Interfacing Research and Extension in Information Delivery Systems: Discussion

The paper "Interfacing Research and Extension in Information Delivery Systems" presented some relevant issues and concerns. The authors did their homework and selected four main issues even though some are controversial. I am sure many research and extension faculty will disagree with one or more of the issues presented. The Chapman, Infanger, Robbins, and Debertin survey was fairly comprehensive and proved quite informative. I recommend those interested in computerized information systems read the report as well as several other papers included in the Kentucky seminar proceedings referenced by the authors. Computerized information systems are not quite as new as the authors imply. The topic was discussed at a Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University seminar in 1971 (Walker) on work that had been underway for several years. The recent increase in interest is probably related to budgetary constraints in answering increasing numbers of inquiries for numerous clientele groups. The appropriate level of technology still is being debated vigorously. Based on my experiences with CMN, CRIS, EMIS, and other computer systems, the noninteractive batchoriented systems have a place. However, I think the future is with remote accessed interactive systems requiring no knowledge of computers and bypassing the need for a peoplemaintained interface. The more successful systems will be designed for direct userterminal access with minimum interference by others. Our jobs will be in the area of education on how to use the information to make better decisions. As mentioned, such systems must be well designed and easy to use. Another alternative is to initiate the search interactively, search in batch mode, print the report on the high speed printer, and mail the information to the inquirer. Designing a good user-oriented interactive system requires more effort than designing a batch system. The paper points out the pitfalls that must be avoided and the extra programming required to "idiot proof' the system. It can be quite frustrating to develop a good system, especially if you have experience in batch applications only. The adoption lag still exists in spite of our genius, so education in the use of the system is still needed. I question the statement that interactive systems require more total personnel than batch systems. Maybe the interactive concept just forces us to do the total job as it should be done while we can stop short with a batch system and still struggle along. Also, batch systems forced many high-salaried faculty to learn computer-programming and job-control languages, while interactive systems can transfer these tasks to computer programmers. The selection of data may be the most confusing issue raised in the paper. In fact, the difference between data and information causes confusion. Webster defines information as "an informing or being informed." This implies knowledge and the ideas inferred by the knowledge. Data is defined as "facts or figures from which conclusions can be inferred." Thus, data may be information to some but merely confusing gibberish to others. Data becomes information when it is converted into a form useful to the client. Consequently, our clientele should have a voice in formats used for delivering information because if they cannot understand the reports they are data but not information. I dislike the "Research versus Extension" implication. Both groups are public employees and should be striving for the same goals, i.e., contributions to social advancements. I like the figure 5 concept but would overlap extension and research even more than shown. Harold W. Walker is an associate professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.