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.
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.
