20 pages., Mass media is the main source of scientific information for most Americans, but inaccuracy of reporting has threatened the public’s understanding of science. Perceived media bias and fake news has also made the public skeptical of the media, and scientists’ perceptions are no different. Because scientists are the most trusted source for scientific information in America, it is important they remain willing to work with the media. This study used the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) to explore scientists’ perceptions of working with reporters, including their attitude, subjective norms, behavioral control, and intent to engage with the media in the future. In-depth interviews were conducted with 13 tenure-track faculty at the University of Florida’s Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) in spring 2018. These participants represented low, moderate, and high communicators. The findings from this study indicated mostly negative attitudes toward reporters due to skepticism in their ability to accurately report science. Behavioral control was also limited due to time and ability constraints, but participants recommended trainings as ways to increase behavioral control. Subjective norms were somewhat mixed, with some positive norms from mentors but perceived negative norms from the public. Despite negative attitudes toward reporters, intent to engage with the media was mixed. However, subjective norms and behavioral control were often discussed as reasons to not engage with reporters. The findings from this study offered recommendations for both practice and research to help foster positive relationships between scientists and reporters.
International: Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, University of Illinois
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 202 Document Number: D11955
Notes:
Research poster presented at the U.S. Agricultural Information Network (USAIN) virtual conference 2020. Via online by open access. 3 pages., Presentation of findings from a term-frequency analysis of climate change communications document records added to the Agricultural Communications Documentation Center collection, University of Illinois, during the 2019-2020 academic year. Researcher used a word art tool to create word clouds representing frequency of subject terms, publication title words, and subject countries used in citations.
13 pages., Via online journal., Agricultural research in developing countries often involves collaboration between dispersed multicultural teams of scientists from developed and developing countries. The teams use information and computing technologies (ICTs) to communicate between team members, who originate from different cultures using different languages. This paper investigates the usability and utility of a range of ICTs used for communication between team members from different cultures. The research used an intercultural heuristic evaluation tool, or I‐CHET, to evaluate nine ICTs used by Australian and Lao scientists for team communication. The evaluation showed that asynchronous ICTs (e.g., e‐mail) were preferred by non‐native English speakers, while synchronous media (e.g., audio conferencing, instant messaging, Skype) presented considerable problems between team members from different cultures. Most ICTs evaluated in the study demonstrated little consideration for non‐native English speakers and for inexperienced ICTs users. However, all evaluated ICTs demonstrated the ability to transmit information and encourage communication between information users in scientific collaborations. The I‐CHET assessment tool highlights the ongoing need for a “toolbox” of communication ICTs for research collaborations that can be adapted to suit the cultural and professional needs of multinational teams, worldwide.
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: Byrnes9 Document Number: D09071
Notes:
Includes Documents B00239, B01341, B02044, B02311, C08798, C12642, C12643, C12644, C12645, C12646. In four folders in the box., Francis C. Byrnes Collection
2 pages., Online via publisher. 2 pages., Report from a former ACE officer who played a key role in "setting high standards for the ACE journal, then known as AAACE Quarterly, to a refereed, high-quality publication, now the Journal of Applied Communication."
Getson, Jackie M. (author), Church, Sarah P. (author), Radulski, Brennan G. (author), Sjöstrand, Anders E. (author), Lu, Junyu (author), and Prokopy, Linda S. (author)
Format:
Journal Article
Publication Date:
2022-08-02
Published:
United States: PLOS One
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 205 Document Number: D12709
22pgs, In the United States, a public debate remains about the existence and effects of anthropogenic climate change. This skepticism is present in the agricultural sector, rendering climate science communication challenging. Due to the polarization of climate change issues and the concurrent need for agricultural adaptation, we sought to examine how scientists communicate in this sector. A survey, administered to climate scientists and pertinent U.S. federal agency staff (response rate = 43%), was conducted to examine perspectives on communicating with five agricultural stakeholder groups: agribusinesses, crop advisors, general public, producers, and policymakers. We focused on three aspects of the communication process with these stakeholders to evaluate if scientists, as messengers, were following best practices–communicator training, knowledge of stakeholder, and terminology use. We found scientists valued communication training; however, the majority had not attended formal training. Scientists had different views on climate change than producers and crop advisors but understood their perspective and were deliberate with their communication with different audiences. This suggests stakeholder knowledge and terminology use do not hinder communication between scientist and stakeholder. We also highlight three communication challenges present across stakeholder groups–stakeholder knowledge, timescale, and scientific uncertainty–and others that were specific to each stakeholder group. Future research should support scientists by identifying and resolving barriers to training and effective communication strategies for each stakeholder group that addresses these challenges.
