20 pages, Several U.S. federal government agencies collect and disseminate scientific data on a national scale to provide insights for agricultural trade, research, consumer health, and policy. Occasionally, such data have potential to provide insights to advance conversations and actions around critical and controversial issues in the broad agricultural system. Such government studies provide evidence for others to discuss, further interpret, and act upon, but to do so, they must be communicated well. When the research intersects with contentious socio-political issues, successful communication not only depends on tactics, but as this study illuminates, it also depends on relationship quality between research producers, study participants, and end-users. USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) conducted first-of-its kind national studies on cattle and swine producers’ use of antimicrobials. The use of antimicrobials in animal agriculture is considered a critical and controversial issue pertaining to antimicrobial resistance. In recognition of the anticipated wide-ranging interests in these studies, APHIS sought to understand stakeholders’ perceptions and experiences of the federal government research process and products with aim of improving their science communication and relations. This study reports on findings from in-depth interviews with 14 stakeholders involved in the antimicrobial use studies to make recommendations for improving communication and relations between the agency and its stakeholders. From this research, we draw implications that are transferrable to numerous types of government science communication efforts within agricultural sectors.
19 Pages, Agriculturalists and environmentalists must navigate complex challenges as the global population continues to increase and environmental resources are depleted. Colleges of agricultural and environmental sciences are tasked with addressing the nexus between environmental and agricultural challenges through research, education, and communication. However, the amount of research being conducted with both agriculture and the environment considered is largely unknown and, as a result, their corresponding communication messages may not provide coherent messages from the college. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify if research within a college of agricultural and environmental sciences takes a holistic approach so that communication efforts coming from the college can encompass both perspectives. The data were collected from a web-based system containing university research publications and analyzed using a thematic analysis and meta-synthesis. The meta-synthesis revealed 212 codes overlapping agricultural and environmental themes compared to the total 4,325 codes found across all publications. The findings indicated there was a limited amount of collaboration occurring between environmental and agricultural researchers within the college. Without collaborative research, agricultural communicators cannot develop science communication efforts that holistically integrate evidence-based science. As new challenges emerge at the nexus of agriculture and the environment, researchers must shift toward a collaborative and interdisciplinary approach to ensure the science communication efforts sharing their findings are inclusive.
27 pages., Research in agricultural communications is not guided by a national research agenda. Therefore, the substantial body of research produced from scholars working in the discipline represents scattered efforts. We conducted a content analysis of journal articles published in the Journal of Applied Communications between 2000 and 2019 to identify the research themes that establish the discipline’s scholarly base. Through an examination of n = 259 journal articles, we identified N = 27 research themes, the most prevalent of which included agriculture and media relations/practices (f = 30; % = 11.58), public perceptions/understanding of agriculture and natural resources (f = 25; % = 9.65), and agricultural communications academic programs and curricula (f = 21; % = 8.11). Then, we used Q methodology to identify viewpoints of agricultural communications scholars (e.g., faculty, graduate students; n = 45) as they relate to perceptions about the importance of research. We identified four dominant viewpoints of scholars in agricultural communications: Message Framing Influencers, Extension-Focused Scholars and Practitioners, Discipline-Conscious Researchers, and Tech-Savvy Scholars. Together, these viewpoints explained 59.43% of the study variance. Although participants who represented each of these groups had unique perspectives, participants generally agreed that public perceptions/understanding of agriculture and natural resources and crisis communications in agricultural communications were important research themes. Likewise, they generally agreed that the role of agricultural communications professional organizations, agricultural communications efforts during historical events, and agritourism were not important research themes.
