12 pages, The use of information and communication technology (ICT) has become progressively widespread in various sectors including agriculture. This study investigated the barriers to the diffusion of ICT in agricultural extension. Further, the study examined the effect of barriers toward ICT acceptance in agricultural extension. A paper and pencil survey by mail was conducted to collect data from 355 respondents in the Greater Surakarta Region, Indonesia. The study discovered that individual barriers, cultural barriers, government policy barriers, support and technological barriers significantly influenced the acceptance of ICT. In line with the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), these variables influenced perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness and perceived intention to use of ICT. The findings suggested the methods that could be adopted by governments and non-government bodies to overcome the barriers in ICT implementation.
Ruth, Taylor K. (author), Rumble, Joy N. (author), Galindo-Gonzalez, Sebastian (author), Lundy, Lisa K. (author), Carter, Hannah S. (author), Folta, Kevin M. (author), and University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
The Ohio State University
University of Florida
Association for Communication Excellence
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2019
Published:
United States: New Prairie Press
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 15 Document Number: D10430
24 pages., Via online journal., Faculty at land-grant universities are expected to engage in some form of Extension, or science communication, as part of the land-grant mission. However, critics have claimed these institutions are out of touch with their stakeholders’ needs and faculty mainly communicate with others in academia. This engagement with a homogenous group reflects the concepts of echo chambers, where people are only exposed to information that aligns with their beliefs and current knowledge and discredit opposing information. An explanatory mixed-methods design was used to understand land-grant faculty’s engagement in echo chambers. A survey was distributed to a census of tenure-track faculty in the University of Florida’s Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences to understand respondents’ engagement in echo chambers. Follow-up interviews were conducted with 13 of the survey respondents to further explore their audiences and channels used in science communication to understand their engagement in echo chambers. Survey results indicated faculty did not necessarily participate in echo chambers, but they also did not contribute to an open communication network. However, the interviews found participants were interested in reaching new audiences yet struggled to communicate with stakeholders. The participants also reported wanting to find alternative channels to peer reviewed journals to help disseminate their work. The findings from this study indicated faculty contributed to a type of echo chamber, but rather than viewing their stakeholders’ opinions as false, they simply did not hear the opinions. Agricultural communicators should work with land-grant faculty administrators to identify appropriate audiences and channels for science communication.
18 pages., Interdisciplinary agricultural research centers are becoming more common at land-grant universities. These centers often use an interdisciplinary approach to address complex science issues. As these centers address agricultural issues that impact society, effective science communication is a necessary activity. However, these centers may face unique barriers or opportunities. This study utilized a qualitative approach to identify the barriers and motivations of interdisciplinary agricultural center directors when communicating about science. Participants identified common science communication challenges, such as time and lack of funding. Funding was also identified as a motivation, as well as factors related to the tenure and promotion process. Recommendations from this work include evaluating the public relations and the effectiveness of science communication from these centers. Future research should also examine the financial structure of interdisciplinary centers to better inform best practices.
