Annual/Termination Reports:

[07/05/2008] [01/31/2009] [03/17/2010]

Report Information

Participants

Brief Summary of Minutes

Accomplishments

Publications

Impact Statements

Back to top

Report Information

Participants

Brief Summary of Minutes

NCERA Meeting  Minutes Summary
Jan. 30-31 2009
Westin Peachtree Plaza
Atlanta, Georgia

Attending: Marcus Ashlock, Linda Benedict, Kristina Boone, Ruth Borger, Elaine Edwards, Jason Ellis, Martha Filipic, Pat Melgares, Virginia Morgan, Faith Peppers, Joan Thomson, Frances Gould, Mark Tucker, Sonny Ramaswamy, Chris Sigurdson
Arriving Jan. 31: Dwayne Cartmell, Traci Naile, Tanner Robertson

I. Review Draft of Project Outline and Rationale

Reasoning behind broadening the focus of the project from Biosecurity Communication to Issues Management. A discussion ensued with the following points made:

" The change was precipitated by a multi-state effort to develop crisis communications plans, during which it became obvious that employing Issues Management could reduce number and severity of crises an institution faces.

" Issues Management involves other stakeholders besides college administrators; outside organizations' issues often affect our own institutions.

" We could take these plans "upstream" to the university level; Although that is part of the goal, stakeholder issues make the Extension and research institutions in our colleges function different than most issues dealt with at the university level, which mainly focuses on student/academic issues.

" The benefits that Issues Management plans could bring to communications staffs. Administrators often turn to communicators during a crisis situation; Issues Management could bring communicators to the table on an ongoing basis and be an inroad to getting administrators' attention, and help institutions take an active role in influencing issues instead of passively allowing issues to gain momentum.

" Issues Management can also help our institutions put issues on the agenda that could be beneficial.

The current draft of the Statement of Issues and Justification would not grab administrators' attention and suggested that the team spend the afternoon identifying the problem we want to articulate regarding Issues Management and working on a new draft. We need to demonstrate how a multi-state effort in particular brings more value than institutions working on this individually. The description should include long-term goals and partnering with underserved groups, such as 1890 and 1994 institutions.

During the following discussion, it was noted that different universities have achieved varying levels of achievement of Issues Management. Literature theorizes that institutions that employ Issues Management will be able to maintain autonomy; create goodwill; and get resources to work on problems. The idea is to get in front of potential problems before they become crises -- not only institutional problems but agricultural and community issues as well. Issues Management is a mature field in public relations, but new to agriculture.

We held a brainstorming session to help us articulate the problem/issues. After the brainstorming session, we broke into two groups, one focusing on the Problem and Rationale and the other focusing on Outcomes. Each group wrote a draft and brought it back to the group the next morning.

Problem/Rationale: Established a Writing Team that will refine the document, adding information about the gaps in Issues Management research. The Writing Team has 60 days to update information on the NIMSS web site.

Outcomes:
1. Institutionalizing a culture of strategic issue management

2. Creation of a national repository and network of expertise on issue management

Discussion followed, with suggestions to add outcomes involving:
" outreach to the 1890 and 1994 institutions
" bridging communications practices with research
" how issues management can involve (and benefit) our institution's stakeholders, and to be explicit about assisting our own institutions (internal) and other audiences (external)


Updates and action plans from outcome teams

The teams established during our May 2008 meeting in Kansas City were asked to present their reports. It was suggested that after this meeting, new teams be formed according to the outcomes/objectives we have created, each with Extension, Research and Academic components.

Election of Chair Elect
After this meeting, Faith Peppers becomes chair for two years.
A motion by Joan Thomson for Ruth Borger to become chair-elect was seconded, and Borger was elected by unanimous consent.

Objectives

1) Create a culture of strategic issues management within our institutions.
2) To link current research into the development of best communication practices for land grant institutions
3) To enhance institutional communication capacity at land grant institutions

Each objective has a team. Teams met individually then reported back to the group on plans for Procedures and Activities.

Accomplishments

Publications

Impact Statements

Back to top

Report Information

Participants

Marcus Ashlock (Kansas State University), Linda Benedict (LSU AgCenter), Kristina Boone (K-State University), Ruth Borger (Michigan State University), Elaine Edwards (K-State University), Jason Ellis (University of Nebraska/Lincoln), Martha Filipic (Ohio State University), Pat Melgares (K-State University), Virginia Morgan (Auburn University/Alabama Cooperative Extension System), Faith Peppers (University of Georgia), Joan Thomson (Penn State University), Frances Gould (LSU AgCenter), Mark Tucker (Purdue University), Sonny Ramaswamy, Academic Advisor (Purdue University), Chris Sigurdson (Purdue University). Additional attendees arriving Jan. 31: Dwayne Cartmell (Oklahoma State University), Traci Naile (Texas A&M University), Tanner Robertson (Oklahoma State University)

Brief Summary of Minutes

During our annual meeting the group reviewed and revised the activity description and Statement of Issues and Justification. A revised description was drafted and approved to broaden the scope of the project from a singular focus on Biosecurity to include a broader spectrum of issues facing land-grant universities and the agricultural industry. The new description and working title was submitted to Academic Advisor Sonny Ramaswamy on Feb. 1, 2009. We anticipate this will be updated in the coming round to reflect the new focus of the activity: Building Capacity in Issues Management in the Land Grant System

The group asserts that, as shown in research literature, land-grant institutions that employ Issues Management systems will be better positioned to maintain autonomy; create goodwill; and get resources to work on problems. Institutionalizing a system of Issues Management will allow land-grant universities to get in front of potential problems before they become crises -- not only institutional problems but issues affecting the industry, which land-grant institutions are often called upon to help address. While Issues Management is a mature field in public relations, it is relatively new to agriculture and to land-grant universities. This activity can help move the field into a more proactive, efficient, effective mode.

Accomplishments

Objective One: Create a culture of strategic issues management within our institutions.<br /> <br /> Procedures and activities involved in achieving this objective:<br /> " Assess the body of knowledge<br /> " Conduct a gap analysis<br /> " Create a knowledge repository<br /> " Assess capacity at universities <br /> " Identify existing tools <br /> " Monitor environment<br /> " Identify trends<br /> " Prioritize issues<br /> " Define potential impact <br /> " Make strategic decisions<br /> " Implement <br /> " Evaluate<br /> Objective One Milestones: <br /> <br /> Year 2: <br /> " Review Issues Management literature to establish lexicon; annotated bibliography; FAQ on language<br /> " Assess the current state of practice: Who is doing it and what does it look like; IRB approval<br /> Year 3: <br /> " Publish white paper on current state of Issues Management and how it will benefit your institution<br /> ACHIEVEMENTS during 2009: <br /> <br /> Milestones through Year 3 were met as described. The white paper on Issues Management was presented as part of the general session of the Southern Association of Agricultural Scientists, in conjunction with a panel discussion by leading deans in the Southern Region on major issues facing agriculture and land-grant universities. Proceedings from the session will be posted to the association's Web site: http://www.saasinc.org.<br /> <br /> This paper will be presented again at the international conference of the Association for Communication Excellence in St. Louis, June 2010, and will be submitted for publication to the Journal of Applied Communication. <br /> <br /> In 2010 this group will seek to:<br /> <br /> Year 4: <br /> " Evaluate land-grant system, looking for impact of Issues Management process; identify universities who are using Issues Management and those who are not<br /> Year 5:<br /> " Define strategies for change<br /> <br /> Objective Two: Link current research into the development of best communication practices for land grant institutions.<br /> <br /> Procedures and activities involved in achieving this objective:<br /> <br /> " Conduct research<br /> " Assess body of knowledge<br /> " Conduct a gap analysis<br /> " Create a knowledge repository<br /> " Develop best practices<br /> " Disseminate through appropriate channels including peer reviewed publications<br /> <br /> Objective Two Milestones <br /> <br /> Year 2: <br /> " Develop the methodology for the survey of land-grant institutions to assess Issues Management capacity and conduct an environmental scan<br /> " Assess body of knowledge  expand literature review<br /> " Establish a research agenda <br /> " Conduct Meta analysis of case studies<br /> " Identify the best practices existing in other disciplines<br /> <br /> Year 3:<br /> " Collect, analyze and report land-grant survey data<br /> " Continue scan of tools already in use or under development<br /> " Start development of best practices<br /> " Identify research needs [hypothesis driven]<br /> " Identify areas where we should have best practices and/or need best practices<br /> ACHIEVEMENTS during 2009:<br /> <br /> Much of this work was represented in the white paper detailed under Objective One. A list of Best Practice parameters were given and a group was identified to begin work on a solid set of BPs to be included in training later this year.<br /> <br /> <br /> Year 4<br /> " Establish and pilot best practices<br /> <br /> Year 5<br /> " Refine and elaborate best practices<br /> " Publish and disseminate findings<br /> <br /> Objective Three: Enhance institutional communication capacity at land-grant institutions<br /> <br /> <br /> Procedures and activities involved in achieving this objective:<br /> <br /> " Engage 1862, 1890, and 1994 institutions in a collective effort<br /> " Initiate a professional development system targeting administrators, faculty, Extension educators, staff, students<br /> " Implement a marketing strategy to inform and engage land-grant institutions<br /> " Create an eXtension Community of Practice<br /> " Design a tool kit <br /> " Design a certificate program in Issues Management [Great Plains approach]<br /> Objective Three Milestones <br /> <br /> Year 2: <br /> " Use trainings/workshops already in system<br /> " Design an Issue Management professional development curriculum for administrators, communicators, media [hold national media briefings about major issues]<br /> " Collaborate with SAAS to present professional development track on Issue Management either in general session<br /> " Continue involvement with 1890 and 1994 institutions.<br /> <br /> Year 3, 4, 5: <br /> " Continue professional development system<br /> ACHIEVEMENTS during 2009:<br /> <br /> Milestones detailed for Years 2 and 3 were met. Robin Adams, director of communications at North Carolina A&T University accepted an invitation to serve as the representative from the 1890 institutions. <br /> <br /> An Introduction to Issue Management training session, followed by a panel presentation of Our Biggest Issue: Talking to stakeholders about LGU budget reductions, was presented to the Association of Communication Excellence during the organizations international conference in Des Moines, Iowa, in June 2009. The sessions are available online at: http://connect.extension.iastate.edu/p39585982/. Phase II of this training series will be presented at the ACE conference in St. Louis in June 2010.<br /> <br /> The group wrote a successful proposal to present the general session of the Southern Association of Agricultural Scientists on Strategic Issues Management for Land-grant Universities. The session before a full-house crowd was well received and generated rich discussion. Details of the session are outlined under Objective One, and proceedings will be posted to the associations Web site at: http://www.saasinc.org<br /> <br /> In addition to these milestones, the group successfully developed a planning committee to coordinate the production of a new national impact reporting system for land-grant universities to be housed on eXtension. That committee, led by Suzanne Steel at Ohio State University, will operate as a task force of this activity group. They have begun meetings, are processing necessary forms with eXtension and actively seeking funding to support the project. Our goal is to have a robust site of national impact data, experts and evidence that will support issue campaigns. <br /> <br /> <br /> Strategies to Achieve Objectives<br /> <br /> " A team approach<br /> " Monthly communication via wiki and conference call<br /> " Leverage ACE connections [leadership, media relations groups]<br /> " Graphic illustration of matrix <br /> " Bringing people who are not here to be actively engaged in the process. We can recruit to our team; engage in conference call; follow up from this meeting; pull-push strategy; send updates to Deans/Exec Directors to encourage engagement; ACE media relations; and invite people from 1890s and 1994 institutions<br /> " Name a liaison to the 1890 and 1994 institutions; PON meeting connection<br /> " Determine if 1994 and 1890 travel could be covered by a funding source<br /> " Keep Deans/administrative leaders informed<br /> <br /> ACHIEVEMENTS during 2009:<br /> <br /> Many of these strategies were employed this year to further the objectives of this activity. The group held conference calls on the first Friday of every month to update progress, discuss problems or issues, make assignments and make any adjustments necessary to the project. <br /> <br /> The group also used its association with various professional development groups to raise awareness of our efforts and gather support from other ag communicators. We developed a detailed graphic matrix of the activity with a budget that was presented to various administrative groups including the APLU Administrative Heads and the ESCOP Marking Committee. This is available online at http://collaborate.extension.org/wiki/NCERA_209_Community_of_Practice, under File:Consolidated.Project.Outline.pdf. We are seeking further connections with these groups and others in the Spring of 2010. <br /> <br /> As mentioned above, we did identify a liaison from an 1890s college and secured funding to support participation, though the liaison did not attend the annual meeting. We will continue to work with the liaison to encourage input and participation.<br /> <br /> Group members worked to keep administrators informed with varying degrees of effort and success. During the 2010 meeting, a challenge was issued to keep administrators updated and the Outreach Team agreed to develop an elevator speech and talking points that group members could use to discuss the project with their administrators and others.<br /> <br />

Publications

Currently drafts are circulating. Papers scheduled to be presented in 2010.

Impact Statements

1. The group is already producing outcomes, products and processes from this ERA. We anticipate that momentum gained during the 2010 meeting will continue to motivate the group to keep this project on track and release innovative, useful materials to the system throughout the year.

Back to top