The role of creativity in Texas cooperative extension: promoters and inhibitors to creative county extension programs

Interest in creativity has increased in both academia and industry during the latter half of the twentieth century. Extension leaders began acknowledging creativity's worth in the mid-1980's and Texas Cooperative Extension (TCE) incorporated creative and innovative programming requirements into county agent performance appraisal and promotion standards beginning in 2001. This study used a mixed methods approach through open-ended questionnaires to mid-level and state extension administrators and informal interviews with county extension agents identified with creative county-level programs by mid-level administrators. Data collected answered questions about the value of creativity to TCE, the administrative criteria/definition of a creative program, and promoters and inhibitors to creative programs. The data was unitized and analyzed according to accepted qualitative research protocol to develop emergent themes. Both administrators and agents agreed that creativity was extremely valuable to Extension, allowing the agency to remain flexible, responsive, and relevant to local clientele needs. Creative programs attract new audiences, engage learners, engender community and political support, establish a competitive edge for Extension, and provide intrinsic rewards to employees resulting in increased job satisfaction. Most creative programs were identified as not necessarily presenting new material or concepts, but programs that used non-traditional methods or innovative approaches to topics that increased the agent's effectiveness in reaching clientele. Administrator's creative criteria varied, but many included grassroots committee involvement, relevant local issues, marketing elements, and technology in their criteria. Analysis of identified creative programs found the following characteristics in most programs: target audience, multiple teaching experiences or an intensive program approach, multiple delivery methods, local collaborators, grassroots committee planning, and community recognition through a marketing campaign, catchy phrase, or logo. Technological elements were limited and concerns were voiced about Extension being behind clientele in the technology. Creativity promoters included idea sharing, a supportive and flexible supervisor, risk taking spirit, and organizational recognition. Lack of time to plan coupled with excessive workload was the most recognized inhibitor. An invisible barrier between administrators and agents was perceived by some agents diminishing the creative environment. Other inhibitors included bureaucracy, organizational tradition and resistance to change, lack of internal recognition and rewards, and limited financial resources.