1 - 3 of 3
Number of results to display per page
Search Results
2. Science communication challenges about antimicrobial resistance in animal agriculture: insights from stakeholders
- Collection:
- Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)
- Contributers:
- King, Andy J (author), Wald, Dara M (author), Coberley, Denise D (author), Dahlstrom, Michael F (author), and Plummer, Paul J (author)
- Format:
- Journal Article
- Publication Date:
- 2022-04
- Published:
- England: British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
- Location:
- Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 205 Document Number: D12710
- Journal Title:
- JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance
- Journal Title Details:
- Vol. 4 Iss. 2
- Notes:
- 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.
3. Understanding scientists’ communication challenges at the intersection of climate and agriculture
- Collection:
- Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)
- Contributers:
- Getson, Jackie M. (author), Church, Sarah P. (author), Radulski, Brennan G. (author), Sjöstrand, Anders E. (author), Lu, Junyu (author), and Prokopy, Linda S. (author)
- Format:
- Journal Article
- Publication Date:
- 2022-08-02
- Published:
- United States: PLOS One
- Location:
- Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 205 Document Number: D12709
- Journal Title:
- PLoS ONE
- Journal Title Details:
- 17(8)
- Notes:
- 22pgs, In the United States, a public debate remains about the existence and effects of anthropogenic climate change. This skepticism is present in the agricultural sector, rendering climate science communication challenging. Due to the polarization of climate change issues and the concurrent need for agricultural adaptation, we sought to examine how scientists communicate in this sector. A survey, administered to climate scientists and pertinent U.S. federal agency staff (response rate = 43%), was conducted to examine perspectives on communicating with five agricultural stakeholder groups: agribusinesses, crop advisors, general public, producers, and policymakers. We focused on three aspects of the communication process with these stakeholders to evaluate if scientists, as messengers, were following best practices–communicator training, knowledge of stakeholder, and terminology use. We found scientists valued communication training; however, the majority had not attended formal training. Scientists had different views on climate change than producers and crop advisors but understood their perspective and were deliberate with their communication with different audiences. This suggests stakeholder knowledge and terminology use do not hinder communication between scientist and stakeholder. We also highlight three communication challenges present across stakeholder groups–stakeholder knowledge, timescale, and scientific uncertainty–and others that were specific to each stakeholder group. Future research should support scientists by identifying and resolving barriers to training and effective communication strategies for each stakeholder group that addresses these challenges.