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.
Sellnow, Timothy L. (author), Parker, Jason S. (author), Sellnow, Deanna D. (author), Littlefield, Robert (author), Helsel, Emily M. (author), Getchell, Morgan C. (author), Smith, Julia M. (author), Merrill, Scott C. (author), and University of Central Florida
The Ohio State University
Morehead State University
University of Vermont
Format:
Online journal article
Publication Date:
2017
Published:
United States: New Prairie Press
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 4 Document Number: D10178
17 pages., Via online journal article., Crises, by their nature, demand effectively designed and quickly delivered instructional messages that compel stakeholders to take appropriate actions to protect themselves and their assets. The challenges of crisis communication are intensified in crises involving unanticipated and relatively unknown disease outbreaks with the potential to spread exponentially. This study assesses the communication challenges and opportunities in such volatile crises through an analysis of the Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea virus (PEDv) outbreak that severely threatened the United States pork industry in 2013 and 2014. Interviews were conducted with 13 individuals directly involved in developing and distributing risk and crisis biosecurity messages during the PEDv outbreak. Participants were selected based on affiliation with the National Pork Board, American Association of Swine Veterinarians, university extension, or their swine industry expertise. Four generalizable implications emerged: 1) the advantage of maintaining flexibility in crisis communication planning; 2) the value of audience analysis and message adaptation; 3) the importance of understanding not only what to do, but also why the recommended actions are essential; and 4) the utility of risk/crisis communication and education both prior to and during a crisis event.
