































   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 5, Issue 1, 2024 
  agdevresearch.org 

 

1. Nassib Mugwanya, Doctoral Fellow, Department of Agricultural and Human Sciences, North Carolina State University, 

Campus Box 7607, Raleigh, NC 27695, nmugwan@alumni.ncsu.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9029-334X  
2. K. S. U. Jayaratne, Professor and State Leader for Extension Evaluation, 240 Ricks Hall, Campus Box 7607, Department of 

Agricultural and Human Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, jay_jayaratne@ncsu.edu,  

  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5591-3905      
3. J. Dara Bloom, Associate Professor and Local Foods Extension Specialist, 250 Ricks Hall, Campus Box 7607, Department of 

Agricultural and Human Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, jdbloom@ncsu.edu,  

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7428-6767  
4. Joseph L. Donaldson, Associate Professor and Extension Specialist, Director of Undergraduate Programs, 248 Ricks Hall, 

Campus Box 7607, Department of Agricultural and Human Sciences, North Carolina State University,  1 Lampe Drive, 

Raleigh, NC 27695, joseph_donaldson@ncsu.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9276-3747  
5. Jason Delborne, Professor, Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, Genetic Engineering and Society Center 

Department of Forestry & Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, Jordan Hall Addition #5221, Campus 

Box 8008, Raleigh, NC 27695-8008, jadelbor@ncsu.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6436-782X  
32 

 

Competencies and Training Needs of Extension Agents for 
Educating Farmers on Genetically Engineered Crops in Uganda 

 
N. Mugwanya1, K. S. U. Jayaratne2, J. D. Bloom3, J. L. Donaldson4, J. Delborne5 

 
 

Article History 
Received: September 13, 2023 
Accepted: March 6, 2024 
Published: March 29, 2024 
 
 
Keywords 
public issues education; controversial 
issues; extension education; in-
service training; technology transfer   

Abstract 
The purpose of this study was to determine the training needs of 
extension agents in Uganda to lead successful education programs on 
genetically engineered (GE) crops. This was a descriptive survey research 
study conducted online with public agricultural extension agents in the 
eastern agro-ecological zone of Uganda. This study used Borich’s method 
to identify training needs. A survey instrument was designed to 
determine extension agents’ perceived importance and proficiency of 60 
competencies organized under the eight Public Issues Education (PIE) 
framework competency constructs. The survey received 58 usable 
responses comprising an 83% response rate. All eight PIE competency 
constructs were perceived by the extension agents to be important. This 
study identified additional four competencies important for PIE in 
addition to the eight competencies in the model. Agents’ greatest 
training needs were creating partnerships and designing GE education 
programs. The lowest training needs were creating an environment of 
professionalism and managing conflicts. The findings indicate the 
importance of training extension agents on how to engage with farmers 
in new ways to educate them on GE technology. This study provides 
implications for determining the training needs of extension agents in PIE 
such as educating farmers on GE technology. 

 

mailto:nmugwan@alumni.ncsu.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9029-334X
mailto:jay_jayaratne@ncsu.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5591-3905
mailto:jdbloom@ncsu.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7428-6767
mailto:joseph_donaldson@ncsu.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9276-3747
mailto:jadelbor@ncsu.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6436-782X


Mugwanya et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.395   33 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement  
 
Modern biotechnologies, such as genetic engineering (GE), are widely discussed as potential 
tools to address food security challenges, especially in the Global South (Fedoroff, 2015; Qaim, 
2020). In Uganda, at least five major crops are being developed using GE to improve nutrition 
and reduce food security threats such as pests and diseases, declining soil fertility, and climate 
change—with the goal to disseminate GE crops to small farm owners (Kikulwe et al., 2020; 
Komen et al., 2020; Paul et al., 2017; Yadav et al., 2011).  However, GE crop development has 
generated considerable public concerns and controversy (Lukanda, 2020; Tibasaaga & 
Mugwanya, 2018).  

When educating farmers on GE technology, the traditional top-down technology transfer 
approach used by extension agents in providing advisory services may not work with GE due to 
controversies associated with GE (Gay et al., 2017; Singletary et al., 2007). Also, the extension 
approach has been widely criticized for being ineffective in educating farmers on controversial 
GE technology (Ahteensuu, 2012; Calo, 2018; Cook et al., 2021; Faure et al., 2012; Hansen et al., 
2003; Kamara et al., 2021; Klerkx, 2020; Tarekegne et al., 2017). The major unresolved 
challenge is how agricultural extension agents should educate farmers on GE technologies so 
that their advisory services are more relevant and effective (Faure et al., 2012; Klerkx, 2020).  

Approaches that are more system-oriented, participatory, and deliberative (unlike knowledge 
deficit approaches) have been found to be effective at addressing controversial scientific 
technologies, such as GE crops (Abelson et al., 2003; Barnhill-Dilling et al., 2020; Gay et al., 
2017; Kokotovich et al., 2020; Singletary et al., 2007). For extension agents, the public issues 
education (PIE) framework (Smutko et al., 2002) presents a potential solution for educating 
farmers about GE technology. However, the competencies and training needs of extension 
agents to conduct extension programs on controversial topics such as GE crops using the PIE 
framework in agriculture remain under-investigated in agricultural extension literature. 

Conceptual Framework 
 
The PIE framework (Smutko et al., 2002) provided the conceptual foundation for this study. The 
PIE framework provides one of the most comprehensive frameworks for assessing extension 
programs on complex and controversial technologies (Smutko et al., 2002). This framework was 
developed by a national task force of extension professionals in the United States, and they 
identified a set of 53 core competencies that extension agents need to conduct effective 
educational programs on complex public issues. These core competencies have been organized 
under eight broad constructs namely Creating partnerships; Collecting and interpreting data 
about issues, audiences, and educational settings; Designing public issues education programs; 
Communicating effectively; Facilitating group discussion and decision-making;  Managing and 
transforming conflict; Working with scientific and technical information; and Creating an 
environment of professionalism, which can be grouped into extension program planning, 
implementation, and evaluation as shown in Figure 1.  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.395


Mugwanya et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.395   34 
 

Figure 1 
 
Public Issues Education Competency Framework 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Singletary et al. (2007) used the PIE framework to assess the capacity of extension agents in the 
United States to conduct PIE, while Grudens-Schuck (2003) explored the evaluation challenges 
associated with PIE. Others have recommended expanding the PIE framework to include 
pertinent issues in agriculture and natural resources in different contexts (Gay et al., 2017). 
Although the PIE framework provides several core competencies for assessing extension agents 
on conducting education programs on controversial issues, its application to studying GE crops 
as a controversial issue in agriculture is not documented. Educating farmers on GE crops in 
Uganda is still a public issue because of the wide public concerns associated with GE crops 
(Kennedy & Thigpen, 2020), and the dissemination of GE crops requires extension agents to 
develop public issues education competencies. Therefore, this study adopted the PIE 
framework to assess the competencies that are important for extension agents to conduct PIE 
programs on GE crops in Uganda. 

 
 
 

Competencies Needed for Planning PIE Framework: 

• Collect and interpret information about issues, audiences, and 
educational settings. 

Competencies Needed for Implementing PIE Framework: 

• Communicate effectively.  
• Facilitate group discussions and decision-making.  
• Manage and transform conflict.  
• Work with scientific and technical information.  
• Create an environment of professionalism. 
• Create partnerships. 

  
 

Competencies Needed for Evaluation of Extension Work 
Using the PIE Framework: 

• Design, conduct, and evaluate the impacts of PIE programs. 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.395


Mugwanya et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.395   35 
 

Purpose  
 
The purpose of this study was to determine the training needs of extension agents in Uganda to 
lead successful education programs on GE crops. Specifically, the study sought to achieve the 
following objectives: 
1. To determine which competencies are important for extension agents in Uganda to engage 

in successful public issues education programs on GE crops. 
2. To determine the self-reported proficiency levels of extension agents in Uganda on 

important competencies for conducting PIE on GE crops. 
3. To identify the training needs of extension agents involved in education activities on GE 

crops in Uganda. 
Methods 

 
The population of the study was 70 public extension agents in the eastern agroecological zone 
of Uganda who had actively participated in biotechnology education and outreach activities 
with farmers during the 2018-2021 period. The participants were from the districts of Budaka, 
Iganga, and Kaliro. These districts predominantly produce crops such as maize and cassava, 
which are among the major crops currently under GE research in Uganda (Komen et al., 2020; 
Yadav et al., 2011). Noteworthy, this region previously had educational workshops on 
biotechnology for extension agents organized by public sector scientists involved in 
biotechnology research (Tibasaaga & Mugwanya, 2018). Because of that, this population may 
not represent the agriculture extension agents who did not complete any GE training among 
the 2000 extension professionals in Uganda (GFRAS, 2023). This is a limitation of this study. 

We collected data using a web-based survey developed with the online Google Forms software 
in the summer of 2021. The PIE framework (Smutko et al., 2002) provided the foundation for 
the instrument development (Abelson et al., 2003; Ahteensuu, 2012), and the instrument was 
designed to determine extension agents’ perceptions of the importance of 60 competencies 
organized within eight competency constructs for a successful PIE program on GE crops. We 
modified the initial eight-construct PIE framework with 53 items to include 60 items 
(Mugwanya, 2022) identified through a review of the literature (Diaz et al., 2020; Harder, 2015; 
Khalil et al., 2009; Kibwika et al., 2009; Liles & Mustian, 2004; Lopokoiyit et al., 2013; Rothwell 
et al., 2013; Scheer et al., 2011; Smutko et al., 2002; Singletary et al., 2007) and organized 
under eight constructs of the PIE competency scale (Table 1). We used the Borich (1980) needs 
assessment method to develop the instrument because it has been used in similar studies with 
similar audiences in Africa (Olorunfemi et al., 2020; Shimali et al., 2021) and documented its 
effectiveness in extension needs assessment. For each item in the survey, we used the term 
genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as that is the term most used by the audience for GE 
crops. Participants were asked to first rate their perception of the level of importance of each 
item in conducting PIE programs on GMOs on a five-point Likert-type scale, not important (1), 
slightly important (2), moderately important (3), important (4), and extremely important (5), 
and to then rate their current level of proficiency in each item on a five-point Likert-type scale, 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.395


Mugwanya et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.395   36 
 

very low (1), low (2), average (3), high (4), and very high (5). We interpreted the mean values 
rated 4 and above as important competencies.   

Table 1 
 
PIE Competency Constructs 
PIE Competency Construct Number of Competency Items 

1. Creating Partnerships 7 
2. Collecting and Interpreting Data about GMOs, 

Audiences, and Educational Settings 
15 

3. Designing Education Programs on GMOs 6 
4. Communicating Effectively 4 
5. Facilitating Group Discussion and Decision Making 11 
6. Managing and Transforming Conflict 7 
7. Working with Scientific and Technical Information 7 
8. Creating an Environment of Professionalism 3 

  
In addition to the 60 competency items listed in the scales, respondents were asked to identify 
any competencies not included in the survey that they felt were extremely important to lead a 
successful PIE program on GMOs. A panel of four experts in extension education reviewed the 
instrument to establish the content validity of the instrument. The Cronbach’s reliability Alpha 
values ranged between 0.69 and 0.92 for various constructs of the competency scale, which is a 
range in which the proportion of a test score attributable to error is minimal (Tavakol & 
Dennick, 2011). To maximize the response rate, the tailored design method (Dillman, 2014) was 
incorporated into the survey’s design and delivery. There were 58 usable responses to the 
survey, out of a possible 70, yielding an 83% response rate. To control for non-response error, 
early and late responders were compared to determine if statistical differences existed (Lindner 
et al., 2001), with late responders defined as those completing the survey after the third 
reminder. An independent t-test compared early and late respondents with no statistical 
differences found between the two groups. Data were analyzed using the statistical package for 
the social sciences (SPSS), version 27. We used Borich’s (1980) method and calculated the mean 
weighted discrepancy scores (MWDS) to identify training needs. Borich’s (1980) method 
calculates the training need for each competency by first subtracting the perceived proficiency 
level score from the perceived importance level score, producing a discrepancy score that is 
then multiplied by the mean perceived importance score to give a weighted discrepancy score 
for each respondent. In the final step, weighted discrepancy scores are summed and divided by 
the number of responses for each item to produce the mean weighted discrepancy score 
(MWDS). Higher MWDS values indicate an item has a higher training need than those with 
lower MWDS values. Mean weighted discrepancy scores were calculated for each of the eight 
competency constructs on PIE.    

 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.395


Mugwanya et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.395   37 
 

Findings  
 
All eight competency constructs were rated important. The overall mean scores for rating their 
importance ranged from 4.07 (creating partnerships) to 4.36 (communicating effectively). The 
importance mean scores of 60 specific items ranged from 3.93 to 4.48 (Mugwanya, 2022). 
Mean scores of individual competency items within each construct were aggregated and then 
divided by the total number of competency items within the construct to give an overall mean 
score that allowed for the comparison and ranking of eight PIE competencies. For example, the 
“building partnerships” construct consisted of seven competency items. When the mean of the 
“building partnerships” construct was estimated, the means of seven items were aggregated 
and divided by seven. The construct perceived as the most important was communicating 
effectively, with a mean score of 4.36. The construct perceived as the least important was 
creating partnerships as shown in Table 2.  

Table 2  
 
Perceived Importance of Competency Constructs 
Competency Construct Mean SD Rank 
Communicating Effectively 4.36 0.54 1 
Managing and Transforming Conflict 4.31 0.57 2 
Working with Scientific and Technical Information 4.31 0.51 2 
Designing Education Programs on GMOs 4.26 0.54 4 
Creating an Environment of Professionalism  4.25 0.67 5 
Facilitating Group Discussion and Decision Making 4.24 0.51 6 
Collecting and Interpreting Data about GMOs, 

Audiences, and Educational Settings  
4.15 

 
0.38 7 

 
Creating Partnerships 4.07 0.45 8 

Note. Scale: not important (1), slightly important (2), moderately important (3), important (4), 
and extremely important (5) 
 
The respondents were asked to indicate any other competency they consider as important for 
PIE in educating the public on GMOs, and six unique responses from nine respondents were 
received outside of the eight competency constructs included in the instrument. The analysis of 
these six competency items can be identified into four competency categories namely (a) time 
management, (b) professional ethics, (c) motivation, and (d) professional flexibility (Table 3). 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.395


Mugwanya et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.395   38 
 

Table 3 
 
Identified New Competencies Important for Educating Public on GMOs 

Number of 
Responses 

Competency Item Competency Category 

3 Should have time management skills Time management* 
1 Be a person of integrity Professional ethics* 
1 Should be transparent 
2 Self-driven to work and promote GMOs Motivation* 
1 Ability to multi-task Professional flexibility*  
1 Ability to move from one area to another to 

deliver messages on GMOs 
*New competencies not represented in the survey instrument 
 
The proficiency mean scores of 60 specific items ranged from 3.16 to 4.05. Mean scores of 
specific competencies within each of the eight constructs were aggregated and then divided by 
the total number of specific competency items within the construct to give an overall mean 
score that allowed for the comparison and ranking of constructs for proficiency levels.  
Managing and transforming conflict was the construct in which agents reported themselves as 
having the highest proficiency, with a mean score of 3.86. Creating partnerships was the 
construct agents perceived themselves as having the least proficiency, with a mean score of 
3.32 as shown in Table 4.  The proficiency level mean scores and ranks for each competency 
construct are listed in Table 4.  

Table 4 
 
Perceived Competency Mean Scores, and Rank for Eight Proficiency Constructs 
Construct Mean SD Rank 
Managing and Transforming Conflict 3.86 1.92 1 
Communicating Effectively 3.84 0.54 2 
Creating an Environment of Professionalism  3.76 0.77 3 
Working with Scientific and Technical Information  3.63 0.64 4 
Facilitating Group Discussion and Decision Making 3.60 0.56 5 
Designing Education Programs on GMOs 3.56 0.75 6 
Collecting and Interpreting Data about GMOs, 

Audiences, and Educational Settings 
3.45 0.58 7 

Creating Partnerships 3.32 0.64 8 
Note. Scale: very low (1), low (2), average (3), high (4), and very high (5) 
 
Training needs were identified by the calculation of mean weighted discrepancy scores. At the 
broader competency construct level, MWDS scores ranged from 1.94 to 3.07. The construct 
with the highest MWDS and therefore the greatest training need was creating partnerships, 
with a score of 3.07, while the construct with the lowest training need was managing and 
transforming conflict, with a score of 1.94. Mean weighted discrepancy scores and training 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.395


Mugwanya et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.395   39 
 

need rank for all competency constructs are listed in Table 5. For comparison, overall mean 
scores and ranks of the importance level and self-reported proficiency level of each construct 
are also listed.  

Table 5 
 
Comparison of Competency Construct Importance Scores, Rank, and Proficiency Level Scores 
Competency Construct Importance 

mean 
Proficiency 

Mean 
MWDS Priority Rank of 

Training Needs Based 
on MWDS (Ranged 

from 1=most needed 
to 8=least needed) 

Creating Partnerships 4.07 3.32 3.07 1 
Designing Education 

Programs on GMOs 
4.26  3.56  3.02  2 

Working with Scientific and 
Technical Information  

4.31  3.63  2.94  3 

Collecting and Interpreting 
Data about GMOs, 
Audiences, and 
Educational Settings  

4.15  3.45  2.89  4 

Facilitating Group 
Discussion and Decision 
Making 

4.24  3.60  2.73  5 

Communicating Effectively 4.36 3.84 2.27 6 
Creating an Environment of 

Professionalism  
4.25  3.76  2.08  7 

 
Managing and Transforming 

Conflict 
4.31 3.86 1.94 8 

Note. Importance Scale: not important (1), slightly important (2), moderately important (3), 
important (4), and extremely important (5) 
Competence Scale: very low (1), low (2), average (3), high (4), and very high (5) 
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations  
 
All eight PIE competency constructs were perceived by the extension agents in Budaka, Iganga, 
and Kaliro districts of Uganda to be important. The findings of this study can be directly 
applicable to this population and may not apply to other extension agents. This is a limitation of 
this study. However, this study provides some implications for exploring the training needs of 
agricultural extension agents in educating farmers on controversial technologies such as GE 
technology using the PIE competency framework. 

These findings are in line with other studies that also found the eight competency constructs to 
be important for extension programs on PIE (Gay et al., 2017; Singletary et al., 2007). However, 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.395


Mugwanya et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.395   40 
 

this study is unique because it explored the application of PIE in determining the training needs 
of extension agents for educating farmers on GE crops. The highest and lowest rated 
constructs, communicating effectively (M = 4.36) and creating partnerships (M = 4.07), were 
separated by a 0.29 range on a five-point scale, indicating proximity in the perceived 
importance of eight constructs.  

Professional ethics, time management skills, motivation, and professional flexibility emerged as 
additional four competency categories useful in PIE (Table 3). Time management and flexibility 
were also identified as important competencies needed by extension agents to thrive in the 
21st century (Lakai et al., 2014). Some studies have explored ethics on the introduction of 
GMOs in Africa but seldom in an extension context (Komparic, 2015). It is important to have 
further research to understand how these competencies fit into the PIE framework (Gay et al., 
2017). We propose future research to explore how to expand the PIE framework using 
identified competency items that include professional ethics, time management skills, 
motivation, and professional flexibility.  

Perceived proficiency mean scores of all competency constructs were lower than the 
importance mean scores. This discrepancy between competency importance and proficiency 
highlights the priority areas in which extension agents would need training, which is similar to 
the findings of other studies (Alibaygi & Zarafshani 2008; Cannon et al., 2012).  

Training need scores were determined through the calculation of MWDS (Borich, 1980). 
Applying the Borich needs formula to each of the eight competency constructs revealed agents’ 
greatest training need exists for creating partnerships (M = 3.07), followed by designing 
education programs on GMOs (3.02). The constructs with the lowest training need scores were 
creating an environment of professionalism (2.08) and managing and transforming conflict 
(1.94). 

These findings suggest the urgent need for extension agents to be specifically trained in how to 
engage with farmers in new ways to educate them that extend beyond the traditional 
technology transfer extension methods (Klerkx, 2020). Additionally, these findings emphasize 
the need for training extension agents to have competencies other than those that only 
reinforce the expert-oriented technology transfer model—which undermines the controversial 
sociocultural aspects of GMOs (Ahteensuu, 2012). Wide public concerns associated with GM 
crops are a major barrier extension agents will have to overcome when promoting GM crops as 
a means to increase global food security. The major implication of this study is that it tested the 
application of the PIE approach to determine the training needs of extension agents to educate 
farmers on GE crops. When in-service training programs are planned, it is necessary to focus on 
these priority training needs to educate extension agents. 

In terms of the use of the Borich needs assessment method, the weighted discrepancy scores 
are dependent on the use of item means for importance, and respondents provided a single 
judgment of the importance of a competency, based on an ordinal scale that might not capture 
responses that have a nuanced judgment of importance (Narine & Harder, 2021). In addition, 
despite this method’s ability to highlight the discrepancies between proficiency and importance 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.395


Mugwanya et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.395   41 
 

score ratings, it is weak in assessing whether the self-reported proficiency ratings reflect agents’ 
perceptions of importance rather than their actual proficiency levels of competency. Therefore, 
we propose it is necessary to conduct future research using different assessment methods such 
as supervisor rating of competence rather than self-reported competence to overcome these 
issues. 
 

Acknowledgements  
 
Author Contributions: N. Mugwanya – Conceptualization, methodology, investigation, data 
analysis, writing original draft, and editing; K. S. U. Jayaratne – Supervision, conceptualization, 
methodology, validation, writing, review, and editing; J. D. Bloom – Supervision, 
conceptualization, methodology, validation, review, and editing;  J. L. Donaldson - 
Conceptualization, methodology, validation, review, and editing; J. Delborne - 
Conceptualization, methodology, validation, review, and editing. 
 

References 
 
Abelson, J., Forest, P. G., Eyles, J., Smith, P., Martin, E., & Gauvin, F. P. (2003). Deliberations 

about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation 
processes. Social Science & Medicine, 57(2), 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-
9536(02)00343-x  

Ahteensuu, M. (2012). Assumptions of the deficit model type of thinking: Ignorance, attitudes, 
and science communication in the debate on genetic engineering in agriculture. Journal 
of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25, 295–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-
011-9311-9  

Alibaygi, A., & Zarafshani, K. (2008). Training needs of Iranian extension agents about 
sustainability: The use of Borich’s need assessment model. African Journal of 
Agricultural Research, 3(10), 681–687. 
https://academicjournals.org/journal/AJAR/article-full-text-pdf/47E2DFF29329  

Barnhill-Dilling, S. K., Rivers, L., & Delborne, J. A. (2020). Rooted in recognition: Indigenous 
environmental justice and the genetically engineered American Chestnut tree. Society & 
Natural Resources, 33(1), 83–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2019.1685145       

Borich, G. D. (1980). A needs assessment model for conducting follow-up studies. Journal of 
Teacher Education, 31(1), 39–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248718003100310  

Calo, A. (2018). How knowledge deficit interventions fail to resolve beginning farmer 
challenges. Agriculture and Human Values, 35, 367–381. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-017-9832-6  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.395
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00343-x
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00343-x
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-011-9311-9
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-011-9311-9
https://academicjournals.org/journal/AJAR/article-full-text-pdf/47E2DFF29329
https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2019.1685145
https://doi.org/10.1177/002248718003100310
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-017-9832-6


Mugwanya et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.395   42 
 

Cannon, J. G., Kitchel, A., & Duncan, D. W. (2012). Perceived teaching and learning professional 
development needs of Idaho secondary career and technical education teachers. The 
Researcher, 24(1), 43–54. https://www.nrmera.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/02/Researcherv24n1Cannon.pdf  

Cook, B. R., Satizábal, P., & Curnow, J. (2021). Humanising agricultural extension: A review. 
World Development, 140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105337  

Diaz, J., Chaudhary, A. K., Jayaratne, K. S. U., & Assan, E. (2020). Expanding evaluator 
competency research: Exploring competencies for program evaluation using the context 
of non-formal education. Evaluation and Program Planning, 79. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2020.101790 

Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed mode 
surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). Wiley. 

Faure, G., Desjeux, Y., & Gasselin, P. (2012). New challenges in agricultural advisory services 
from a research perspective: A literature review, synthesis and research agenda. The 
Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 18(5), 461–492. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2012.707063  

Fedoroff, N. V. (2015). Food in a future of 10 billion. Agriculture & Food Security, 4(11). 
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-015-0031-7  

Gay, K. D., Owens, C. T., Lamm, A. J., & Rumble, J. N. (2017). Assessing public issues knowledge 
and needs of Extension agents in Florida. Journal of Extension, 55(1).    
https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.55.01.24      

GFRAS. (2023). Uganda. Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services. https://www.g-
fras.org/en/world-wide-extension-study/africa/eastern-africa/uganda.html  

Grudens-Schuck, N. (2003). Public issues education projects: Meeting the evaluation challenges. 
Journal of Extension, 41(1). https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/joe/vol41/iss1/20/  

Hansen, J., Holm, L., Frewer, L., Robinson, P., & Sandøe, P. (2003). Beyond the knowledge 
deficit: Recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks. Appetite, 41(2), 111–
121. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0195-6663(03)00079-5  

Harder, A. (2015). Priority competencies needed by UF/IFAS Extension county faculty. UF/IFAS 
Extension, University of Florida. 
https://journals.flvc.org/edis/article/download/132380/136087  

Kamara, L. I., Hulst, F. V., & Dorward, P. (2021) Using improved understanding of research and 
extension professionals’ attitudes and beliefs to inform design of AIS approaches. The 
Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 27(2), 175–192. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2020.1828114  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.395
https://www.nrmera.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Researcherv24n1Cannon.pdf
https://www.nrmera.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Researcherv24n1Cannon.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105337
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2020.101790
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2012.707063
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-015-0031-7
https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.55.01.24
https://www.g-fras.org/en/world-wide-extension-study/africa/eastern-africa/uganda.html
https://www.g-fras.org/en/world-wide-extension-study/africa/eastern-africa/uganda.html
https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/joe/vol41/iss1/20/
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0195-6663(03)00079-5
https://journals.flvc.org/edis/article/download/132380/136087
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2020.1828114


Mugwanya et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.395   43 
 

Kennedy, B., & Thigpen, C. L. (2020, November 11). Many publics around world doubt safety of 
genetically modified foods. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-
reads/2020/11/11/many-publics-around-world-doubt-safety-of-genetically-modified-
foods/  

Khalil, A. H. O., Ismail, M., Suandi, T., & Silong, A. D. (2009). Human resource development 
competencies as predictors of agricultural extension agents' performance in Yemen. 
Human Resource Development International, 12(4), 429-447. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/13678860903135854  

Kibwika, P., Wals, A. E. J., & Nassuna-Musoke, M. G. (2009). Competence challenges of demand-
led agricultural research and extension in Uganda. The Journal of Agricultural Education 
and Extension, 15(1), 5-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13892240802617510  

Kikulwe E. M., Falck-Zepeda J. B., Oloka H. K., Chambers J. A., Komen J., Zambrano P., Wood-
Sichra U., & Hanson, H. (2020). Benefits from the Adoption of Genetically Engineered 
Innovations in the Ugandan Banana and Cassava Sectors: An Ex-ante Analysis 
[Discussion Paper 1927]. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). 
https://doi.org/10.2499/p15738coll2.133716  

Klerkx, L. (2020). Advisory services and transformation, plurality and disruption of agriculture 
and food systems: Towards a new research agenda for agricultural education and 
Extension studies. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 26(2), 131–140. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2020.1738046  

Kokotovich, A. E., Delborne, J. A., Elsensohn, J., & Burrack, H. (2020). Emerging technologies for 
invasive insects: The role of engagement. Annals of the Entomological Society of 
America, 113(4), 266–279. https://doi.org/10.1093/aesa/saz064  

Komen, J., Tripathi, L., Mkoko, B., Ofosu, D. O., Oloka, H., & Wangari, D. (2020). Biosafety 
regulatory reviews and leeway to operate: Case studies from Sub-Sahara Africa. 
Frontiers in Plant Science, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.00130  

Komparic, A. (2015). The ethics of introducing GMOs into sub-Saharan Africa: Considerations 
from sub-Saharan African theory of Ubuntu. Bioethics, 29, 604-612. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12191    

Lakai, D., Jayaratne, K. S. U., Moore, G. E., & Kistler, M. J. (2014). Identification of current 
proficiency level of extension competencies and the competencies needed for extension 
agents to be successful in the 21st century. Journal of Human Sciences and 
Extension, 2(1). https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/jhse/vol2/iss1/5/  

Liles, R. T., & Mustian, R. D. (2004). Core competencies: A systems approach for training and 
organizational development in extension. The Journal of Agricultural Education and 
Extension, 10(2), 77-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13892240485300121 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.395
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/11/11/many-publics-around-world-doubt-safety-of-genetically-modified-foods/
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/11/11/many-publics-around-world-doubt-safety-of-genetically-modified-foods/
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/11/11/many-publics-around-world-doubt-safety-of-genetically-modified-foods/
https://doi.org/10.1080/13678860903135854
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13892240802617510
https://doi.org/10.2499/p15738coll2.133716
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2020.1738046
https://doi.org/10.1093/aesa/saz064
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.00130
https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12191
https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/jhse/vol2/iss1/5/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13892240485300121


Mugwanya et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.395   44 
 

Lindner, J. R., Murphy, T. H., & Briers, G. E. (2001). Handling nonresponse in social science 
research. Journal of Agricultural Education, 42(4), 43–53. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2001.04043  

Lopokoiyit, M., Onyango, C., & Kibett, J. (2013). Extension management competency needs of 
agricultural extension agents in Kenya. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 4(6):11-
20. http://dx.doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2013.v4n6p11 

Lukanda, I. N. (2020). Activists as strategic science communicators on the adoption of GMOs in 
Uganda. Journal of Science Communication, 19(6).  
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19060306  

Mugwanya, N. (2022). Extension agent competencies and training needs on public issues 
education: A case of genetically engineered crops in Uganda [Doctoral dissertation, 
North Carolina State University]. NC STATE University Libraries. 
https://www.lib.ncsu.edu/resolver/1840.20/39814  

Narine, L. K., & Harder, A. (2021). Comparing the Borich model with the ranked discrepancy 
model for competency assessment: A novel approach. Advancements in Agricultural 
Development, 2(3), 96-111. https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i3.169  

Olorunfemi, T. O., Olorunfemi, O. D., Oladele, O. I. (2020). Borich needs model analysis of 
extension agents’ competence on climate smart agricultural initiatives in South West 
Nigeria. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 26(1), 59-73. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2019.1693406  

Paul, J. Y., Khanna, H., Kleidon, J., Hoang, P., Geijskes, J., Daniells, J., Zaplin, E., Rosenberg, Y., 
James, A., Mlalazi, B., Deo, P., Arinaitwe, G., Namanya, P., Becker, D., Tindamanyire, J., 
Tushemereirwe, W., Harding, R., & Dale, J. (2017). Golden bananas in the field: Elevated 
fruit pro-vitamin A from the expression of a single banana transgene. Plant 
Biotechnology Journal, 15(4), 520–532. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12650  

Qaim, M. (2020). Role of new plant breeding technologies for food security and sustainable 
agricultural development. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 42(2), 129–
150. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13044   

Rothwell, W. J., Arneson, J., & Naughton, J. (2013). ASTD competency study: The training & 
development profession redefined. ASTD Press. 
https://books.google.com/books?id=AOfjAgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_
ge_summary_r&cad=0  

Scheer, S. D., Cochran, D. R., Harder, A., & Place, N. T. (2011). Competency modeling in 
extension education: Integrating an academic extension education model with an 
extension human resource management model. Journal of Agricultural Education, 52 
(3), 64–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.5032/jae.2011.03064  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.395
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2001.04043
http://dx.doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2013.v4n6p11
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19060306
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19060306
https://www.lib.ncsu.edu/resolver/1840.20/39814
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i3.169
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2019.1693406
https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12650
https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13044
https://books.google.com/books?id=AOfjAgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0
https://books.google.com/books?id=AOfjAgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0
http://dx.doi.org/10.5032/jae.2011.03064


Mugwanya et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.395   45 
 

Shimali, F., Mangheni, M. N., & Kabahenda, M. (2021). Nutrition education competencies of 
agricultural extension workers in Uganda. The Journal of Agricultural Education and 
Extension, 27(4), 535-552. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2021.1880451 

Singletary, L., Smith, M., Hill, G., Daniels, S., Smutko, S., Ayres, J., & Haaland, K. (2007). 
Strengthening Extension’s capacity to conduct public issues education programs: Results 
of a national needs assessment. Journal of Extension, 45(3). 
https://archives.joe.org/joe/2007june/a1.php  

Smutko, S., Ayres, J., Babbitt, K., Corcoran, P., Culik, M., Dorsey, M., Frey, L., Haaland, K., Peters, 
S., & Singletary, L. (2002). Public issues education: Increasing competence, enabling 
communities. National Public Policy Education Committee, Cooperative Extension, 
Public Issues Education Competencies Task Force. https://www.farmfoundation.org/wp-
content/uploads/attachments/30-PIEIncreasingcompetencebook.pdf  

Tarekegne, C., Wesselink, R., Biemans, H. J. A., & Mulder, M. (2017). Developing and validating 
a competence profile for development agents: An Ethiopian case study. The Journal of 
Agricultural Education and Extension, 23(5), 427–441. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2017.1368400  

Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International Journal of 
Medical Education, 2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd  

Tibasaaga, A., & Mugwanya, Z. B. (2018). Science communication models for agricultural 
transformation in Uganda. Uganda Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 18(2), 123–131. 
https://doi.org/10.4314/ujas.v18i2.6  

Yadav, J. S., Ogwok, E., Wagaba, H., Patil, B. L., Bagewadi, B., Alicai, T., Gaitan-Solis, E., Taylor, N. 
J. & Fauquet, C. M. (2011). RNAi-Mediated resistance to Cassava Brown Streak Uganda 
Virus in transgenic cassava. Molecular Plant Pathology, 12(7), 677–
687. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1364-3703.2010.00700.X 

 
© 2024 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/). 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.395
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2021.1880451
https://archives.joe.org/joe/2007june/a1.php
https://www.farmfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/attachments/30-PIEIncreasingcompetencebook.pdf
https://www.farmfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/attachments/30-PIEIncreasingcompetencebook.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2017.1368400
https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
https://doi.org/10.4314/ujas.v18i2.6
https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1364-3703.2010.00700.X

