Oesterreicher, Shelby (author), Lundy, Lisa K. (author), Rumble, Joy (author), Telg, Ricky W. (author), and University of Florida
The Ohio State University
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2018
Published:
United States: New Prairie Press
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 152 Document Number: D10157
15 pages, via online journal article, Millennial consumers are stepping into important roles as decision makers and consumers. A knowledge and communication gap exists between cattle producers and consumers this knowledge seeking generation. This study focused on collegiate millennials' perceptions of locally produced beef. The research design was qualitative in nature using focus groups. Participants associated the beef industry and beef products with the environment, management practices, treatment of animals, human health concerns, retail, experience with the beef industry, experience with beef, and transparency. Results of this study showed participants had minimal knowledge of the industry and relatively negative perceptions of the industry and beef products. Participants were skeptical of communication materials promotion beef and expressed particular distrust toward video messages. Participants revealed a knowledge and communication gap between producers and consumers
Online via publication website., The purpose of this study was to determine how education and communication professionals involved in climate-change communication are framing their discussions about climate change with agricultural producers. Researchers used semi-structured telephone interviews to gather information. Findings touched on communications factors such as audience analysis, appropriate terminology, localization of information, framing messages, and information sources.
17 pages, via online journal, In disaster crises, communication among stakeholders and response organizations are important. In Florida, the role of the County Extension Director (CED) is threefold – educational programming, leadership of a county extension program, and county office administrative responsibilities. However, their primary role in disaster emergencies is to facilitate collaborations with state and federal partners. During Hurricane Irma in 2017, UF/IFAS CEDs assisted in response efforts. However, communication efforts can become challenging in such chaotic and stressful situations. This research explored communication challenges among CEDs, clients, and statewide partners in hurricane events. Insights into the communication role of CEDs could enhance UF/IFAS Extension’s communication plan for effective information dissemination post-disaster. The Uses and Gratifications Theory guided this qualitative study. Interviews occurred with nine CEDs from various counties across Florida. Results showed CEDs used numerous communication channels to connect with clients, staff, and statewide partners, mainly for the purposes of information dissemination. The main reasons for selecting these communication channels depended on its accessibility, reliability, and whether it was a usual form of communication. Some participants were unaware of available resources which resulted in duplicate efforts. Thus, they required additional information from statewide partners. Some participants also had difficulty connecting clients with people who could assist them with insurance information and aid. As such, this study recommended a central communication system to avoid redundant efforts, strengthening relationships with disaster agencies to promote information-sharing and avoid miscommunication, and developing a list of resources and contacts for CEDs’ first engagement in disaster response.
20 pages., via online journal., For over 70 years the use of opinion leaders in a two-step communication process has been employed and validated. However, despite the accepted importance of communicating with opinion leaders as a means to cascade information to opinion leaders’ networks of influence there have been few empirical studies specifically examining agricultural and natural resource opinion leader communication channel preferences, particularly from an audience segmentation perspective. The results reported in the study capitalize on previous research data examined from a unique perspective. Specifically, communication channel preferences were analyzed according to opinion leader self-reported demographic categories serving as audience segments. Associations between sex, age, level of employment, level of education and geographical region and communication channel preference were analyzed. The results of the study are descriptive and foundational in nature. Overall, the results indicate a dedicated web page or blog is the most preferred communication channel across all audience segments and conference calls are the least preferred communication channel across the majority of audience segments. The Facebook group communication channel had the most variability between audience segments and the LinkedIn group communicational channel had the largest observed effect sizes among audience segments.
Bowman, Brittany (author), Settle, Quisto (author), North, Elizabeth Gregory (author), Lewis, Kerri Collins (author), and Oklahoma State University
Mississippi State University
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2018
Published:
United States: New Prairie Press
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 152 Document Number: D10159
18 pages, via online journal, Extension is often called the “best-kept secret” having low awareness with the public but high satisfaction with clientele. Extension services nationwide have faced budget cuts, creating a need for the organization to re-evaluate its activities, including how it communicates with its stakeholders. While Extension personnel are the ones who will do most of the communicating, their supervisors impact the personnel’s actions, which means it is important to assess both groups. A survey was conducted with Extension personnel and their supervisors in Mississippi assessing engagement in communications activities and perceptions of those activities, as well as personnel’s preference of professional development activities. Personnel reported higher use, comfort, and importance of more traditional (e.g. making a speech) and written activities (e.g. writing a promotional handout) than media-relations activities (e.g. being interviewed for TV), social media-related activities (e.g. managing a Twitter account), and visual communication activities (e.g. graphic design). Supervisors perceived individual communications activities as less important overall than personnel did, and although supervisor and communication scores for use and comfort/capability were similar for most communication activities, there were noticeable exceptions. Additionally, personnel preferred professional development activities that were hands-on or showing the activities first-hand (e.g. demonstrations and field days). Future research should be expanded to other states, conducted in a case study format to study specific relationships, and involve qualitative components. Extension should ensure clear supervisor-communication dialogue on prioritizing communication activities, provide training on communication activities with low use and comfort, and utilize early innovators who are comfortable using newer communication activities.
20 pages., Via online journal., Consumers are concerned about the risks related to genetically modified (GM) food, and there is a need for agricultural communicators and educators to address those concerns. The purpose of this study was to explore Florida residents’ latitudes of acceptance, rejection, and noncommitment toward GM food messages. The findings from this study can be used to guide communication and education campaigns for GM food. An online survey was distributed to a non-probability sample of 500 Florida residents to fulfill the purpose of the study. The messages that most aligned with the respondents’ views toward GM food discussed how potential risks related to human health had not been adequately investigated and that GM food may be riskier to consume compared to traditional food. The messages that most opposed the respondents’ views were that GM food was safe for consumption and that it caused cancer in humans. People whose views most aligned with the message that GM food caused cancer in humans had the largest latitude of rejection, likely due to their extreme attitude, confirmation bias, and ego-involvement. The largest percentage of respondents accepted messages that aligned with their position but expressed noncommitment to messages that opposed their views. This lack of rejection and indication of alignment with messages related to potential risk and uncertainty indicated Florida consumers were unsure about the effects of GM food. Communicators and educators should acknowledge these concerns when delivering information about GM food to enhance the effectiveness of communication with consumers.
18 pages., via online journal, As the public has expressed increasing concerns regarding the humane raising and handling of farm animals, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and industry organizations have developed a series of standards enforcing animal welfare in the poultry industry. Labels and value-added claims were created and defined to differentiate products and to inform consumers’ purchasing decisions. This study identified five labels related to animal welfare that are frequently found on food packages in the U.S. grocery stores, including both the mandatory labels and third-party, voluntary labels. Using a controlled online experiment (N=249), we examined the labels’ effects on consumers’ perception of humane treatment and purchasing tendencies toward egg products. Results showed that while most consumers lack knowledge regarding the labels’ meaning and certification standards, they rely on the labels with simplistic terms (e.g., "certified humane," "cage free") as heuristic cues to judge the ethical treatment of hens on the farm. However, the selected labels did not lead consumers to pay a higher premium for the labeled products. We discussed the implications for regulators, food marketers, and agricultural communicators.
