Campbell, Julie H. (author), Henderson, Jason J. (author), Wallace, Victoria H. (author), and University of Georgia
University of Connecticut
Department of Extension, University of Connecticut
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2018-08
Published:
United States: American Society for Horticultural Science
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 11 Document Number: D10327
7 pages., Via online journal., This study examined how different presentation formats affected knowledge gain among school grounds managers. Results indicate large-group participants (presentation to ≈50 participants at a turfgrass field day) had greater knowledge retention than small-group participants (presentation to 6–10 participants at an interactive workshop). Small-group attendees had more flexibility to discuss issues that affected them directly and may have focused on those issues instead of the targeted information. Large-group meetings were more ridged in format and attendees were less able to deviate from the main subject matter being presented. However, the value of the small-group meeting should not be discounted, especially when athletic field grounds managers and staff require information specific to their situation. When disseminating more general information, the large-group meeting format is a better means of delivery.
4pgs, Background
Communicating about antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) requires technical knowledge, consideration of audience values and appropriate identification of communication strategies for multiple audiences. Within the context of animal agriculture, communicating about AMR represents an important and complex endeavour for veterinarians, governmental agencies, producers and the industry to convey policy and practice information regarding the use of antimicrobials in food animals.
Objectives
To assess the science communication challenges related to AMR by identifying the motivations, goals and struggles of animal agriculture stakeholders when communicating about AMR and AMS.
Methods
Participants attending a meeting on AMR communication in animal agriculture (N = 80) completed a workshop on science communication, including small group meetings with oral/written comments collected. Participants included veterinarians, government agency representatives, industry stakeholders and producers.
Results
Results indicated participants believed providing more accurate information would resolve misunderstanding and concern about AMR to other stakeholders, counter to recommendations of science communicators. Other participants noted beliefs about the utility of stories in trying to explain how AMS is normative and consistent with the values of all parties interested in animal agriculture. Participants noted the importance of public engagement, even if the participants’ perceived target audiences did not include the public.
Conclusions
Communicating about AMR and AMS in animal agriculture contexts provide unique challenges. Few evidence-based recommendations are available for science communicators in these contexts and more research is needed to improve the quality of communication about AMR and AMS in animal agriculture.
Camacho-Villa, Tania Carolina (author), Almekinders, Conny (author), Hellin, Jon (author), Martinez-Cruz, Tania Eulalia (author), Rendon-Medel, Roberto (author), and International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, Mexico, D.F.
Wageningen University, The Netherlands
Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, Mexico
Universidad Autónoma de Chiapas
University of Bonn, Germany
Format:
Online journal article
Publication Date:
2016-10-17
Published:
Mexico: Taylor & Francis
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 108 Document Number: D10955
17 pages, via online journal, Purpose: Little is known about effective ways to operationalize agricultural innovation processes. We use the MasAgro program in Mexico (which aims to increase maize and wheat productivity, profitability and sustainability), and the experiences of middle level ‘hub managers’, to understand how innovation processes occur in heterogeneous and changing contexts. Design/methodology/approach: We use a comparative case study analysis involving research tools such as documentary review, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and reflection workshops with key actors. Findings: Our research shows how a program, that initially had a relatively narrow technology focus, evolved towards an innovation system approach. The adaptive management of such a process was in response to context-specific challenges and opportunities. In the heterogeneous context of Mexico this results in diverse ways of operationalization at the hub level, leading to different collaborating partners and technology portfolios. Practical implications: MasAgro experiences merit analysis in the light of national public efforts to transform agricultural advisory services and accommodate pluralistic agricultural extension approaches in Latin America. Such efforts need long-term coherent macro level visions, frameworks and support, while the serendipitous nature of the process requires meso-level implementers to respond and adapt to and move the innovation process forward. Originality/value: This paper contributes to the debate on how to operationalize large programs by showing that the innovation support arrangements enacted in the field should allow for diversity and have a degree of flexibility to accommodate heterogeneous demands from farmers in different contexts as well as continuous changes in the politico- institutional environment.
