Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 180 Document Number: C36206
Notes:
Section 1 in Don Richardson and Lynnita Paisley (eds.), The first mile of connectivity, Communication for Development, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Via online. 12 pages.
Rodas, Elizabeth (author), Lopez, Martin (author), Chowdhury, Mridul (author), Ofwono, Nelson (author), James, Tina (author), Bagiire, Vincent Waiswa (author), and International Institute for Communication and Development (IICD), The Hague, Netherlands.
Format:
Report
Publication Date:
2007-11
Published:
International
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Document Number: D00748
Notes:
Via website. 7 pages., Report of collaborative work involving the association for Progressive Communications (APC) and IICD.
Rossing, Walter A. H. (author), Sabatier, Rodolphe (author), Teillard, Félix (author), Groot, Jeroen C. J. (author), and Tittonell, Pablo (author)
Format:
Book chapter
Publication Date:
2017
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Document Number: D08790
Notes:
Pages 261-280 in Gordon, Iain J. Prins, Herbert H.T. Squire, Geoff R. (eds.), Food production and nature conservation: conflicts and solutions. United Kingdom: Routledge, London. 348 pages.
Roth, Michael (author), Frixen, Miryam (author), Tobisch, Carlos (author), and Scholle, Thomas (author)
Format:
Proceedings
Publication Date:
2016
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Document Number: D08818
Notes:
Pages 283-298 in Rob Roggema (ed.), Agriculture in an urbanizing society volume one: proceedings of the sixth AESOP conference on sustainable food planning. United Kingdom: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 549 pages.
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.
9 pages., via online journal., Natural Resource Management (NRM) can be looked upon from different perspectives: (1) the bio‐physical science perspective, (2) the economic perspective and (3) the social actor perspective. After briefly contrasting the three complementary perspectives, the article focuses on the third, which is the least developed. The social actor perspective requires that one distinguish between (1) the natural resource (be it a farm, a water catchment, underground water resources, etc.) and (2) the social actors who hold a stake in, and/or affect it. These stakeholders ideally form a platform for integral decision making about the natural resource. The platform/resource combination highlights communication processes of interest in sustainable NRM: creating a rich picture of intentions and realities; (land use) negotiation and accommodation; making things visible; raising the level of social aggregation at which platforms operate; and information systems for platform decision support. Such and other platform processes need active facilitation. The article outlines the implications for communication support, and explores professional contributions.
2 pages., In a preview of this issue about "messy data in conservation," the author links messy data to related topics in conservation and urges a trans-disciplinary embrace of messiness to accelerate conservation progress.
20 pages., Via open source journal., Adoption of soil conservation practices is promoted by increased engagement between researchers and stakeholders. By reporting a case study from southern Italy where farmers have been involved in research projects dealing with soil conservation over several years, we demonstrated that the rate of adoption of conservative technologies is positively linked to the degree of stakeholder participation in the project and that farmers (and other stakeholders) have been driven toward more conscious perception of the complex link between agricultural practices, environmental impacts and socioeconomic effects. The results of this study reinforce the pivotal role of effective participatory processes in soil conservation—evidencing the importance of (i) time required to build relationships and (ii) intensity (and persistence) of collaboration among similar initiatives. Empirical evidence highlights the need to combine different approaches to deal with soil degradation. As well as the participatory time length, the synergies between the methods utilized, and the range of interacting mind sets are also very important.
