University systems in the Philippines have adopted Extension programs as an essential part of their contribution to the country’s development.
Such programs are usually conducted outside of university campuses. But extension programs should be clearly linked to research findings and conclusions, as they provide the action part of the process of dissemination of new knowledge.
The products of extension programs are the ones that can be measured to gauge their effects on human development.
It follows that no real extension could take place in the absence of research.
Research is the means by which novel information that could improve human lives is gathered.
That is why universities are asked to engage in meaningful research to contribute to human development.
As somebody once said, “Duplicating the functions of regular government agencies is not extension work.”
In this regard, the extension programs of some universities need to be reviewed to be sure they are not conducting extension activities that are similar to what government agencies are doing.
Extension activities, like other similar programs of universities, should be evaluated on their relevance to development and other criteria.
Incidentally, Philippine universities outside of the Manila area need to beef up their research programs as the country lags behind our ASEAN neighbors.
The National Academy of Science & Technology, and the Department of Science & Technology are providing incentives to academic institutions to engage in research and extension activities.
Last week, I was part of the group that was tasked by CHED Commissioner Dr. Ruperto S. Sangalang, an expert on Extension, to help eight State Universities in the writing of Extension proposals worth P90 million at the Central Luzon State University.
The guide to producing the proposals was straightforward. The universities will use the mature and tested technologies developed by the universities, through research, in the fields of agriculture and fisheries; the proposals should be implemented by four or five other colleges and universities in their regions; the projects should show impacts in the communities in terms of reducing poverty and of increasing incomes within a period of nine to 12 months; and the projects should be sustainable and environment-friendly beyond one year.
The writeshop was a big challenge to the eight participant-state universities, and it took three days to complete.
The proposals were reviewed by the National Agriculture & Fishery Education System Committee during and after the three-day workshop.
The writeshop was a good example of how to write proposals involving implementers, funders, and critics interacting with each other in one room for the whole period of the writeshop.
________________________________
Author’s email: [email protected]
