19 pages., via online journal article, Best management practices (BMPs) are suggested practices that help agricultural producers optimize production while reducing pollution, soil erosion, and other environmental impacts. Many audiences, including scientists and policy makers, have expressed disappointment at the current level of BMP use. Elaboration likelihood model (ELM) is used to understand how people process messages. ELM states that people can process messages either centrally or peripherally. This study sought to understand how producers processed information related to BMP adoption in grazing systems. Researchers conducted qualitative, in-depth interviews with 42 beef-cattle producers in Kansas and Oklahoma. It was found producers process information both centrally and peripherally, more specifically through past experiences and visual observations. This study suggests that when promoting BMPs, communicators should use visual cues to help producers process information. More importantly communicators should utilize strategies that encourage producers to reflect on past experiences to promote central processing.
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.
James F. Evans Collection, Leaders in agricultural research institutions in many developing countries want to publish English-language annual reports. They have few editorial and financial resources. Few have (1) analyzed their reasons for reporting, (2) set priorities among audiences, or (3) considered a design that would serve the audience(s). This paper proposes three main audiences for such reports: heads of agencies that use agricultural research findings, agricultural scientists, and some persons interested in agricultural science (but not scientists). An audience-friendly approach is suggested for the design and preparation of annual reports that can be more useful than those written in the usual scientific-report form. (original)
16 pages., via online journal., The 2018 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns that Earth’s temperatures may soon reach a tipping point that threatens humanity’s future. Scientists from many disciplines agree that anthropogenic climate change is a serious problem yet many Americans remain skeptical of the existence, causes, and/or severity of climate change. In this article, we review recent research on climate change communication focusing on audience variables and messaging strategies with the goal of providing communication practitioners research-based recommendations for climate change message design. Factors that influence audience acceptance and understanding of climate science include: demographic variables (such as political party affiliation, religious orientation, and geographic location), as well as brief sections on misinformation, and beliefs in pseudoscience. Keys to effectively construct climate messaging are discussed including: framing strategies; reducing psychological distance; emotional appeals; efficacy cues; weight-of-evidence/ weight of expert reporting; inoculation/correcting misinformation; and separating science from conspiracy theories. Evidence-based strategies are critical in giving science communicators the tools they need to bridge the gap between the scientific community and the at-risk public.
