
thinking.” However, Anna elaborated, “I think for university administrators who dream up these 
great positions they sort of don't remember what it was like to be working on tenure and they 
haven’t thought about it.” To support intercollegiate Extension programs, Charlie said his LGU 
recently added a way to evaluate diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in the promotion and 
tenure process. Charlie shared that they “have a lot of faculty that are doing great work in that 
area and a lot of scholarship in that area” but there were no mechanisms in place for 
recognizing the value. Ultimately, intercollegiate programs were more likely to be successful 
engaging faculty when there were clear linkages between the programs and faculty pursuits 
towards promotion and tenure. 
 
Utilizing LGUs’ Organizational Structure to Support Intercollegiate Extension Programs 
(Structure) 
 
Participants shared four sub-themes related to how the organizational structure of their LGUs 
impacted their intercollegiate Extension programs: (a) leveraging the county-based 
infrastructure improves intercollegiate Extension programs, (b) autonomy from agricultural 
colleges creates a more intercollegiate environment, (c) thoughtful position creation can 
increase success of intercollegiate Extension programs, and (d) sufficient human resources help 
to carry out intercollegiate Extension programs. 
 
Leveraging the County-based Infrastructure Improves Intercollegiate Extension Programs  
A unique aspect of LGUs are the county-based offices located around each state to assist with 
Extension and outreach efforts. Benefits emerged regarding leveraging the county-based 
infrastructure of LGUs as a means to promote intercollegiate Extension programs, advance 
scientific discovery, and address real-community needs. Anna explained, “So, there are [many] 
offices spread across the state. So, we have the opportunity because we're associated with 
Extension to talk, to have information flow out across the whole state about our programs both 
Extension things and academic.” Similarly, Charlie elaborated on the power of leveraging LGUs’ 
county-based infrastructure by using the county offices across the state to provide more 
streamlined and efficient continuing education opportunities. When asked if he foresaw any 
challenges or opportunities with the rest of the LGUs utilizing the county-based infrastructure, 
Charlie elaborated by sharing: 

I see opportunity for growth. I see opportunity for more cohesiveness between us 
[Extension] and the academic departments across campus and I see a great opportunity, 
and this is starting to come to fruition, a great opportunity for all the academic affair 
departments to utilize Extension to do outreach across the state. 



Caillouet et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.215  69 
 

County Extension offices provide an invaluable resource for LGU intercollegiate Extension 
programs to establish trusted relationships within and between communities across the state.  
 
Autonomy from Agricultural Colleges Creates a More Intercollegiate Environment 
The term autonomy was used to describe LGUs where Extension functions as a separate unit 
from the agricultural colleges. Historically, LGUs have been closely tied to colleges of 
agriculture. However, Charlie explained, “There are also a lot of other faculty [outside of 
agricultural colleges] who are doing engagement type work that – that’s not showing up in 
Extension reports.” Anna shared, her LGU “is a little bit atypical” because Extension was not 
associated with the College of Agriculture but rather its own entity. Additionally, Charlie felt 
Extension gained autonomy because there was a visionary who advocated it be placed outside 
of the College of Agriculture and within a more centrally positioned office within the LGU.  
 
At LGUs with the separation between Extension and the agricultural college, Extension’s 
autonomy fostered the growth and development of intercollegiate programs. Levi explained 
the benefits that comes with Extension’s autonomy such as the ability to develop partnerships 
with numerous colleges or centers across the LGU. Leah explained how her Extension unit 
directly benefited from the flexibility of not being tightly bound to a college. Her unit is “funded 
partly through Extension, and partly through the College of Arts and Sciences and … by the 
projects that we bring in. We’re what the university calls an entrepreneurial unit.” Leah 
described the benefits of leading an entrepreneurial Extension unit which included greater 
access to funding sources, expanded programmatic opportunities, and partnerships with faculty 
university-wide. 
 
Charlie also explained a negative outcome of Extension being embedded within agricultural 
colleges is that other colleges may perceive this resource as “hands off.” According to Charlie, 
Extension offices that are accessible to faculty university-wide can attract “faculty who are in 
other colleges that really want to do engagement scholarship across their state.” Participants 
explained that faculty felt more willing to collaborate on intercollegiate Extension programs 
when Extension was organizationally separated from agricultural colleges.  
 
Thoughtful Position Creation Can Increase Success of Intercollegiate Extension Programs   
Employee roles and responsibilities are also components of an organization’s structure.  
Some LGUs were not strategic or intentional when adding new positions to support 
intercollegiate Extension programs. Anna recalled her “position was created for the program 
kind of in a happenstance manner.” Jessica explained her LGU did not start with a strategic 
approach when developing leadership positions for intercollegiate Extension programs. Jessica 
said her position came only after several other “fragmented attempts” to hire someone failed. 
Jessica’s position was ultimately successful because it strategically intertwined the need for 
marketing, innovative programming, personnel development, and navigating grant/contract 
partnerships. Participants reflected on the time and resources that could have been saved if 
their intercollegiate Extension programs had begun with the creation of strategic positions.  
 



Caillouet et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.215  70 
 

Conversely, one LGU successfully demonstrated thoughtful planning when adding human 
capacity. Charlie provided an anecdote about his LGU Extension system purchasing faculty time 
in disciplines which had not historically been closely linked with Extension. For example, Charlie 
said: 

We bought 40% of one of the Associate Dean’s in the College of Medicine. You've got a 
high-ranking administrator in the College of Medicine that has an Extension 
appointment. And so, that marries these two together – the College of Medicine and 
Extension through a person. And what that has led to is … looking at developing a 
network of new Extension professionals that can be dispersed across the state to help 
for clinical trials. Resources can be saved and employees are more likely to be successful 
if thoughtful consideration is taken when developing intercollegiate Extension job 
positions.  

 
Need for Sufficient Human Resources to Carry Out Intercollegiate Extension Programs  
Another sub-theme which emerged was the need for sufficient human resources to successfully 
conduct intercollegiate Extension programs. Participants explained that Extension, in general, 
has experienced a decline in financial support for human resources. Levi explained, “When I 
was hired, I think we had three full time Extension appointments in community development. 
Now, we're down to two statewide specialists, just myself, and we also have a rural economist.” 
Leah also commented about Extension’s lack of sufficient employee capacity due to budget 
constraints and said, “we don't, we don't really have the capacity to do that so much at this 
point,” especially regarding disseminating intercollegiate Extension program impacts with 
stakeholders and marketing programs to clientele.  
 
Several participants highlighted how Extension has been financially stretched to provide the 
human support needed for traditional programming which has made innovative programs, like 
intercollegiate Extension programs, challenging to implement. Anna felt it was important to 
have personnel dedicated to leading an intercollegiate Extension program, explaining “You got 
to have somebody to run a program like this and you have to have somebody who's not 
jammed packed full of other things.” Clint felt intercollegiate Extension programs should 
embrace a model with recurring funding to ensure sufficient human resources are available to 
manage and support the programs. 
 
Task and Individual Skills Required for Successful Intercollegiate Programs (Task and 
Individual Skills) 
 
This theme was comprised of two sub-themes: (a) viewing the larger picture beyond siloed 
disciplines and (b) diversity, equity, and inclusivity (DEI) skills. 
 
Viewing the Larger Picture Beyond Siloed Disciplines 
Intercollegiate Extension programs require faculty to fight their “impulse to silo” within their 
departments, according to Jackie. Anna’s experience led her to believe a necessary skill needed 
when working with intercollegiate Extension programs is the “knowledge of how systems 
work.” Additionally, Charlie said employees should be able to think holistically, understand how 



Caillouet et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.215  71 
 

individual parts of programs fit together to achieve the end goals, and collaborate with faculty 
across LGUs to maximize program impacts.  
 
Jessica explained how her interdisciplinary Extension work feels like “two different worlds” and 
observed how the “university doesn't really understand the urban context of scale, diversity, 
complexity… So, it's kind of like being able to navigate in both of those environments in a way 
that brings greater understanding.” Jessica explained that individuals who work with 
intercollegiate Extension programs should be able to see how the university is an integral part 
of the community and should work to meet community needs as well as university needs. Anna 
also noted how working beyond siloed disciplines has been critical for her interdisciplinary 
Extension programming because she must know “what kinds of things are taught generally in 
each of the departments.” Having knowledge of the different departments allowed Anna to 
select appropriate priorities and opportunities for her intercollegiate Extension programs.  
 
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusivity Skills 
Intercollegiate Extension program faculty need to understand and be able to navigate 
collaborations with diverse individuals by using effective DEI skills. Jessica explained that 
successful partnerships require “making it easier [community members] to reach not just one 
of us, but more than one of us [university departments and faculty experts].” Richard also 
agreed about the importance of DEI for successful intercollegiate Extension programs and how 
across the state is a “somewhat different culture” coupled with “a lot of racial diversity as well”. 
Richard elaborated, working with diverse audiences was particularly important for 
intercollegiate Extension programs which had a nutrition or community economic development 
component because they were delivered to a wide range of stakeholders across the state. 
Specifically, DEI skills were necessary for intercollegiate Extension programs that engaged 
university-faculty who had limited experience interacting with the public through Extension 
outreach and education.  
 
Clint expanded on the benefits of diverse collaborations and explained, “The more diversity we 
have, you know, in our learning, the more we have to share and the more we benefit from that 
and the more viewpoints we gain” and that “increasing partnership and collaboration and 
diversifying our partners helps us be more effective educators.” Clint also said that his LGU 
intercollegiate Extension programs have had “a cultural awareness and cultural proficiency 
committee” to ensure cultural awareness was built into Extension programs. Clint and Charlie 
emphasized the importance of having adequate resources to create intercollegiate Extension 
program materials in multiple languages for specific topics such as food safety trainings. 
Regardless of the intercollegiate Extension program, participants supported the need for LGU 
employees to be skilled interpersonal communicators and feel comfortable working with 
diverse people in all aspects of their profession. 
 
Professional Recognition (Motivation) 
 
Professional recognition was the only theme that emerged regarding employee motivation, a 
Burke and Litwin (1992) transactional factor. For example, Anna described her colleague’s work 



Caillouet et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.215  72 
 

with gardens at a women's prison. The project that started as a skill development opportunity 
for offenders to turn barren land into vegetable gardens has continued for over five years and 
led to improved visitor experiences and healthier parent-child relationships. According to Anna, 
her colleague’s work “got lots of press… [and] attention at the upper levels of the 
administration because she was willing to do this [community-driven, innovative] work.”  
 
It was clear that Charlie took pride in the intercollegiate programs he was involved with and 
praised his LGU for acting “with intentionality” to create programs which served the public. 
Charlie also advocated for others to be recognized for their work as well. Specifically, Charlie 
explained how he took action steps, along with support from the Provost Office committee, to 
implement “mechanisms” that reward faculty for innovative programming. Levi reflected that 
working with intercollegiate Extension programs “gives us a lot more opportunities and it gives 
us a higher, kind of, level of recognition with that, at the upper levels of leadership, the 
President, the Provost, they recognize the work that we're doing.” Professional recognition is a 
powerful tool that can be used to incentivize faculty to engage with intercollegiate Extension 
programs and can be a way of communicating the importance of these types of programs to 
stakeholders. 
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 
 
Transactional factors are important for organizational change because they focus more on the 
subtle areas of improvement (Burke & Litwin, 1992). Half of the participants agreed that 
restructuring Extension to have no academic allegiances but rather administrators who work 
university-wide could fosterer greater community engagement (McDowell, 2001). Similarly, 
structure can be used to impact individual skills such as leveraging county Extension offices to 
allow faculty opportunities beyond academic silos (Burke & Litwin, 1992). Importantly, not all 
states have county offices; therefore, states should examine if the same benefits apply to their 
organization. 
 
Extension autonomy from agricultural colleges was described as creating a more intercollegiate 
environment (McDowell, 2001). However, changing the Extension structure could also change 
promotion and tenure policies, which are a driving factor for how faculty make decisions 
(Fitzgerald et al., 2012). More information is needed to understand possible unintended 
consequences from Extension’s separation from agricultural colleges such as changes in 
stakeholder support. Intercollegiate Extension programs were described as more successful 
when strategic planning was used to develop employee positions. Successful intercollegiate 
Extension programs must also have enough resources for adequate program support staff 
without being reliant on traditional Extension programming resources which have been 
strained (Harder et al., 2009).  
 
Faculty involved with intercollegiate Extension programs should be able to look beyond 
disciplinary silos and understand that complex societal issues require collaborative solutions 
(Kellogg Foundation, 1998). Moreover, successful intercollegiate Extension program employees 



Caillouet et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.215  73 
 

possessed the skills necessary to implement DEI practices into their work. Last, participants 
expressed a need for professional recognition regarding their work with intercollegiate 
Extension programs because it helped them feel like valued members of the organization 
(Fitzgerald et al., 2012). Although, promotion and tenure as well as professional recognition 
were both forms of extrinsic motivation, promotion and tenure has been a job requirement 
while professional recognition is not. These two factors are related because all the 
Organizational Change model factors are interconnected but separate transactional factors. 
 
Intercollegiate Extension programs should take into consideration faculty requirements for 
promotion and tenure and provide opportunities for teaching, research, and publications to 
encourage participation in these programs (Rubens et al., 2017). Clear guidelines developed by 
departments beyond agricultural colleges may be useful in the tenure and promotion 
evaluation process for faculty engaged in Extension efforts. Furthermore, the structure of LGUs 
may be used to support intercollegiate Extension programs by utilizing the county-based offices 
(Lyons & Mann, 2018), and clear operating procedures may need to be implemented so that 
university faculty understand how Extension offices can and cannot be utilized. 
 
We agree there is a lack of contemporary references specifically focused on intercollegiate 
programs. Further, there is not a singular model for intercollegiate Extension. We have added 
an additional recommendation to focus on the specific models of intercollegiate Extension 
programs. Future research could focus on determining the relative importance of the 
transactional factors participants identified as important for the success of intercollegiate 
Extension programs. Also, future research may consider using various theoretical lenses, such 
as social exchange theory, to provide additional insight into the success of intercollegiate 
Extension programs. Case studies may prove useful to better understand the intended and 
unintended consequences of Extension separating from agricultural colleges and creating a 
more welcoming Extension environment to faculty university-wide. The majority of 
participants, six, found the county offices to be great assets for intercollegiate Extension 
programs. But future research may consider identifying the views of county agents which may 
be an important factor too. Future research may examine funding strategies for intercollegiate 
Extension programs and the willingness of various current and potential new partners to 
contribute financial support. This study examined intercollegiate Extension programs at very 
high research activity LGUs; however, additional research should determine if 
recommendations vary for different university designations such as high or moderate research 
activity universities. Last, our study examined intercollegiate programs from the perspective of 
those employed directly by Extension; future research should seek to determine the 
perspectives of other university employees engaged in intercollegiate Extension programs. 
 

Acknowledgements 
 
There were no conflicts of interest in this study. Furthermore, this research was based upon 
work supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program. 
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are 



Caillouet et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.215  74 
 

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science 
Foundation.  
 
O. Caillouet – conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, funding acquisition, 
methodology, validation, writing (original draft, review, and editing); A. Harder – 
conceptualization, formal analysis, methodology, validation, supervision, writing (review and 
editing); G. Roberts – conceptualization, methodology, validation, writing (review and editing); 
J. Bunch – conceptualization, methodology, validation, writing (review and editing); H. 
Radunovich – conceptualization, validation, writing (review and editing).  
 

References 
 
Allen, R. E. S., & Wiles, J. L. (2015). A rose by any other name: Participants choosing research 

pseudonyms. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 13(2), 1–17. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2015.1133746  

 
Brooks, J., McCluskey, S., Turley, E., & King, N. (2015). The utility of template analysis in 

qualitative psychology research. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 12(2), 202–222. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2014.955224  

 
Burke, W. W., & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A casual model of organizational performance and change. 

Journal of Management, 18(3), 523–545. 
 
Buys, D., & Koukel, S. (2018). The national framework for health and wellness: (Re)framing the 

work of Cooperative Extension for the next century. Journal of Human Sciences and 
Extension, 6(2), 101–107. 
https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1176&context=jhse  

 
Caillouet, O. C. (2022). A qualitative study of Cooperative Extension’s use of a systems approach 

leveraging land-grant universities to address complex issues [Doctoral dissertation, 
University of Florida]. ProQuest. 

 
Caillouet, O. C., & Harder, A. (2021). Diverse perspectives on trends impacting the future of 

Extension in Florida. Journal of Agricultural Education, 62(3), 202–216. https://www.jae-
online.org/attachments/article/2417/62.3.19_Final.pdf  

 
Caillouet, O. C., Harder, A., Bunch, J. C., Roberts, T. G., & Radunovich, H. (2022). An exploration 

of the transformational factors affecting the performance of intercollegiate Extension 
programs. North American Colleges and Teachers of Agriculture [NACTA], 66, 103–112. 
https://www.nactateachers.org/attachments/article/3228/43%20FINAL.pdf    

 
 



Caillouet et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.215  75 
 

Carnegie Classification of Institutions. (2018). Carnegie R1 and R2 research classifications 
doctoral universities. 
https://cehd.gmu.edu/assets/docs/faculty/tenurepromotion/institutions-research-
categories.pdf  

 
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). 

Routledge. 
 
Condo, E. P., & Martin, K. E. (2002). Health professions and Cooperative Extension partnership. 

Journal of Extension, 40(4), Article 4FEA2. 
https://archives.joe.org/joe/2002august/a2.php  

 
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design (5th ed.). SAGE. 
 
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design (4th ed.). SAGE.  
 
Culp, K. (2009). The scholarship of Extension: Practical ways for Extension professionals to share 

impact. Journal of Extension, 47(6), Article v47-6comm1. 
https://archives.joe.org/joe/2009december/comm1.php  

 
Engagement Scholarship Consortium [ESC]. (n.d.). Current member institutions. 

https://engagementscholarship.org/membership/current-member-institutions  
 
Fitzgerald, H. E., Bruns, K., Sonka, S. T., Furco, A., & Swanson, L. (2012). The centrality of 

engagement in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and 
Engagement, 16(3), 7–27. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1001357.pdf  

 
Garrett, E. M., & Belle, A. J. (2022). Engaging hard-to-reach audiences through internal 

interdisciplinary and external diverse collaborations. Journal of Extension, 60(2), Article 
13. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1216&context=joe  

 
Harder, A., Lamm, A., & Strong, R. (2009). An analysis of the priority needs of Cooperative 

Extension at the county level. Journal of Agricultural Education, 50(3), 11–21. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2009.03011  

 
Holland, A., Troschinetz, A., & Missaghi, S. (2019). Get started or unstuck: Four elements of 

successful interdisciplinary collaboration in Extension. Journal of Extension, 57(5), Article 
v57-5comm1. https://archives.joe.org/joe/2019october/comm1.php  

 
Kellogg Commission. (1998). Returning to our roots: The engaged institution, Kellogg 

Commission on the future of state and land-grant universities. National Association of 
State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. https://www.aplu.org/library/returning-to-
our-roots-the-engaged-institution/file   

 



Caillouet et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.215  76 
 

King, D. (2018). Hey, Siri, what is the future of Extension? Journal of Extension, 56(5), Article 18. 
https://joe.org/joe/2018september/comm1.php  

 
Leahey, E., & Barringer, S. N. (2020). Universities’ commitment to interdisciplinary research: To 

what end? Research Policy, 49, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.103910  
 
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE. 
 
Lyons, T. S., Miller, S. R., & Mann, J. T. (2018). A new role for land-grant universities in the rural 

innovation ecosystem? Journal of Regional Analysis & Policy, 48(2), 32–47.  
 
McDowell, G. R. (2001). Land-grant universities and Extension into the 21st century: 

Renegotiating of abandoning a social contract. Iowa State University Press. 
https://aaec.vt.edu/content/dam/aaec_vt_edu/people/adjunct-emeritus/faculty-
books/G.McDowell-Renegotiating-or-Abandoning-a-Social-Contract.pdf  

 
New England Higher Education. (n.d.). Understanding Community Engagement Carnegie 

Classification. https://nerche.org/carnegie-engagement-classification/  
 
Rubens, A., Spigarelli, F., Cavicchi, A., & Rinaldi, C. (2017). Universities’ third mission and the 

entrepreneurial university and the challenges they bring to higher education 
institutions. Journal of Enterprising Communities, 11(3), 354–372. 
https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-01-2017-0006  

 
Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). SAGE. 
 
Thompson, C. J., Locander, W. B., & Pollio, H. R. (1989). Putting consumer experience back into 

consumer research: The philosophy and method of existential-phenomenology. Journal 
of Consumer Research, 16(2), 133–146. 

 
Walsh, M., John, D., Peritore, N., Morris, A., Bird, C., Ceraso, M., Eichberger, S., Novotny, R., 

Stephenson, L., Stluka, S., & Riportella, R. (2018). Health in all policies: Working across 
sectors in Cooperative Extension to promote health for all. Journal of Human Sciences 
and Extension, 6(2), 37–56. https://www.jhseonline.com/article/view/718/620  

 
Warner, L. A., Vavrina, C. S., Campbell, M. L., Elliott, M. L., Northrop, R. J., & Place, N. T. (2017). 

A strategic plan for introducing, implementing, managing, and monitoring an urban 
Extension platform. Journal of Extension, 55(3), Article 22. 
https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/joe/vol55/iss3/22/ 

 
© 2022 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
 


