Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Document Number: D02376
Notes:
Pages 73-96 in Louise Phillips, Anabella Carvalho and Julie Doyle (eds.), Citizen voices: performing public participation in science and environmental communication. Intellect, Bristol, UK. 231 pages.
Lormore, Mike (author / Pfizer Animal Health) and National Institute for Animal Agriculture.
Format:
Presentation
Publication Date:
2012-03
Published:
USA
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 185 Document Number: D00363
Notes:
PowerPoint presentation at the National Institute for Animal Agriculture 2012 annual conference, Denver, Colorado, March 26-29, 2012. Via website. 36 pages.
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 196 Document Number: D08037
Notes:
John L. Woods Collection, Involves the Retail Water Distribution Project (RWDP). Prepared by Chemonics International, Inc., Washington, D. C., in association with Argil, Ltd. Institute for Public-Private Partnership. Funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, D. C. Includes strategy, KAP survey findings, action plans, and initial trip report. 51 pages.
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Document Number: C29916
Notes:
Pages 131-148 in Richard Holliman, Jeff Thomas, Sam Smidt, Eileen Scanlon and Elizabeth Whitelegg (eds.), Practising science communication in the information age: theorizing professional practices. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England. 238 pages.
This study examined an organizations’ crisis communication strategy (i.e., crisis response strategy and technical translation strategy) on social media and publics’ cognitive and affective responses. Twenty crisis communication messages posted by Foster Farms regarding a salmonella outbreak and 349 public responses were analyzed. The results showed that a technical translation strategy generated more public acceptances of message and more positive emotions than a crisis response strategy. A crisis response strategy generated more public rejections of message and more negative emotions than a technical translation strategy.
