Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin, 1966. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin, 1966. / Extension Repository Collection. Typescript (carbon copy). Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 171-176).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin, 1974. / Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 161-169).

Thesis (M.S.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1967. / eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis--Wisconsin. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 111-113).

Thesis (M.S.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1967. / Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.S.)--University of Wisconsin, 1958. / Extension Repository Collection. Typescript (carbon copy). Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 74-75).

Thesis (Ed. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2005. / The entire dissertation/thesis text is included in the research.pdf file; the official abstract appears in the short.pdf file (which also appears in the research.pdf); a non-technical general description, or public abstract, appears in the public.pdf file. Title from title screen of research.pdf file viewed on (November 13, 2006) Vita. Includes bibliographical references.

The thesis investigates the extent to which agricultural extension methods as used in the developed countries can be applied to the countries in Southeast Asia with particular reference to Thailand. The working hypothesis is that the peculiar conditions of agriculture in the underdeveloped countries restricts the total transfer of extension methods from the developed regions to the underdeveloped regions of the world. The historical development of agricultural extension work in the developed countries of Europe and North America is traced, and the general theory and methods of agricultural extension are explored. Then the agricultural problems of Southeast Asia are studied, with a view to identifying the factors which will affect the agricultural extension work in that region. It is concluded that the method of personal contact which is effectively used in the developed countries can be the main method for persuading farmers in Southeast Asia to accept improved techniques and training them to apply these methods efficiently. However, the personal contact method involves costly personnel, transportation and equipment. The meeting and demonstration methods tend to be effective also. Mass methods of agricultural extension including radios, newsprint, magazines and circular letters would not be effective, since few farmers can read and a still smaller number have radios. However, posters and farm exhibits are two types of mass media which would stimulate a great deal of interest on the part of the rural population. Ideally, methods should be diversified. Meetings, demonstrations, discussions, films and slides can be used to complement each other. Their combination for best results varies with local conditions. In Thailand, as in any other underdeveloped country, a complete agricultural extension program is required. This would necessitate a greater number of agricultural extension workers than the country now has and therefore a training program for extension personnel is in urgent demand. The study also deals in some detail with the case of Thailand and conclusions are drawn for that country. To the extent that Thailand is representative of Southeast Asia, then conclusions can be generalized for the region. / Land and Food Systems, Faculty of / Graduate

This thesis is a study of the roles of agricultural extension workers in Nova Scotia based on the workers views of their particular jobs. An attempt is made to identify the various activities of the workers, find out who determines their program and if they are doing the things they think they should be doing. The data for the study was obtained from responses to a questionnaire by three types of workers -Agricultural Representatives, Home Economics Representatives and Subject Matter Specialists who are permanently employed by the Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture and Marketing. The three types of workers agree that they are conforming to their expected roles but there are certain areas within the general scope of their work where they would like to change emphasis. The guidelines set up when the agricultural extension service was established in 1926 still apply today although there have been changes in methods and additions to staff. All workers agreed that they had not received adequate training in their formal education to do the specific tasks required by their job but they felt competent on the basis of the training they have and the experience gained. They feel programs in in-service training can best help them overcome deficiencies in past training. Agricultural Representatives and Subject Matter Specialists base their programs on needs identified by themselves and organized groups of farmers while Home Economics Representatives tend to determine their own program with some indication that farm women should have more effect on their program plans. While the Agricultural Representative wants to plan programs based on needs in his area, the Subject Matter Specialist would tolerate province-wide programs designed to increase the overall agricultural production. Agricultural Representatives and Subject Matter Specialists work mainly with those farmers having relatively high gross incomes since these are generally the ones who are most able to follow recommended practices. Home Economics Representatives work mainly with farm families where there is a low gross income and with non-farm groups. All workers generally agree that 'job security', 'freedom' in program planning, the 'satisfying experience' of doing extension work, the 'recognition' they get for their work, their 'office facilities' and the 'prestige' of their position are important reasons why they like their job. They do not like administering policies, the many night meetings and the fact that they have little chance to 'specialize'. The workers believe they have a very good relationship with farm people and organizations but they feel they can do their best job by being better acquainted with individuals and getting their support for programs. There is a fair degree of role concensus among the three types of workers but because of differences in their jobs they differ in some areas of role perception. There is general agreement of the importance of their roles as applied to functions of the extension service. Their present performance is based on tradition as well as direction from above and, except for a few instances, they want to change their role performance. This is indicated most strongly as they perform the roles of 'student', 'administrator', 'organizer of events', 'organizer of groups', 'consultant', 'program planner', 'program evaluator', 'public relations officer', 'trainer of leaders' and 'service agent'. They would especially increase the time they spend on 'public relations', 'program evaluation' and 'program planning'. The Agricultural Representative would spend less time in his role as a 'source of information' while the other workers would spend more time on this role. 'Farm visits' by extension workers and 'demonstrations' are the best methods of communicating new ideas to farmers according to Agricultural Representatives and Subject Matter Specialists. Least effective are 'commercial sources', 'newspapers', 'telephone calls' and 'circular letters'. / Land and Food Systems, Faculty of / Graduate