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