19pgs, The following exploratory convergent mixed-methods study examined graduate students’ experiences
developing and facilitating 360º photo-based virtual reality (VR) tours titled Labs and Landscapes
focused on forest conservation and climate change education, as well as tour impacts on public
audiences. Graduate students in an agricultural and natural resources communication course at The
University of Florida used 360º cameras, mobile devices, and online software to create VR tours about the UF/IFAS Austin Cary Research Forest. Then, the students guided public participants through the tours in three physical informal learning environments including a museum, brewery, and campus tabling site within the university community. Data collection included VR tour artifacts, audio recordings of students’ VR facilitation and discourse with the public, post-surveys of public participants’ tour impressions and climate change attitudes, and pre-/post-student reflections. Data sources were collected separately and mixed in interpretation. Results showed students increased their multimedia communication skills, knowledge of natural resource conservation, and confidence in communicating with public audiences. Additionally, survey results indicated public participants agreed the students successfully guided the
tours, agreed it is important to learn about conservation and climate change, and had some disagreement with the statement that humans cannot prevent climate change.
21pgs, Gene-editing provides an opportunity to address the significant challenges of population growth and climate change that impact food production. Given the important role of gene-editing in our food system, exploring opportunities to persuade public acceptance of the technology is needed. The purpose of this study was to investigate persuasive effects of metaphorical concepts regarding gene-editing in agriculture. The Elaboration Likelihood Model was used as the conceptual framework. Metaphors stand to influence public acceptance because metaphors encourage issue-relevant thinking and enhance persuasion. A quantitative, randomized, between-subjects, experimental research design was delivered via an online survey to a nationally representative sample of U.S. residents. The manipulation was four mock news articles differentiated by metaphorical concept for gene-editing in agriculture (creation versus text editor versus tool versus control). Even when controlling for confounding variables, the results indicated no significant differences between the treatments on issue-relevant thinking or willingness to share the article on social media. Future research should explore the impact of metaphorical concepts on attitude and other behavioral outcomes associated with elaboration.
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.
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
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.
