instances these impacts have 

 resulted from collaboration and 

 shared inputs of other 

 organizations and individuals. 



Cases cited will be those where the 

 university or technician school had 

 leadership or at least coleadership 

 responsibility. 



In contrast to action programs, 

 university and technican-school 

 programs usually produce the 

 means to the end results rather 

 than the end results themselves. 

 University and technician-school 

 faculties do not fight fires, operate 

 forest-tree nurseries, run 

 harvesting firms, or manufacture 

 lumber, plywood, or pulp and 

 paper. Rather, they train those 

 who do. They also develop, 

 through research, new and better 

 methods and materials. Through 

 extension and continuing 

 education, they interpret and 

 transfer such knowledge in 

 applicable form to the action and 

 regulatory organizations and 

 individuals. 



Two conclusions seem reasonable: 



( 1 ) The universities and 

 technician schools often lose track 

 of the final effects of their 

 intermediate contributions. They 

 do not know to what degree a new 

 finding is applied, nor the resulting 

 change in productivity, 

 profitability, or policy from its real- 

 world application. Thus, concrete 

 measures of impact are scarce. 



(2) Other inputs of capital, 

 management, adaptation on the 

 ground, and preexisting knowledge 

 are involved in the application of 

 new skills or new and improved 

 technology. Thus, it is difficult to 

 sort out the value of the university 

 research and extension input and 

 pinpoint it to a particular region, 

 institution, or program (Hyde and 

 Newman, personal 

 communication). 



I sought and did not find any 

 across-the-board impact 

 evaluations of university or 

 technician-school resident 

 instruction, research, or extension 

 programs in forestry or forest 

 products for the South. For the 

 most part, I have had to use case 

 examples from individual programs 

 at institutions as indicators of the 

 type and magnitude of the impacts 

 of such programs. When these are 

 cited, the reader should remember 

 that the university input to the end 

 result may often have been 

 cooperatively developed, and was 

 only one of several (though often 

 the most important) in producing 

 the improvement cited. 



15 



