12 pages, Knowledge brokers are often portrayed as neutral intermediaries that act as a necessary conduit between the spheres of science and policy. Conceived largely as a task in packaging, brokers are expected to link knowledge producers and users and objectively translate science into policy-useable knowledge. The research presented in this paper shows how brokering can be far more active and precarious. We present findings from semi-structured interviews with practitioners working with community-based groups involved in collaborative water planning in New Zealand’s South Island region of Canterbury. Working in a highly conflicted situation, our brokers had to navigate different knowledges and epistemic practices, highly divergent values and grapple with uncertainties to deliver recommendations for regional authorities to set water quality and quantity limits. Conceiving science and policy as interlinked, mutually constitutive and co-produced at multiple levels, rather than as separate domains, shows how the brokers of this study were not only bridging or blurring science policy boundaries to integrate and translate knowledges. They were also building boundaries between science and policy to foster credibility and legitimacy for themselves as scientists and the knowledge they were brokering. This research identifies further under-explored aspects of brokering expertise, namely, the multiple dimensions of brokering, transdisciplinary skills and expertise, ‘absorptive’ uncertainty management and knowledge translation practices.
Rhoades, Robert E. (author) and International Potato Center, Lima, Peru
Format:
unknown
Publication Date:
1984-12
Published:
International
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 74 Document Number: C03693
Notes:
Mason E. Miller Collection, Lima, Peru : International Potato Center, 1984. 84 p., Discusses the value of and need for agricultural anthropologists in development projects.
16 pages., Via online journal., Expertise is dynamic, domain specific, and characterized according to an individual’s level of knowledge, experience, and problem-solving ability. Having expertise in the phenomenon under investigation can be used as an indicator of an individual’s aptitude to effectively serve as a coder in a content analysis or as panelist in a Delphi study. The purpose of this study was to assess 10 years of scholarship published in the premier journals of agricultural education and describe the ways researchers in agricultural communications, education, extension, and leadership disciplines who use content analysis and Delphi study methods are describing the qualifications of the people serving as expert coders and panelists. The study findings revealed the majority of researchers publishing in the premier agricultural education journals are not describing the qualifications used in selecting coders or the credentials the coders possess that would make them qualified to code the data in a content analysis. Furthermore, researchers were inconsistent citing literature that supported their selection of content analysis coders and citing literature to support a decision to describe or not to describe coders’ qualifications. However, a description of Delphi study panelists’ qualifications and citations to support why panelists were selected in a Delphi study were present in all of the Delphi studies analyzed over the 10-year period. Based on these findings, it was concluded that ACEEL researchers should include a description of coder credentials to enhance the consistency, transparency, replicability, rigor, and integrity of ACEEL research. Editors and research professionals who perform journal article reviews for the premier agricultural education journals are encouraged to note the exclusion of a description of content analysis coders’ credentials as part of the peer review process.
24 pages., via online journal., The present study investigated the effects of communication styles, source expertise, and audiences’ preexisting attitudes in the contexts of the debate regarding genetically modified organisms. A between-subject experiment (N = 416) was conducted manipulating communication styles (aggressive vs. polite) and the expertise of the communicator (scientist vs. nonscientist) in blog articles. The results showed significant effects of communicator expertise and individuals’ preexisting attitudes on writer likability and message quality, depending on the communication style used. Expectancy violation was found as a significant mediator that explains the differences. These findings provided a plausible explanation for the way in which communication styles work in science communication contexts and offered practical implications for science communicators to communicate more strategically.
Myers, Fred (author / Agricultural editor, Tennessee Valley Authority)
Format:
Speech
Publication Date:
1967-11-29
Published:
USA: American Agricultural Editors' Association (AAEA).
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 70 Document Number: D10755
Notes:
3 pages., Claude W. Gifford Collection. Beyond his materials in the ACDC collection, the Claude W. Gifford Papers, 1919-2004, are deposited in the University of Illinois Archives. Serial Number 8/3/81. Locate finding aid at https://archives.library.illinois.edu/archon/, Five-minute speech at the annual meeting of the American Agricultural Editors' Association, Chicago, Illinois, November 29, 1967., Author suggests drawing upon the expertise, experiences, and perspectives of communicators beyond the AAEA membership and agricultural journalism field.
