4 pages., Via online journal., ACE President Elizabeth Gregory North comments on JAC as evidence of the strong research tradition that is alive and well in ACE.
Online from publishing organization, by membership. 2 pages., Newsletter issue features the career of ACE member Dr. Erica Irlbeck, an agricultural communications teacher and researcher at Texas Tech University.
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.
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 12 Document Number: D10392
Notes:
Online from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, New York City, New York. 9 pages., "Is it a conflict of interest for a columnist who covers food and agriculture to take money from agrichemical industry interest groups?"
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 30 Document Number: D10556
Notes:
3 pages., via website, DairyBusiness., Those within the food system wring their hands about the decreasing influence of science, often blaming consumers for our “post-truth” society. But, there is another reason for the decline of trust in science, according to The Center for Food Integrity (CFI) – one less comfortable to talk about, especially for those who conduct and sponsor research.
International: Salem Press Biographical Encyclopedia
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 203 Document Number: D12175
Notes:
Online via UI Library Catalog search. Ebscohost. 4 pages., Biography of an influential rural and general sociologist, communication specialist, writer, and professor best known for developing the theory of diffusion and adoption of agricultural and other innovations.
21 pages., via online journal., Scholars are divided over whether communicating to the public the existence
of scientific consensus on an issue influences public acceptance of the
conclusions represented by that consensus. Here, we examine the
influence of four messages on perception and acceptance of the scientific
consensus on the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs): two
messages supporting the idea that there is a consensus that GMOs are safe
for human consumption and two questioning that such a consensus exists.
We found that although participants concluded that the pro-consensus
messages made stronger arguments and were likely to be more
representative of the scientific community’s attitudes, those messages did
not abate participants’ concern about GMOs. In fact, people’s premanipulation attitudes toward GMOs were the strongest predictor of of our outcome variables (i.e. perceived argument strength, post-message GMO
concern, perception of what percent of scientists agree). Thus, the results
of this study do not support the hypothesis that consensus messaging
changes the public’s hearts and minds, and provide more support, instead,
for the strong role of motivated reasoning.
