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.
Dyer, J. (author), Stringer, L.C. (author), Dougill, A.J. (author), Leventon, J. (author), Nshimbi, M. (author), Chama, F. (author), Kafwifwi, A. (author), Muledi, J.I. (author), Kaumbu, J.-M.K. (author), Falcao, M. (author), Muhorro, S. (author), Munyemba, F. (author), Kalaba, G.M. (author), and Syampungani, S. (author)
Format:
Online journal article
Publication Date:
2014-05-01
Published:
Elsevier
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 32 Document Number: D10619
9 pages., via online journal., The emphasis on participatory environmental management within international development has started to overcome critiques of traditional exclusionary environmental policy, aligning with shifts towards decentralisation and community empowerment. However, questions are raised regarding the extent to which participation in project design and implementation is meaningful and really engages communities in the process. Calls have been made for further local-level (project and community-scale) research to identify practices that can increase the likelihood of meaningful community engagement within externally initiated projects. This paper presents data from three community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) project case studies from southern Africa, which promote Joint Forest Management (JFM), tree planting for carbon and conservation agriculture. Data collection was carried out through semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders, community-level meetings, focus groups and interviews. We find that an important first step for a meaningful community engagement process is to define ‘community’ in an open and participatory manner. Two-way communication at all stages of the community engagement process is shown to be critical, and charismatic leadership based on mutual respect and clarity of roles and responsibilities is vital to improve the likelihood of participants developing understanding of project aims and philosophy. This can lead to successful project outcomes through community ownership of the project goals and empowerment in project implementation. Specific engagement methods are found to be less important than the contextual and environmental factors associated with each project, but consideration should be given to identifying appropriate methods to ensure community representation. Our findings extend current thinking on the evaluation of participation by making explicit links between the community engagement process and project outcomes, and by identifying further criteria that can be considered in process and outcome-based evaluations. We highlight good practices for future CBNRM projects which can be used by project designers and initiators to further the likelihood of successful project outcomes.
