Murdock, Graham (author), Petts, Judith (author), and Horlick-Jones, Tom (author)
Format:
Book chapter
Publication Date:
2003
Published:
UK
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Document Number: D07372
Notes:
Pages 156-178 in Nick Pidgeon, Roger E. Kasperson and Paul Slovic (eds.), The social amplification of risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 448 pages.
18 pages., Interdisciplinary agricultural research centers are becoming more common at land-grant universities. These centers often use an interdisciplinary approach to address complex science issues. As these centers address agricultural issues that impact society, effective science communication is a necessary activity. However, these centers may face unique barriers or opportunities. This study utilized a qualitative approach to identify the barriers and motivations of interdisciplinary agricultural center directors when communicating about science. Participants identified common science communication challenges, such as time and lack of funding. Funding was also identified as a motivation, as well as factors related to the tenure and promotion process. Recommendations from this work include evaluating the public relations and the effectiveness of science communication from these centers. Future research should also examine the financial structure of interdisciplinary centers to better inform best practices.
Cullen-Knox, Coco (author), Eccleston, Richard (author), Haward, Marcus (author), Lester, Elizabeth (author), Vince, Joanna (author), and Centre for Marine Socioecology, School of Social Sciences, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia
Institute for the Study of Social Change, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia
Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia
School of Social Sciences, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia
School of Social Sciences, University of Tasmania, Launceston, TAS, Australia
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2017
Published:
Australia: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 162 Document Number: D08105
9pgs, Divergence in opinion over how farm animals should be cared for is creating a disconnect between livestock farming and the public that risks a loss of “social license” to farm. One proposed solution for the dairy farming community is to engage more constructively with the public to develop a shared vision of the industry's future; however, farmers and veterinarians remain reluctant to validate public opinions on farm animal care, in particular, often viewing them as naïve or impractical. Understanding the interpretive frames through which people make sense of dairy farming could help the dairy farming community engage more constructively with public opinion, thereby reducing conflict and providing opportunities to change communication or practice. Hence, frame analysis was conducted on transcripts of 60 face-to-face interviews with members of the UK public, first defining frames using reflexive thematic analysis, then considering the effect of these frames on those holding them. The results showed that dairy farming was mainly characterized by two entities: the cow and the farmer. Three frames were developed for the cow: she was perceived as i) enduring, which induced a sense of moral responsibility for her well-being among participants; ii) a fellow or companion, which led to feelings of a shared or parallel life with her; and iii) a force of nature, where the cow's connection with the natural world and “otherness” was appreciated, or even longed for. These connections were unexpectedly widespread within the sample, with many participants simultaneously holding two or even three frames. The farmer was seen through two frames: i) traditional; or ii) modernizing, but both frames had positive and negative narratives depending on the perceived care of the cow, causing confusion or even conflict about the care the farmer actually delivered. These findings provide new insights into the interpretive lenses through which the public makes sense of the dairy cow and her care, not least the bond the public themselves feel with the animal. They offer fresh opportunities for the dairy industry to improve engagement through more reflexive communication or modification of farming practices to better fit societal expectations about dairy cow welfare.
18pgs, Building a strong and trustworthy communication network to report unusual signs of disease will facilitate Australia’s response to a foot and mouth disease (FMD) outbreak. In a four-year study, the FMD Ready Farmer-led surveillance project adopted the Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS) framework, modelling transformation of how knowledge is co-created, valued, and communicated. The FMD Ready project has highlighted the need for multiple stakeholders’ voices to be heard, and the importance of regulatory bodies to listen. Relationships take time and need to be valued as a necessary tool in a participatory, innovative approach to animal health and disease management.
