The Extension system has a long and distinguished history of nonformal a agricultural education focused on enhancing the well being of individuals, families and communities. Hence, it is not surprising that Extension has developed a strong track record in extending research based knowledge to agricultural families, and communities.

Extension has played an important role stimulating research and has helped identify new research agendas. Thus, Extension extends knowledge in both directions – from lab to land and land to lab closing the feedback loop.

As communities have become more complex and integrated within the broader society and economy, Extension has had to address new challenges that do not lend themselves neatly to the disciplinary boundaries that traditionally define ICAR/ university research.

To meet these demands, Extension has to take a role as educator and facilitator to a new level - building community coalitions to engange in research for community problem solving. Such Extension programs create local knowledge to be used in policy and program design.

This reorientation reflects, in part, an international movement in non formal education, participatory action research, designed to bring communities and researchers into a closer, more effective partnership which will result in social research for social change (Deshler & Ewert, 1995). Participatory action research not only incorporates the collective knowledge of the community, it increases the likelihood that research result will be applied by giving the community ownership over the research process and its result (Shafer, 1995).

Eldon and Levin (1991) speak of the importance of co-learning through a dialogue between practitioners and researchers. In this case, the Extension agents provided an insiders framework emphasising extension practice, while researchers provided an outsiders framework providing theoretical context. As a result of the collaboration, Extension agents considered the larger theoretical ramifications of their stance, and researchers became more sensitive to and appreciative of practical details. The dialogue between the practical and theoretical resulted in new insights and needs to create new forums for interaction and bridging ties among previously isolated groups.

Collaborations between researchers and Extension agents have traditionally respected division of labour, which distances Extension agents from the research process and researchers from Extension practice.

In order to engage in successful collaborations with Extension agents, the privileged position of researchers within the research/ Extension partnership must be challenged. Mutual respect, confidence and trust must be built between Extension and research colleagues in order for Extension/ research collaborations to be effective. Extension colleagues are co-equals with different areas of expertise, their time and voice must be honoured. Researchers must avoid the temptation to leave their Extension partners behind once they have gleaned the necessary local insights and don't want to trouble with the challenges of continuing to incorporate a practical Extension perspective in subsequent analysis and writing.

Reality complicates theory, and theory, by definition attempts to simplify reality. Too close an engagement with local practice removes the distance often thought necessary to assure research objectivity. Knowledge is socially constructed and the collaborative research process capitalises on the value of differing interpretations of the same events. Such a close articulation with local actors inevitably pulls researchers into the action phase. This 'erosion of research distance' is both the challenges and promise of participatory action research.

On the Extension side, effort must be made to lower the costs of engaging in academic scrutiny of one's practice. This is a limited commodity and the value of time spent on research must be recognised at an institutional level. The benefits of seeing one's experience through a researchers lens can yield new insights for future practice. However, if the research collaboration focuses on the part and ignores insights for the future, then the benefits to extension practice will be greatly reduced.

Thus such collaborations strengthen the connections between research and practices are clear. Both research and extension stand to gain from new insights. However hidden costs to extension effectiveness and research independence should be assessed.

‘Education Facilitator’ to ‘Information Provider’

Extension is in the process of expanding its delivery methods through the use of the latest technology. Innovative delivery efforts include satellite television link up, computer assisted learning, distance learning and dial-access information service. These delivery methods pose two potential problems – first, they can reduce the direct interaction between information provider and information user and second, they tend to maximise educational information and minimise the processing of learning experiences by users. So in such a situation extension needs to change its mission from an institution that facilitates learning by clients to one that only disseminates information. By looking at innovative Extension delivery methods, we can judge, if in fact, Extension is changing its mission.

This isn’t to say that these delivery methods cant facilitate learning. However, they require conscious effort by the educator to ensure that we don't confuse facilitating education with providing information.

In facilitating education, we include the opportunity for learners to process the educational information and make sense of the learning experience. In providing information on the other hand, we only delivery information to the learner. We need to be careful that Extension professionals don’t become get up in the development and use of new delivery methods to provide information and forget their role of helping farmers in their learning efforts.

How can delivery methods be used to facilitate learning in addition to providing information? The following three points may serve to answer this question.

(a) Provide continuity in learning : Since contacts with farmer adults may be brief, we need to use this limited opportunity to place the education message into the learner's overall learning process by providing ideas on how inquiry can continue through reading, discussion, and classes. In this way, information is provided and learning is also encouraged to continue. Any program, regardless of its format, should encourage the learner to continue learning after the program is finished.

(b) Give opportunity for processing material : In any type of delivery method, opportunity for reflection or integration of the material should be included.

(c) Study personal styles of learning : Extension people are also continually engaged in learning. What things facilitate your learning? What hinders your learning? By studying our own learning, we might get a better picture of what works and doesn't work, so we can adjust the learning experiences and the delivery methods we use with the clientele.

In conclusion, it's much easier and faster to simply provide information than to take the time and efforts needed to facilitate learning. Yet, to truly be seen as adult educators and serve the mission of 'helping people to help themselves', we must take the time and efforts to attend to both, their education and information needs.

The effectiveness of Extension has always depended on its human resource base. Most of its budget (80% to 90%) goes for salary and benefits for its extension professionals nation wide. Does Extension have the human resource base to maintain its competitive position in the delivery of agricultural and natural resources technology? Particularly in a situation where there is :

Human resource developmental policies must be set to restructure staffing patterns, enhance salaries and benefits, increase training and technical support; and implement a more family oriented workplace. Without such efforts, Extension will be unable to maintain its competitive position in delivering research based agricultural and natural resource knowledge and practices.

By now it is clear that the private players' entry in the field of agricultural extension is inevitable. It is also important that the situation be utilised to its optimum benefits. Therefore the advantage of the situation can be taken by developing partnership between the two, i.e., public and private extension system. The phenomenon of transformation of traditional agriculture into commercial enterprise has continued mainly in case of big farmers. The resource poor small farmers' development in an extremely complex process.

According to an estimate, during this new millennium out of 100 million operational holding 90 million are small holdings. Further 70% of the net sown area in the country come under rainfed agriculture. These resource poor farmers in villages cannot afford to pay up for the services they receive. The time has not yet come to completely withdraw the public extension services. The public extension system needs to focus its attention on the small and resource poor farmers and the overall rural development. Hence, a dynamic strategy is urgently needed to integrated public and private extension systems for rural development in India. This is a challenge that needs to be tackled immediately.

We'd better be. If we aren't, in the very near future, we won't have a professional foundation from which to work on. Anyone assuming that they will be working in Extension in the same way they do today, beyond the next 5 to 10 years is just not paying due attention.