By
Kristina Boone
Department of Communications
Kansas State University
301 Umberger Hall
Manhattan, KS 66506
785.532.1163
FAX: 785.532.5633
I would like to acknowledge support from the College of Agriculture and K-State Research and Extension. This project was developed in partial fulfillment of the ACOP/ESCOP Leadership Development Program, Class 11. Committee members from K-State who worked diligently on these issues included Dan Bernardo (Agricultural Economics), William Bockus (Plant Pathology), Anita Dille (Agronomy), Steven Graham (K-State Research and Extension), Becky Zenger Johnson (Student), Amy Metzinger (Student), Jackie McClaskey (College of Agriculture), Dan Moser (Animal Sciences and Industry), James Nechols (Entomology), Gloria Schwartz (Communications), Tom Warner (Horticulture, Forestry, and Recreation Resources), and Marv Willyard (Grain Science and Industry).
The College of Agriculture Image Committee was charged by the Dean to identify the current image of the College among various groups; determine an accurate depiction of the College; and recommend measures to close the gap between the perception and reality. The committee began work in September 2001 and approached the task by collecting data from a variety of groups, influential individuals, and secondary sources.
Data were collected with several different groups. The questionnaires used mostly quantitative questions with discrete answer categories, Likert scales, etc. All questionnaires also included a few open-ended questions as well. Data were collected with KSU underclassmen, faculty and administrators outside the College, Kansas high school students, and other influencers (alumni, parents, legislators, advisory committee members, teachers, agribusiness professionals, agricultural industry leaders, etc.).
Most of the people surveyed in this work identified key strengths of our College in quality academics, friendly atmosphere, outstanding teachers and advisers, strong placement in a broad range of careers, and good salaries, etc.
Findings indicated that “agriculture” is commonly understood to represent production of crops and livestock and a central component of food production. In some audiences, it had a negative connotation, drawing little interest especially among high school students. Other researchers have found agricultural careers to be perceived negatively by urban youth who viewed such careers with disdain or at least apathy.
Despite these positive aspects, the image of the College needs to be improved within the University and beyond. This author found that the College and industry of agriculture are not well understood by the public and students. Further, the College has not promoted its programs in the most meaningful manner, and sometimes the promotions have not reflected of the reality experienced by its students, especially early in their academic careers.
Due to these findings and discussions, the committee made four recommendations regarding strategic communications, promotion of programs and themes, visioning for the future, and evaluating the name of the College.
Introduction
The Kansas State University College of Agriculture Review (Pierzynski et al., 2000) recommended that the College take several steps to enhance its programs in undergraduate, graduate, and distance education. Image was a primary concern in the undergraduate area but cut across others as well. Specifically, the review noted that undergraduates participating in focus groups perceived the College to have an almost exclusive concentration on production agriculture.
The College of Agriculture at Kansas State University is not alone in its concern about image. Colleges of agriculture at other institutions started dealing with image issues in the 1980s. Numerous colleges changed their names; a list of these is presented in the College of Agriculture Review Appendix D. Even while this committee was working, two colleges at other institutions were looking at similar issues and concerns.
To deal with image issues, a committee of faculty, students, and administrators in the College of Agriculture were charged to assess the College’s image, determine what it could accurately depict, and prescribe measures to improve the image.
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework
Image issues are not new—land-grant universities have dealt with image concerns since the 1870s (Marcus, 1986). While the percentage of the population involved directly in production agriculture has dropped from more than 70% in the early1800s to less than 2% today, colleges have changed how they define agriculture as well as how they approach the industry. It is arguable that many former colleges of agriculture are hardly recognizable as such today. Also many land-grants today lack strong ties to the agricultural and mechanical arts described in the original legislation guiding their creation.
From the university standpoint, the “pigeon-holing” of a land-grant to its agricultural roots can create problems. Some evidence points to this at K-State. Sensitivity to this issue may be valid because the University constantly deals with the connotation among high school students and perhaps other audiences of being a less sophisticated (“hick,” “cowboy,” etc.) institution. This creates communications challenges and sometimes recruitment barriers for the institution as a whole. How the University positions the College can be as important as how the College positions itself. Further the College should be knowledgeable about the University’s strategy on dealing with changing demographics in a state that is growing more urban and suburban.
Image can be defined as “the entire way in which a brand, a company, or a person is experienced” (Haedrich, 1993, p. 84). Image has both cognitive and emotional components and develops differently for different groups. Thus, an organization may have a particular image among one stakeholder group and a different image among another interested subgroup. The goal, albeit lofty, is to create a consistent image that meets the needs of and communicates well with all relevant subgroups of the public (Haedrich, 1993, p. 91).
Image is best represented when corporate and brand images are complementary and in harmony, not conflicting. In our situation, the College of Agriculture and the programs in it could be equated to brands, while the corporate images are those of Kansas State University and K-State Research and Extension. Perceptions about an organization and its components transfer between these entities. Image transfer can be positive or negative but should be managed (Haedrich, 1993) and makes integrated communications important. This creates challenges for the College of Agriculture because it is closely associated with two corporate images. Further, its image should be representative of the programs within the College.
Objectives of this imaging work included the following actions:
1) identifying the current perceived image of the College among various groups;
2) identifying an accurate depiction of the College; and
3) recommending measures to close the gap between the perception and reality.
Below are brief descriptions of the data collection processes with different groups. The questionnaires used mostly quantitative questions with discrete answer categories, Likert scales, etc. All questionnaires also included a few open-ended questions as well.
· KSU underclassmen—Collected at the All-University Majors Fair, October 2, 2001, from 63 respondents.
· KSU faculty and administrators outside the College—Collected during January and February 2002 through an e-mail questionnaire, from 69 respondents out of a sample of 175 (39.4% response rate).
· Kansas high school students—Collected during March and April 2002 through a mail questionnaire administered by high school counselors to students, from 487 respondents (66% response rate).
· Other influencers (alumni, parents, legislators, advisory committee members, teachers, agribusiness professionals, agricultural industry leaders, etc.)—Collected during March and April 2002 through a mail questionnaire, from 304 respondents (37% response rate).
In order to depict an accurate portrait of our College, another task group collected secondary data and analyzed curricula to fulfill this task. This subgroup reviewed data regarding placements, curricula, advising, teaching, and diversity. Some of its sources included the College of Agriculture Review, Office of Planning and Assessment, curricula, Career and Employment Services, College of Agriculture, and Office of Affirmative Action.
The committee identified three major areas of strengths from the data collected from this group: friendly atmosphere, outstanding faculty, and national reputation in agriculture. Three areas of concern also emerged. Students need more information about agriculture, are unfamiliar with career opportunities in the field, and have a stereotypic image of agriculture.
Of the students answering the questionnaire, 41% were studying in arts and sciences, almost two-thirds of whom were in the open option. Nineteen percent were in business, while another 16% were in engineering. Fewer numbers represented other colleges. Sixty-two percent indicated they were not familiar with the College of Agriculture, but 52% indicated that the College did not have a major of interest to them. Thirty-six percent indicated they had friends studying in the College, and 25% had taken agricultural classes while 22% had interacted with faculty from the College of Agriculture (COA).
When asked what first came to mind when thinking about the College of Agriculture, the answers strongly indicated production agriculture (Table 1). They also indicated that they did not study in the College because there was no major of interest to them (Table 2). As they are so closely associating the College with production agriculture, it may mean that they are not strongly aware of the majors in the College that are not as focused on production.
Farming 39
Livestock 17
Other 11
Plant science/horticulture 11
Crop production 7
Grain science 4
Vet School 3
Food/meat 3
Agribusiness/management 3
Landscape 1
Didn’t have major of interest 52
Saw minimal career opportunities 3
Didn’t enjoy visit 5
Pressure from family to go elsewhere 5
Didn’t feel like fit in 12
When
asked for what careers College of Agriculture graduates would be qualified,
more than 80% indicated the graduate would not be qualified to be a bank loan
officer, a legislative aide, a geneticist, or a pharmaceutical sales
representative. Surprisingly, almost 50%
believed a graduate would be qualified to be a national park manager and 60%
felt the graduate could be a food scientist (Table 3). Clearly there was a lack of knowledge of
potential careers in many areas.
Table
3 Careers for which graduates from the COA are qualified
|
Career |
% Yes |
% No |
|
Farm manager |
78 |
19 |
|
Food scientist |
60 |
37 |
|
Earthgrains plant manager |
60 |
37 |
|
Landscaper |
51 |
46 |
|
National park manager |
48 |
49 |
|
Golf course manager |
40 |
57 |
|
Biotechnologist |
29 |
68 |
|
Journalist |
29 |
68 |
|
Dietician |
22 |
73 |
|
Geneticist |
16 |
81 |
|
Pharmaceutical sales |
14 |
81 |
|
Chemical engineer |
14 |
81 |
|
Med student |
14 |
81 |
|
Legislative aide |
13 |
84 |
|
Bank loan officer |
13 |
83 |
|
Family Counselor |
6 |
89 |
The respondents were also asked to rate the College on its advising, job opportunities, leadership opportunities, faculty (in general), teaching, friendly atmosphere, and internship placements. On a five-point scale with 5=excellent, none of these indicators received an average less than 3.88. (Table 4). In regard to these characteristics, the College’s reputation appears strong.
|
Characteristics |
Mean* |
s.d. |
Missing** |
|
Advising |
3.9 |
.84 |
17 |
|
Job opportunities |
3.9 |
.81 |
16 |
|
Leadership opportunities |
4.0 |
.79 |
17 |
|
Faculty |
4.1 |
.78 |
18 |
|
Teaching/instruction |
4.0 |
.74 |
18 |
|
Friendly atmosphere |
4.3 |
.77 |
16 |
|
Internship |
3.9 |
.85 |
20 |
*Scale: 1= poor, 2 = below average, 3 = average, 4 = above average, 5 = excellent
**No response
In general, faculty and administrators outside the College rated the College above average in advising, job opportunities, leadership, faculty, teaching, friendly atmosphere, and internships (Table 5).
Table 5. Rating of COA___
Descriptor Mean* s.d.
Friendly atmosphere 3.9 .65
Internships 3.8 .82
Leadership 3.8 .80
Teaching 3.7 .70
Faculty 3.7 .74
Advising 3.6 .69
*scale: 1-5, with 5 being strongest rating
They had some recognition of newer programs, such as golf course management and food science. They also noted the College was fundamental to the University and its mission. Interestingly, they perceived the College to have large budgets and more money than other colleges (Table 6).. Among this group there was a lack of understanding of the job opportunities available to graduates. Some respondents perceived the College to sometimes be distant and elitist and the students to be narrow in their interests but hard working.
General Agriculture; Farming; Crops; Ranching
Related to Qualities Practical; Respectfully students and faculty
Related to Research Excellent research; Research $; Funding
Related to University Valuable; KSU key mission; critical to country
Negative connotations Students lack skills, narrow, bad attitudes; Isolates self
Forty-three percent of the respondents were from arts and sciences; 17% from engineering; 10% from architecture; 9% from human ecology; 7% from business; and 6% from education. Forty-two percent had been at K-State for 11 or more years and almost two-thirds were male. The careers that they felt graduates could pursue were farm manager (74%), Earthgrains plant manager (74%), and food scientist (70%). More than 50% indicated that graduates of the College could fulfill the following positions: legislative aide, national parks manager, biotechnologist, golf course manager, and landscaper (Table 7). When asked why they did not study agriculture, the majority of responses indicated no interest.
Table 7. Careers for which graduates from the COA are
qualified
Career %Yes
Farm
manager 74
Earthgrains
plant manager 74
Food
scientist 70
National
park manager 58
Golf
course manager 55
Biotechnologist 54
Landscaper 51
Legislative
aide 51
Geneticist 44
Medical
student 42
Journalist 42
Pharmaceutical
sales 39
Bank loan officer 39
Dietician 33
Chemical engineer 23
Strengths about the College of Agriculture at K-State identified by these students included a perception of a friendly environment, quality academics, and strong association with traditional agriculture (Table 8).
Friendly environment* 3.7 .90 50
Job opportunities 3.6 .87 50
Internship opportunities 3.5 .86 55
Teaching/instruction 3.5 .85 56
Leadership opportunities 3.5 .84 54
Academic advising 3.4 .81 56
*scale: 1-5, 1=Poor, 2=Below Average, 3=Average, 4=Above Average, 5=Excellent
There also was acknowledgement of some broader educational programs within the College and an association with food. However, these students do not understand the breadth or extent of agriculture and do not relate agricultural studies to basic science or business. In general, there was weak awareness of the College and its programs in both rural and urban schools (Table 9).
Farming, farmers, crops, livestock 185
Other (purple, Willy, etc.) 50
Nothing 40
Quality 31
Football and other sports 28
Business, ag business 21
Hicks 21
Partying 15
Science 13
No interest in COA 10
Environment 9
Distribution/processing 9
Livestock judging 9
Boring 9
Food 7
Individual programs 7
Vet school/vet med 6
High cost 4
Close to home 3
FFA tie 3
Most of the students answering the questionnaire were juniors and seniors (434). The group was almost evenly split between males and females. About 40% of respondents were from cities more than 100,000 in population, while 22% were from towns with populations between 2,000 and 9,999. Eleven percent hailed from towns with populations less than 2,000 or from farms. Of those indicating ethnicity, more than 80% were Caucasian, non-Hispanic. Seventy-seven percent indicated that they were 80 to 100% certain of attending college. When asked for what careers would agricultural graduates be qualified, more than 50% indicated farm manager, food scientist, landscaper, and national parks manager. All other careers listed fell below this mark (Table 10).
Table 10. Careers for which graduates from the COA are
qualified
Career %Yes
Farm
manager 78
Food
scientist 61
Landscaper 58
National
parks manager 49
Biotechnologist 43
Research
assistant 37
Golf
course manager 35
Commercial
bakery plant manager 31
Chemical
engineer 27
Dietician 27
Geneticist 23
Pharmaceutical
salesperson 16
Journalist 15
Medical
student 15
Bank
loan officer 12
Legislative
aide 12
Family counselor 10
The other influencer group sample was drawn from lists of alumni, parents, legislators, advisory committee members, teachers, agribusiness professionals, agricultural industry leaders, etc. They felt that the College was nationally recognized and strongly student focused. They also cited leadership opportunities for students and quality faculty as strengths. Friendly atmosphere and work ethic of graduates also were noted as strengths (Table 11 and 12).
Mean*____
Friendly atmosphere 5.1 5.2
Quality faculty 4.7 4.9
Student focused 4.7 4.9
Career opportunities 4.7 4.9
Leadership opportunities 4.7 4.9
Nationally known 4.6 5.1
Quality teaching 4.6 4.9
Hands-on learning opportunities 4.6 4.9
Academically challenging 4.6 4.7
*scale: 1-6, with 6 being high above others
Table 12.
Descriptors of COA students
Descriptor Mean*
Professional 5.7
Strong work ethic 5.9
Strong decision makers 5.6
Academically talented 5.4
Leaders 5.3
Open to change 5.3
Good communicators 5.2
Open minded 5.1
*scale: 1-7, with 7 as very strong
This group recognized agricultural studies as science based and tied to natural resources (Table 13); however, they strongly felt that the public as a whole misunderstands agriculture. Further, their responses indicated that agriculture “does” and “does not” describe adequately the reach of the College of Agriculture at K-State.
Table 13.
Subjects related to COA programs
Subject Mean*
Science 5.4
Natural Resources 5.3
Environment 5.2
Technology 5.0
Business 5.0
Education 4.6
Communications 4.5
*scale: 1-6, with 6 being highly related
More than 60% of the respondents had attended a college of agriculture as an undergraduate; 50% were K-State College of Agriculture graduates. Twenty-two percent had hired graduates from the College. Of those who had not majored in agriculture, 52% indicated they had no interest in the College’s programs. This group also believed College of Agriculture graduates to be more eligible for a wider variety of jobs. More than 70% of the respondents were between the ages of 30 and 59, and 72% were male. Also 28% lived on a farm, and another 16% lived in a town with a population less than 2500, indicating this group as very rural based. While this group might have had greater experience with the College, it still considered career options for College of Agriculture graduates more limited (Table 14).
Table 14. Careers
for which graduates from the COA are qualified
Career Mean*
Crop
consultant 5.6
Farm
manager 5.5
Feedlot operator 5.5
Food safety inspector 5.1
Food/processing plant manager 5.1
Food scientist 5.0
Park ranger 4.9
Landscape designer 4.9
Golf course superintendent 4.8
Commodity broker 4.7
Bank loan officer 4.6
Biotechnologist 4.6
Geneticist 4.5
Legislative aide 4.3
Journalist 4.1
Pharmaceutical salesperson 3.9
Dietician 3.8
Chemical engineer 3.3
*scale:
1-6, with 6 being highly eligible
Secondary Data
Data collected through secondary sources indicated that our faculty members are professional, accessible, and internationally recognized. Our students have excellent people skills, work ethics, and are well trained in their subject areas. The College has been able to draw students in increasing numbers and has seen positive trends during the past ten years in enrollment, retention, and graduation, although enrollment has declined some in the past two years. About 60% of students coming to the College reside in suburban or urban areas.
Lack of diversity is an issue in our College and on our campus, and minorities and international students face isolation. Also there is a lack diversity among faculty. Another area for improvement is that the production agriculture image does not adequately portray the diversity of opportunities available for studies and job placement. In general the curricula tend to be flexible, which in many instances is a positive but also can result in less academic rigor. Finally and probably the greatest area for improvement is that the College does not communicate its strengths well.
The committee made four recommendations to the College based on these data. The first recommendation was that the College more strongly coordinate promotion of and communications about the College and its departments to audiences seeking information about undergraduate programs and be able to provide some basic information about graduate programs. The College is now revising a communications plan and plans to work with departments for greater coordination.
Most of the people surveyed in this work identified key strengths of the College in quality academics, friendly atmosphere, outstanding teachers and advisers, strong placement in a broad range of careers, and good salaries, etc. These elements should form the basis of key messages, and the College should work to ensure that all communications emphasize these ideas.
Greater support for and coordination of strategic communications is needed. The College should develop and lead a strategic communications plan. The communications plans and products should be integrated and viewed in the context of the University and K-State Research and Extension messages. This is not to suggest that the branding of K-State Research and Extension be changed. There are, however, image transfer issues, and communicators and administrators should be aware of them.
The second recommendation was that the College focus its communications on the promotion of undergraduate programs within the College and central themes about the College and its programs. The strategic communications plan is driving this recommendation.
Coordination of communications should be centralized and must have cooperation and support of departments. However, the actual messages should emphasize programs or themes more strongly than the College as an institution. These communications also must be uniform to a certain extent. Brochures and Web sites should have some common elements. Web communications will be central to conveyance of information, especially to high school students. The Web is a strong communications tool that builds awareness and is accessed by students seeking information (Sevier & Kappler, 2002). Study of informational tags that relate to words commonly used in queries and that can quickly link a prospect to a program in the College is very important. This type of knowledge and usability testing expertise should be utilized.
Targeting audiences and viewing image from the audience’s standpoint is very important to the communications effort as well. Brand images should be developed for several target groups and tailored to their needs (Haedrich, 1993).
The third recommendation was that the College develop a vision for its future and modify its current courses and curricula to better address the diversity of our students and their future opportunities. This work is being tied into the five-year strategic planning process for K-State Research and Extension and the College of Agriculture. The plan I sin development and will be announced in January 2004.
Related to the focus on industry needs is the necessity to strategically plan for the future of academic programs and develop vision for our programs. This visioning process should consider identifying niches and areas of excellence and growth, enhancing interdisciplinary interaction, and further increasing interaction among teaching, Extension, and research functions.
Image management and its communication should be considered as the College projects its future. Part of this planning should include discussions and consideration of image. Further, the College should ask “Are we diverse and broad enough in our programs, our faculty, and our students?” If we wish this to be part of our image, we must make it so through changes in substance.
Image is built around substance. Image is critically important but is not more important than substance. If an image does not accurately depict objective facts, it will fail and can appear to be corrupt (Haedrich, 1993; Grunig, 1993).
Image and the substance around which it is built is not solely a function of on-campus activities. Communications with public and private industry need to be maintained and continually used to reflect industry needs in curriculum. Also this reflection should be apparent in individual courses as well. If our programs do relate to a larger field than production agriculture, then our courses should too. Communications with industry has the additional benefit of allowing us an opportunity to explain what we do in our programs and to showcase strong students and faculty.
The final recommendation of the committee was that the College test new names and the current one, determine whether a name change would be beneficial, and, if needed, propose a new College name. This recommendation also is being tied into the five-year strategic planning process for K-State Research and Extension and the College of Agriculture.
Through these data we found that “agriculture” is commonly understood to represent production of crops and livestock and a central component of food production. In some audiences, it had a negative connotation, drawing little interest especially among high school students. Other researchers have found agricultural careers to be perceived negatively by urban youth who viewed such careers with disdain or at least apathy. They did not believe agriculture was connected to technical studies or research (Holz-Clause & Jost, 1995). Negative perceptions can be even stronger among minority audiences (Bechtold & Hoover, 1997).
Further and more substantially, the term “agriculture” as it is commonly interpreted is not representative of the whole of what is offered in this college. The general definition of “agriculture” gives little or no indication of programs such as golf course management, environmental interpretation, landscaping, bakery science, and environmental communications, nor does it communicate areas of emphasis such as business and science. Among the audiences studied, they do associate agriculture with food production, but not with marketing or processing.
The naming of this College or instituting other changes will not be the last changes made. Regardless of the name, continuous maintenance of the image and study of it should be implemented (Haedrich, 1993). A change in the name may provide a broader platform for image management and greater flexibility in communications that address the dynamic needs of our audiences.
References
Bechtold, R., & Hoover, T.S. (1997). Perceptions of agriculture and barriers to higher education among Hispanic and non-Hispanic high school students in south Florida. NACTA Journal, 41(2): 4-9.
Haedrich, G. (1993). Images and strategic corporate and marketing planning. Journal of Public Relations Research, 5(2): 83-93.
Holz-Clause, M., & Jost, M. (1995). Using focus groups to check youth perceptions of agriculture. Journal of Extension, 33(3). http://www.joe.org/joe/1995june/a3.html
Grunig, J.E. (1993). Image and substance: From symbolic to behavioral relationships. Public Relations Review, 19(2): 121-139.
Marcus, A.I. (1986). The ivory
silo: farmer-agricultural college tensions in the 1870s and 1880s. Agricultural History, 60(2), 2-36.
Pierzynski, G., Herald, T., Minton, E., Flores, S., & Schurle, B.
(2000). College of Agriculture
Academic Programs Review April, 2000.
Unpublished report: Kansas State University.
Sevier, R.A. & Kappler, S.D. (2002). What students say: Results of two national surveys on how students
choose a college. Stamats Communications.
White Paper Number 3. http://www.stamats.com/whitepapers/default.asp