22 pages., via online journal., Scientists are frequently asked to broadly share their expertise and research with a variety of audiences, beyond typical academic circles in their home disciplines. That could include developing community engagement programs, school outreach, leveraging online social networks, and other activities. The purpose of this study was to examine U.S. agricultural and natural resources (ANR) scientists’ typical science communication channels, their experiences utilizing Twitter for sharing their knowledge, research, and engaging in online public science discussion. Diffusion of Innovations theory and the model of science in-reach versus outreach guided this study. Researchers used a qualitative case study design. Data collection included ANR scientist interviews (n = 8) and application of Internet-based research methods for observing scientists’ Twitter activities. Four themes emerged from the data: 1) academic journals and conferences as scientists’ typical communication channels, yet Extension efforts help to broaden audiences, 2) scientists expected research to be peer-reviewed before public dissemination to combat misinformation and spreading of ‘junk science’, 3) scientists balanced professionalism, personalization, promotion, and Twitter hashtags for engagement, and 4) scientist-identified barriers to using Twitter included lack of time and avoiding heated discussions. Recommendations include revisiting scientists’ job descriptions and expectations for online science engagement. Also, there should be continual development and implementation of science communication training for scientists targeting best Twitter practices, growing followers for outreach beyond academic colleagues and groups, using visuals for online engagement, intentional scheduling for social media, and how to effectively navigate heated online discussions.
11 pages., via online journal., This paper is concerned with how urban food activists related to the media during 2015, when Bristol was the European
Green Capital (EGC), how they represented themselves and how others represented their agenda. Our intention is to
inform the debates on urban agriculture (UA) and, more specifically, to contribute to discussions about ‘scaling up’
UA. To achieve this, we adopt a form of analysis that rests on Castells’ insights about contemporary protest movements,
the media and the role of communication technologies in constituting social power. By using Bristol, a city with a welldeveloped and studied urban agriculture movement, we suggest new areas for consideration that focus on the importance
of communication in the development of the movement. Our study relied only on publicly available data; newspaper
reports about the EGC and a sample of the social media used by the urban food networks in the city. We found that
the mass media was mainly concerned with reporting topics other than food and that urban food was not a salient
issue in their coverage. The Twitter network we analyzed was a loose constellation of different communities, which
shared materials that were mostly concerned with creating a shared, normative picture of urban food. By considering
the structure of these forms of media, we can observe the assembly of the forms of communication and their content.
The paper concludes that the self-representation of urban food networks at that time reveals a narrow focus of interest.
This emphasis may have contributed to the lack of connection within the city between potential allies. Our conclusion
supports similar research findings in neighboring communities, which have observed the limited connections of urban
food networks to the circuits of power and influence.
