The Future of Land Grant Universities and Agricultural Economists

1993 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 591 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walter J. Armbruster
Keyword(s):  
Land Grant ◽  
Land Grant Universities ◽  
The Future

scholarly journals Professional Diversity in Agricultural Economics: Salvation or Suicide?

1991 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence W. Libby
Keyword(s):  
Human Capital ◽  
Agricultural Economics ◽  
Land Grant ◽  
The South ◽  
Land Grant University ◽  
Land Grants ◽  
Land Grant Universities ◽  
The Future ◽  
Uncertain Future

The theme of my address is diversity in the profession of agricultural economics. I address diversity as a response, a strategy, not as an end in itself but as a conscious approach by ag economists in land grant universities seeking a useful role in the future.I chose this theme because I am genuinely concerned about our future in the 1862 and 1890 land grants. I acknowledge up front that not all ag economists work in land grant universities but all have a stake in them as our primary reservoir of human capital. Most practicing ag economists have roots in a land grant university and depend on their products for “new blood” in business or government. My interest in diversity has been influenced by the writings of several prominent ag economists, reviewed briefly below, by recent conversations with Jim Hildreth, John Holt, and Jim Bonnen regarding the future of the land grants and by personal observations of the painful manifestations of tensions within departments in the South and elsewhere as faculty try to position themselves for an uncertain future.

scholarly journals 408 PB 045 WHAT WOULD A LEARNING UNIVERSITY LOOK LIKE?

HortScience ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 489d-489
Author(s):  
Ray D. William ◽  
Larry Lev ◽  
R. N. Mallick
Keyword(s):  
Learning Process ◽  
Learning Organizations ◽  
Land Grant ◽  
Continuous Learning ◽  
Land Grant Universities ◽  
Effective Learning ◽  
The Future

In a world of rapid and unpredictable change, land grant universities must refocus their efforts on becoming more effective learning organizations. This poster addresses the critical opportunities, challenges, and tensions LGUs will face as they seek to enhance the continuous learning process and thereby flourish in the future.

scholarly journals 1037 DESIGNING THE NEW LAND GRANT UNIVERSITY

HortScience ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 577a-577
Author(s):  
D. C. Sanders
Keyword(s):  
New Technologies ◽  
Regional Cooperation ◽  
Social Needs ◽  
Land Grant ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Land Grant University ◽  
Land Grant Universities ◽  
American Institution ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Impact

Land Grant Universities have undergone tremendous change during the late 1980's and early 1990's. These changes are due to declining resources, changing social needs, the decreasing agricultural components of society, and globalization. Faculty and support positions have been reduced. Research programs have embraced more complex areas of study, leaving adoption of new technologies to extension faculty. The Agricultural Industry has declined in political power as fewer farmers feed more people. All of these conditions lead to many changes in `THE LAND GRANT UNIVERSITY'. These changes have been the subject of extensive and intensive, previous and continuing study, because of Land Grants' dramatic influence on both American and global society. Representatives of various institutions within and on the periphery of these institutions will provide their vision for the future of this great American institution. The objectives of this workshop are as follows: Articulate and illuminate the major changes that face The Land Grant Universities and provide a glimpse of these institutions in the future. How these institutions will and should deal with and respond to these challenges will be discussed in order to provide a picture of the future that will affect all of our membership at the very core. The impact of these changes on various aspects of these universities will be presented as follows: Research and science, by Representative of National Academy of Sciences; Outreach/extension and regional cooperation, Representative of The New England Consortium; Private foundations, Representative of Kellogg Foundation; The greater university view, Chancellor Emeritus UCD. The observations of these speakers should generate important discussions that will affect our society, its members, and American society, as we come face to face with major changes in the paradigm of the Land Grant University.

Concepts and Practices for Improving Nitrogen Management for Vegetables

1992 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
George J. Hochmuth
Keyword(s):  
Water Management ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
N Fertilization ◽  
Nitrogen Management ◽  
Land Grant ◽  
Land Grant Universities ◽  
Production Practices ◽  
Negative Impacts ◽  
N Management

Efficient N management practices usually involve many potential strategies, but always involve choosing the correct amount of N and the coupling of N management to efficient water management. Nitrogen management strategies are integral parts of improved production practices recommended by land-grant universities such as the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Univ. of Florida. This paper, which draws heavily on research and experience in Florida, outlines the concepts and technologies for managing vegetable N fertilization to minimize negative impacts on the environment.

scholarly journals Agricultural Industrialization: Implications for Economic Development and Public Policy

1995 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Drabenstott
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Economic Development ◽  
Extension Service ◽  
Land Grant ◽  
Agricultural Industrialization ◽  
Land Grant Universities ◽  
Economic Forces ◽  
The Way

AbstractIndustrialization is rapidly becoming a topic of great attention. Driven by fundamental economic forces, industrialization seems likely to advance more quickly in the coming decade to more industry segments. By changing the way agriculture does business, industrialization will also bring change to public policy and agricultural institutions. Commodity policy will increasingly be out of step with a product-oriented industry. And as industrialization blurs the lines between producers and processors, land grant universities and the extension service will face challenges assessing who their customers are.

scholarly journals Librarians at Land-Grant Universities Working with Extension: Three Case Reports

2017 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
pp. 378-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inga Haugen ◽  
Kristen Mastel ◽  
Jeanne Pfander
Keyword(s):  
Case Reports ◽  
Land Grant ◽  
Land Grant Universities

scholarly journals Typology of Librarian Status Created for U.S. Land Grant Universities is Applicable to U.S. Research Libraries

2009 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 60
Author(s):  
Kate Kelly
Keyword(s):  
Research Universities ◽  
Land Grant ◽  
Tenure Track ◽  
Land Grant Universities ◽  
Research Libraries ◽  
The Status ◽  
Type 3 ◽  
Faculty Status

Bolin, Mary K. “Librarian Status at U.S. Research Universities: Extending the Typology.” Journal of Academic Librarianship 34.5 (August 2008): 416-24. Objective – To describe and categorize the status of librarians at 119 American research libraries using a typology of librarian status first developed for 50 U.S. land grant universities. Design – Survey. Setting – U.S. research universities. Subjects – 119 American research universities. Included are those universities whose library is a member of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), in addition to land grant universities who are not also ARL members, and any flagship state universities who are neither ARL nor land grant universities. All subjects are classified as either “research – very high” or “research – high” in the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. The 119 institutions represent a total census of the selected population. Methods – The websites of the 119 institutions were surveyed and data on institutional characteristics such as governance, size and geography collected. Additionally, data describing librarian status characteristics such as administrator title, rank systems and tenure status was gathered from sources such as promotion and tenure documentation, faculty handbooks, and policy manuals available on websites. Data was compiled on a spreadsheet and imported into SPSS which was used to create frequencies and cross tabulations. Data was categorised and cross-tabulated using a typology of status originally applied to 50 land grant universities in a previous study. The typology comprises four possible status types for librarians: Type 1 – Faculty: Professorial ranks. Type 2 – Faculty: Other ranks with tenure. Type 3 – Faculty: Other ranks without tenure. Type 4 – Non-faculty: Professional or academic staff. Main Results – In the 119 institutions surveyed, librarians held faculty status at 74 (62%) institutions, of which 63 (51%) provided tenure track positions. At the remaining 45 (38%) institutions, librarians were considered non-faculty. Of the 50 “land grant” institutions in the population, 40 (80%) had librarians with faculty status and 35 (70%) provided tenure track. Ten universities (20%) considered librarians non-faculty. Of the 97 ARL libraries in the population, 55 (57%) had librarians with faculty status and 44 (45%) provided tenure track. Non-faculty librarians were found at 42 (43%) of these institutions. Of the 90 public institutions in the population, 68 (76%) had librarians who were faculty, 57 (64%) provided tenure track, and 22 (24%) had non-faculty librarians. Among the 29 private institutions the status ratios were reversed with only 4 (13%) institutions having librarians ranked as tenure track faculty (type 1 or type 2) and 23 (80%) having non-faculty librarians. In the total population (119) type 3 “Faculty: Other ranks without tenure” was the least common category, 48% (57) of libraries were headed by a dean, 67% (80) of institutions had librarian representation on faculty senate and as the size of an institution increased the likelihood of librarians having faculty rank decreased. “Dean” was the most popular administrator title in the population; it correlated with professorial rank and was strongly associated with tenure. Having tenure was, in turn, strongly associated with faculty senate representation. In the Northeast census region type 4, non-faculty staff predominated while type 1 was rare; in the Midwest there was an almost even split between type 1 and type 4; in the South there was a fairly even spread across all four types, and in the West a fairly even spread across types 1, 2 and 4. Finally, the data showed that as the size of an institution increased, the likelihood of librarians having faculty rank decreased. Conclusion – The typology created for land grant universities can be extended and applied to a wider population. It is valid and reliable both for organizing information about librarian status and for comparing institutions and population segments.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document