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.
10 pages., Via online journal., Development of natural resource user typologies has been viewed as a potentially
effective means of improving the effectiveness of natural resource management engagement
strategies. Prior research on Corn Belt farmers’ perspectives on climate change employed
a latent class analysis (LCA) that created a six-class typology—the Concerned, Uneasy,
Uncertain, Unconcerned, Confident, and Detached—to develop a better understanding of
farmer perspectives on climate change and inform more effective climate adaptation and
mitigation outreach strategies. The LCA employed 34 variables that are generally unobservable—beliefs about climate change, experience with extreme weather, perceived risks of
climate change, and attitudes toward climate action—to identify types. The research reported
in this paper builds on this typology of Corn Belt farmers by exploring 33 measures of observable farm enterprise characteristics, land management practices, and farmer demographics to
assess whether variations in these observable characteristics between the six farmer classes
display systematic patterns that might be sufficiently distinctive to guide audience segmentation strategies. While analyses detected some statistically significant differences, there were
few systematic, meaningful observable patterns of difference between groups of farmers with
differing perspectives on climate change. In other words, farmers who believe that anthropogenic climate change is occurring, that it poses risks to agriculture, and that adaptive action
should be taken, may look very much like farmers who deny the existence of climate change
and do not support action. The overall implication of this finding is that climate change
engagement efforts by Extension and other agricultural advisors should use caution when
looking to observable characteristics to facilitate audience segmentation. Additional analyses
indicated that the farmer types that tended to be more concerned about climate change and
supportive of adaptive action (e.g., Concerned and Uneasy) reported that they were more
influenced by key private and public sector actors in agricultural social networks. On the
other hand, farmers who were not concerned about climate change or supportive of adaptation (e.g., the Unconcerned, Confident, and Detached groups, comprising between one-third
and one-half of respondents) were less integrated into agricultural networks. This suggests that
Extension and other agricultural advisors should expand outreach efforts to farmers who are
not already within their spheres of influence.
Landini, Fernando (author), Beramendi, Maite (author), and University of La Cuenca del Plata
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET)
School of Psychology, University of Buenos Aires
Format:
Online journal article
Publication Date:
2019-07-24
Published:
Argentina: Taylor and Francis
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 101 Document Number: D10880
18 pages, online journal article, Purpose
This article aims at designing and validating a psychometric scale to assess extensionists’ and advisors’ beliefs about extension and innovation.
Design/Methodology/approach
The scale was developed by drawing upon results from a previous empirical research as well as insights from a literature review on extension and innovation approaches. The theoretical framework used to write the items was validated by 12 international experts from 11 countries. 608 Argentine extension workers completed the questionnaire. Replies were analysed using Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
Findings
The scale has a good fit and satisfactory level of internal consistency. Five factors were identified: Dialogue and horizontal coordination; Transfer of technology; Blame on farmers; Participatory, farmer-led extension; and Self-critical attitude.
Practical implications
The scale has multiple and different uses, including research, theory development, institutional practice, diagnosis, and teaching.
Theoretical implications
Results show that a horizontal, facilitative extension approach shares a common epistemology, as well as underlying values and assumptions, with territorial development and with an innovation systems perspective, and that both contrast with a traditional transfer of technology approach. Nonetheless, practitioners would not tend to see these two contrasting perspectives as contradictory but as complementary.
Originality/Value
The scale is the first validated psychometric instrument, based on an ample theoretical framework, that allows for a quantitative assessment of beliefs about extension and innovation.
8 pages., via online journal., The paper introduces the pest belief model and Fishbein and Ajzen's theory of reasoned action to analyze farmers’ decisions in stem borer management. Farmers spent an average of $39/ha (median $18) on insecticides believing that if they had not controlled an average loss of 1004 kg/ha or $402 (median 592, $237) would occur. Farmers’ estimates of the worst attack averaged 19 white heads/m2 (median10) with the associated average loss of 1038 kg/ha or $415 (median 592, $270), implying that farmers’ decisions were guided by the worst attacks. Perceived benefits from insecticides were directly related with farmers’ insecticide use and perceived severity. Perceived susceptibility was also high, with 59% of farmers believing that a loss of 450 kg/ha would be “extremely or very likely”. Farmers believed insecticides could destroy natural enemies but placed only moderate importance to conserving them. Health was believed to be very important but farmers had mixed beliefs that spraying could bring about poor health. This study also provides evidence suggesting high peer pressure on farmers’ spray decisions directly influencing perceived benefits from sprays, insecticide spending and spray frequency.
