Interviewed scientists express tolerance of lay views and reference their own lay experience while minimizing the scientific value of lay views as scientists. Authors identify a "superior capacity" model that "seems to serve interviewed scientists rather well; they retain their scientific autonomy without contradicting the assumption of funding agencies and others that laypeople have salient knowledge."
22 pages., via online journal., Scientists are frequently asked to broadly share their expertise and research with a variety of audiences, beyond typical academic circles in their home disciplines. That could include developing community engagement programs, school outreach, leveraging online social networks, and other activities. The purpose of this study was to examine U.S. agricultural and natural resources (ANR) scientists’ typical science communication channels, their experiences utilizing Twitter for sharing their knowledge, research, and engaging in online public science discussion. Diffusion of Innovations theory and the model of science in-reach versus outreach guided this study. Researchers used a qualitative case study design. Data collection included ANR scientist interviews (n = 8) and application of Internet-based research methods for observing scientists’ Twitter activities. Four themes emerged from the data: 1) academic journals and conferences as scientists’ typical communication channels, yet Extension efforts help to broaden audiences, 2) scientists expected research to be peer-reviewed before public dissemination to combat misinformation and spreading of ‘junk science’, 3) scientists balanced professionalism, personalization, promotion, and Twitter hashtags for engagement, and 4) scientist-identified barriers to using Twitter included lack of time and avoiding heated discussions. Recommendations include revisiting scientists’ job descriptions and expectations for online science engagement. Also, there should be continual development and implementation of science communication training for scientists targeting best Twitter practices, growing followers for outreach beyond academic colleagues and groups, using visuals for online engagement, intentional scheduling for social media, and how to effectively navigate heated online discussions.
17 pages, via online journal, The greatest challenge now facing agricultural science is not how to increase production overall but how to enable resource-poor farmers to produce more.
The transfer-of-technology (TOT) model of agricultural research is part of the normal professionalism of agricultural scientists. In this model, scientists largely determine research priorities, develop technologies in controlled conditions, and then hand them over to agricultural extension to transfer to farmers. Although strong structures and incentives sustain this normal professionalism, many now recognise the challenge of its bad fit with the needs and conditions of hundreds of millions of resource-poor farm (RPF) families. In response to this problem, the TOT model has been adapted and extended through multi-disciplinary farming systems research (FSR) and on-farm trials. These responses retain power in the hands of scientists. Information is obtained from farmers and processed and analysed in order to identify what might be good for them. A missing element is methods to encourage and enable resource-poor farmers themselves to meet and work out what they need and want.
13 pages., Via online journal., Agricultural research in developing countries often involves collaboration between dispersed multicultural teams of scientists from developed and developing countries. The teams use information and computing technologies (ICTs) to communicate between team members, who originate from different cultures using different languages. This paper investigates the usability and utility of a range of ICTs used for communication between team members from different cultures. The research used an intercultural heuristic evaluation tool, or I‐CHET, to evaluate nine ICTs used by Australian and Lao scientists for team communication. The evaluation showed that asynchronous ICTs (e.g., e‐mail) were preferred by non‐native English speakers, while synchronous media (e.g., audio conferencing, instant messaging, Skype) presented considerable problems between team members from different cultures. Most ICTs evaluated in the study demonstrated little consideration for non‐native English speakers and for inexperienced ICTs users. However, all evaluated ICTs demonstrated the ability to transmit information and encourage communication between information users in scientific collaborations. The I‐CHET assessment tool highlights the ongoing need for a “toolbox” of communication ICTs for research collaborations that can be adapted to suit the cultural and professional needs of multinational teams, worldwide.
