Category

Ag. Communications

Jacob Englin
In Ag. Communications, Philosophical, Vol. 75

Challenging the Linear Approach: Effective and Efficient Communication of Agricultural Innovations

Authors

Barbara Worley, North Carolina State University, barbara_worley@ncsu.edu

Jason Peake, University of Georgia, jpeake@uga.edu

Nick Fuhrman, University of Georgia, fuhrman@uga.edu

PDF Available

Abstract

Agricultural innovation information has been traditionally communicated by Extension professionals, with dissemination practices informed by linear theories and models. However, effectively and efficiently communicating agriculture and natural resource (ANR) innovations, as well as those specific to the turfgrass industry, has not been approached in a non-linear fashion. Understanding the role of county-based and university-level Extension professionals is necessary to achieve clarity in communication efforts due to an often-seen overlap in the creation and dissemination of ANR and turfgrass information. Factors associated with the role of communicating agricultural and turfgrass innovations were analyzed using secondary data. Through the integration of multi- and interdisciplinary theories, the creation of a new communications framework – one specific for effectively and efficiently disseminating and communicating turfgrass information – allows for a non-linear, holistic demarcation in, and understanding of, university-level and county-based Extension roles. Findings revealed that the role of the Ag Communicator must be considered for crafting communications to promote clarity and concise information transfer. However, additional research is needed to better understand how the Ag Communicator serves as a bridge between the information disseminator and the information creator. 

Introduction

Anyone has the ability to create change (Eversole, 2012). Yet the humanistic desire for change that is embedded in Western culture has resulted in our world reaching the moment where climate crisis is upon us, affecting our access to natural resources (Fuchs, 2016; National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA], 2022). In just the last decade, our world has experienced the two warmest years since modern recordkeeping began in 1880, and the irreversible effects of human-caused climate change are forecasted to continually worsen (NASA, 2017; NASA, 2022). Now, civilization has a crisis; our planet is a proverbial greenhouse, and not the type where new, innovative turfgrass cultivars are developed through research initiatives of land-grant universities.

Civilization is also facing another crisis – one where the creation and dissemination of information through ever-advancing communication channels has become limited in peer-review. Ferguson (2004) stated that knowledge produced by scientists, and additionally scientific knowledge, cannot be removed, separated, or disengaged from associated and situated social, political, cultural, and economic contexts. Moreover, the ways in which humans interact with scientific information have been impacted by the advent of social media (Dobbins et al., 2021).

We live in a world with readily available access to information. However, with this increase in information, communication challenges intensify with issues surrounding source credibility (Lazer et al., 2018; Ruth et al., 2018). Messages of misinformation and skewed data can be propagated since “anyone can be a communicator if they have a social media account and smart phone” (Kurtzo, 2016, p. 24). In addition to being open sources of misinformation, Fuchs (2016) argued that it is a guise that social media is a collaborative means by which to share information, detached from hierarchical communication structures wielding centralized power. 

The difference between broadcasting and social media is that in the first kind of medium there are centers that control the dissemination of information. In social media, every consumer of information can be a producer who creates and disseminates information. It is, however, mere semblance and ideological appearance that the emergence of presumption democratizes the media because the ownership of Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube is not collective and there are hierarchies of reputation, visibility and voice on these media. (Fuchs, 2016, p. 136)

Rethinking Change: A Turfgrass Industry Example

Agricultural innovations are at the forefront of land-grant university research development (Wright, 2012). New turfgrass cultivars to mitigate environmental issues such as water scarcity are being developed in the form of drought tolerant and salinity resistant varieties. Additionally, these new cultivars are being developed globally by university researchers to withstand varying recreational and professional uses (Chawla et al., 2018; Santos & Castilho, 2018). Communicating the benefits effectively and efficiently is therefore necessary to highlight the attributes of the innovative developments coming from university research as well as serving to avert any further detriment to our world.

Second-order change can be described as disruptive or dramatic shifts in thinking or behavior; it is predicated on the need for transformation due to a “crisis” that has unraveled (Bartunek & Moch, 1987, p. 495). This has a direct link with innovations in the turfgrass industry. From the basis of disseminating information related to innovative drought tolerant and salinity resistant turfgrass cultivars, second-order change is needed to challenge the organizational structures in place that dictate the traditional communications processes used for disseminating research-based agriculture and natural resources (ANR) and turfgrass information (Knickel et al., 2009). In doing so, the authors present a case for understanding the pretext for efficient and effective communications in introducing a framework to disrupt the processes rooted in traditional linear models for disseminating information by university-level and county-based Extension professionals.

Theoretical perspectives including the diffusion of innovations (Rogers, 2003), the decision-making model for agriculture and natural resources (Ruth et al., 2018), the Forrester’s social technographics ladder (Li & Bernoff, 2007), Mintzberg’s (1990) management model, and knowledge management and agricultural knowledge management systems (Rivera et al., 2005), are congruently and critically examined in this paper. We must understand the overlap in these five theories that offer promise in being effective and efficient in communicating turfgrass innovations. The authors also made recommendations to become more effective and efficient communicators of turfgrass and broader agricultural innovations moving forward.

Theoretical Foundations

Evans (2006) stated a need existed to draw on various theories not typically utilized in agricultural communications to enhance scholarship. Additionally, Rhoades and Booth (1982) contest that interdisciplinary approaches are necessary for advancing agricultural technologies and solving complex research problems. For the purposes of this study, an integration of interdisciplinary theories, from marketing, management, science communications, and rural sociology, serve as the foundation for the creation of a new communications framework; one specific for effectively and efficiently disseminating and communicating turfgrass information, allowing for a non-linear, holistic demarcation in, and understanding of, university-level and county-based Extension roles.

Diffusion of Innovations

Rogers’ (2003) theory of diffusion of innovations is one of the most utilized yet contested frameworks in understanding and analyzing the dissemination of information and adoption process of new innovations in agricultural communications (Lamm et al., 2019). However, despite the contestation, the multifaceted and complex nature of the framework provides elements that support understanding factors affecting innovativeness, down to an individual’s sense of autonomy within an organization. Therefore, internal characteristics of organizational structures must be considered as they can have a myriad of effects on the “innovativeness of organizations” in relation to communications (Rogers, 2003, p. 411).

In examining organizational factors contributing to the creation and dissemination of turfgrass communications, formalization and interconnectedness are considered. Rogers (2003) defined formalization as “the degree to which an organization emphasizes its members’ following rules and procedures” (p. 412). Million et al. (2018) interpreted formalization in organizational structure as having uniformity in practices to include job position responsibilities. Interconnectedness is described as the exchange and flow of ideas within interpersonal networks (Rogers, 2003). Interconnectedness allows for increased visibility of an innovation through collaborative and coordinated communication efforts. Later detailed as a key component of knowledge management, this flow of information through collaborative non-linear processes results in innovation (Knickel et al., 2009). In the context of the turfgrass industry, this is important because as new innovations are developed at land-grant universities through the efforts of turfgrass Specialists, the effective sharing of information through collaborative, consistent means leads to more efficient and clear messages to be disseminated to end-users. In the broader arena of agricultural innovations such as artificial intelligence, an understanding would allow for the bridging of knowledge for creating enhanced systems. Those systems include those used for measuring water absorption, allowing for efficiency rather than duplication and replication (and potentially competing technologies).

Decision-Making Model for Agriculture and Natural Resources (DMM for ANR)

The decision-making model for ANR (Ruth et al., 2018) was developed to “break the cycle of decisions made with incomplete information and equip practitioners with the foundation needed to efficiently and effectively disseminate information through educational practice and informed communication efforts” (p. 224). The DMM for ANR models how formative theories of communication combined, including Rogers’ (2003) theory of diffusion of innovations, “guide the dissemination of information about complex ANR issues” (Ruth et al., 2018, p. 225). The DMM for ANR has helped researchers to better understand efficient and effective ways for disseminating information about ANR issues. Additionally, the model has been used as the theoretical framework for studying communications applicable to the turfgrass industry by Worley et al. (2022, 2023). Data from these previous studies reveal the role of those creating knowledge, and subsequently crafting and disseminating communications, is often not clear to anyone engaged in the diffusion process due to organizational formality characteristics including administrative expectations. In essence, knowledge creators and disseminators (the communications professionals) are often misaligned in their roles.

Creator or Disseminator: Forrester’s Social Technographics Ladder and the Mintzberg Management Model

The turfgrass industry is a $40 billion industry across the United States (National Turfgrass Federation, 2017). Moreover, as a global ANR commodity, turfgrass industry professionals including Extension, golf course superintendents, landscapers, turfgrass producers, and landscapers have been studied in relation to their use of communications channels. Due to the dual nature and positionality that the turfgrass industry holds in educational research and business contexts, this research is focused on understanding communications related to ANR and turfgrass innovations, and as such, these innovations are developed, and subsequently marketed, for commercial use.

The use of technology in ANR and the turfgrass industry is changing the way engagement occurs with consumers (Li et al., 2007). Forrester, a company devoted to technology and market research, refers to this technological change as social computing, “a social structure in which technology puts power in communities, not institutions” (Charron et al., 2006, p. 6). Li et al. (2007) further examined social computing engagement behavior, outlining how consumers approach technology. Consumers were grouped according to participation behaviors to develop the social technographics ladder.

Each of the six rungs of Forrester’s social technographics ladder is a representation of the level in which someone is invested in their personal online presence. The top rung of the ladder is occupied by the creator, defined by Li et al. (2007) as “online consumers who publish blogs, maintain Web pages, or upload videos to sites like YouTube at least once per month” (p. 3). While these online consumers or participants are described as young and evenly split among males and females, engagement in activity varies, and few are engaged in the three categories outlined. Thus, Li et al. (2007) did not explicitly operationalize the manner in which information is created and communications are developed by this group. Although the ladder figuratively shows an increase in the level of one’s participation in the online ecosystem, participation at one level does not prevent participation anywhere else on the ladder.

The Mintzberg management model (1973) was developed to convey the theory that managerial roles within organizations can be contextualized as 10 roles within three domains: interpersonal, informational, and decisional (Chareanpunsirikula & Wood, 2002). The role of disseminator is defined as an informational role for transferring information to other individuals. While another informational role of spokesperson exists in this model, the disseminator is different due to the context of the information and the relationship with those to whom the information is being passed. Due to it being a managerial framework, the disseminator shares vital information from within and outside the organization, thus implying a true messenger relationship associated with the transfer of information rather than the hierarchical and linear role of the spokesperson (Altamony et al., 2007).

Congruent to these models, previous work by Worley et al. (2023) examined how county-based Extension professionals identified their role as a creator or disseminator, in relation to the behavioral intent to use social media communication channels for disseminating turfgrass innovation information. Thus, within the turfgrass industry and broader agricultural innovations arena, the Forrester and Mintzberg models offer promise due to their explicit framing and operationalization of organizational roles that can be applied to agriculture and Extension communications.

Knowledge Management and Agricultural Knowledge Systems

Agricultural knowledge systems, first constructed in the 1990s, and presented in agricultural knowledge information systems (AKIS) models such as that presented by Rivera et al. (2005), illustrate the bidirectional relationship between research, extension, support, and education. Despite these modeled systems, the construction of agricultural knowledge by universities and research institutions through top-down, linear-based approaches can lead to a disconnect in communication; the dissemination of information, adoption of innovations, and, moreover, the development of knowledge are challenged when multiple perspectives are not considered (Eversole, 2012; Knickel et al., 2009; Masambuka-Kanchewa et al., 2020).

Knowledge management refers to “identifying and leveraging the collective knowledge in an organization,” while knowledge management systems (KMS) provide organizations with the ability to store, access, and transfer knowledge (Alavi & Leidner, 2001, p. 113). Doerfert et al. (2007) noted that the sharing of knowledge is vital to sustainable development and thus proposed a framework using knowledge management as a basis for outlining a strategy that could be applied in agricultural communication contexts. Four priority areas and 18 research questions addressing information dissemination (and exchange) of knowledge were presented. The framework proposed by Doerfert et al. (2007) offered a logical approach through the prioritized areas and corresponding questions for understanding that the sharing of agricultural information should be approached holistically. However, gaps still exist in implementing a collaborative agricultural communications approach to understanding the basis of creating (and subsequently crafting) information, knowledge, and communications, as well as the formative paths for dissemination.

While such agricultural knowledge systems aim for collaborative communication thereby mitigating the dissemination of misinformation, an inherent hegemonic structure exists in application. This top-down approach is nonexistent in the traditional knowledge management paradigm offered by Nonaka et al. (1994). Nonaka et al. (1994) noted that hierarchical sequences for providing solutions and creating change must be altered to dynamic processes through a “shift in our thinking about the nature and functioning of organizations as knowledge-creating systems” (p. 337). In describing how knowledge must be managed, Doerfert et al. (2007) conveyed a dialectical tone that opposes the foundations of knowledge management (Nonaka et al., 1994; Tietze & Dick, 2013).

We do not know what the final picture of our future will look like. However, we must move into this new information era and begin to manage knowledge like never before. This can become a golden age in our shared field of interest if we both embrace and lead this change. The agricultural well-being of society may depend on our ability to communicate effectively in a dynamic knowledge era. (Doerfert et al., 2007, p. 19)

From both object and access to information perspectives as outlined by Alavi and Leidner (2001), for knowledge to be managed it must be objectified – it must be tangible (p. 112). Therefore, empirical analysis of the four key elements that Evans (2006) and Doerfert et al. (2007) acknowledge as central to knowledge management systems – information, knowledge, agents, and tools – is needed. Within the turfgrass and broader agricultural innovations arena, such a pursuit will provide an understanding of how knowledge is created and information is subsequently disseminated, by whom, and through what messages and channels for effective and efficient communications.

Purpose and Objectives

In previous work by Worley et al. (2021, 2022, 2023), the authors identified key individuals and specified media channels for the diffusion of emerging turfgrass innovations, factors influencing communications for sharing information about turfgrass innovations, and the behavioral intent to use social media communication channels for disseminating turfgrass innovations in relation to one’s identified role as a creator or disseminator. Results of these studies revealed that the communication roles of ANR and turfgrass university-level and county-based Extension professionals are not clearly defined, and therefore, a duplication in communications and job duties often occurs. Moreover, organizational structure indicators of formalization and interconnectedness were determined to affect the dissemination of turfgrass information due to administrative expectations (Rogers, 2003). For example, specific communication channels were used over others because of annual evaluation incentives for sharing information through one channel over another (Worley et al., 2021).

A need existed for a more succinct model of communicating ANR and turfgrass information that considers an interconnectedness of ideas and synthesis of knowledge while simultaneously establishing a framework for understanding how the creation, crafting, and dissemination of communications is operationalized. The objectives for a establishing such a communications framework are as follows:

  1. Perform an analysis of secondary data of turfgrass research revealing internal and external variables contributing to an overlap in the creation of communications materials, and the felt or perceived need to subsequently communicate that information.
  2. Perform an analysis of secondary data of turfgrass research revealing the expectations placed by administrators on both university-level and county-based Extension professionals to create communications.

Additionally, the following research questions were developed to guide the formation and application of the framework:

  1. Who is responsible for the creation of information? (i.e., Who are the knowledge producers?)
  2. Who is responsible for crafting the communications?
  3. Who is responsible for disseminating communications?

Conceptual Framework

Results of previous research and future recommendations by Worley et al. (2022, 2023) pointed to the development of a conceptual framework for information to efficiently and effectively be communicated, with university-level and county-based Extension professionals having a clear understanding of their role in the development and dissemination of communications. Defining communication roles as it relates to the creation, crafting, and dissemination of turfgrass innovation information also mitigates the diffusion of misinformation (Ruth et al., 2018). Additionally, expectations of the responsibility for the creation and dissemination of communications placed on university-level and county-based Extension professionals by university administrators must be revealed to outline why dualisms (leading to inefficient and ineffective communication of turfgrass information) occur in roles.

While the authors present a conceptual framework to present the importance of effective and efficient communication of turfgrass innovations through an understanding of Extension roles supported by theoretical frameworks, Ravitch and Riggan (2017) noted that the visual representation of a framework is not necessary when narrative, text-based presentations can suffice. Visual depictions can lead researchers to become more focused on a modeled product rather than the inquiry process. Frameworks in narrative form can be offered in the absence of concept maps (Ravitch & Riggan, 2017). Therefore, a visual model of the framework is not offered as such; instead, the framework is outlined narratively and figuratively through the operationalization of terms, accompanied by a figure and table as they relate to theoretical bases and findings from analyses of secondary data.

Application of the Framework

The authors performed an analysis of secondary data from previous studies by Worley et al. (2022, 2023) to determine internal and external variables contributing to an overlap in the crafting of turfgrass communications materials, and the felt or perceived need of university-level and county-based Extension professionals to communicate the related information.  These internal and external variables included how information is communicated (the message and channel), knowledge (including content or explicit), who is communicating (university-level or county-based Extension professionals), resources (time, money, media access and prowess), and organizational culture (expectations).

Factors contributing to the need expressed by university-level Specialists working with the turfgrass industry to maintain a presence across roles defined as creator or disseminator in the creation of information (and the development of communications materials) and the dissemination of the information were analyzed. In an analysis of responses from county-based Extension professionals, the authors examined factors contributing to a similar need to act in the role of both creator and disseminator, particularly in which the creator included crafting communications materials rather than solely disseminating information based on materials already developed by university-level Specialists. Expectations of university-level and county-based Extension professionals to create, craft, and disseminate turfgrass communications were also analyzed.

Central to agricultural communications were four key concepts of knowledge management: information flow and function (e.g., creation, retention, transfer, and use); types of knowledge (explicit, implicit, tacit); agents (e.g., whose role is it? – individuals, organizations); and tools (knowledge/content repositories, communications) (Evans, 2006; Doerfert, 2007). Considering these four knowledge management concepts coupled with terms defined by Li et al. (2007), Rogers (2003), Mintzberg (1990), and Eversole (2012), the authors operationalize the role of Ag Communicator as being one who drafts and/or crafts communications from information that is provided by the creator (see Table 1).

Table 1

Operationalization of the Role of Ag Communicator in relation to other Communications Roles

CreatorAg CommunicatorDisseminator
Opinion Leader       (Rogers, 2003)One who is charged with drafting/crafting communicationsChange Agent (Rogers, 2003) Translation Agent (Eversole, 2012)

Note. Li et al. (2007) introduced the term creator in the socialtechnographics ladder. The authors operationalize Ag Communicator in this manuscript. The use of the term disseminator is in accordance with the Mintzberg management model.

In a traditional linear-approach, the one constructing, drafting, and/or crafting communications is often undefined and unclear. The “waters become muddied” when roles of creating and disseminating information overlap, including the crafting of communications materials such as social media posts and factsheets. In a holistic approach to turfgrass communication, the role of the Ag Communicator can be defined and designated through the understanding of structural factors and expectations. This is not to say that one individual cannot occupy all three roles, as shown in the social technographic ladder. Instead, the designation of roles is presented to provide for effective and efficient communication of turfgrass information.

Is this the Role or are these (Un)Realistic Expectations?

In the analysis of the secondary turfgrass data, the authors determined several factors as important to communicating agricultural information. As shown in Figure 1, factors revealed from the data are illustrated as related to knowledge management concepts (and knowledge taxonomies), internal characteristics of organizational structures, and the roles of creator and disseminator as outlined by Worley et al. (2023). These factors, internal characteristics, and designated roles of creator and disseminator are presented relative to the diffusion of innovations (Rogers, 2003), the decision-making model for agriculture and natural resources (Ruth et al., 2018), the Forrester’s social technographics ladder (Li & Bernoff, 2007), Mintzberg’s (1990) management model, and knowledge management and agricultural knowledge management systems (Rivera et al., 2005).

The appropriate message and subsequent channel for communicating that information was noted to be vitally important to both university-level and county-based Extension professionals. Content knowledge as it relates to the individual, whether the university-level Specialist or county-based Extension professional, was also regarded as being relevant to an Extension professional’s perceived need to act in the role as a creator and/or disseminator. Expressed barriers to creating and disseminating information included access to fiscal, schedule, and multimedia resources. Further, the culture of Extension and its organizational expectations was influential to both university-level and county-based Extension professionals for creating and disseminating information. In the analysis of the secondary data, several of the factors revealed overlaps, showing an interconnectivity in the aspects presented in the framework.

Figure 1

Factors relevant to Communicating Turfgrass Innovations, as related to Theoretical Bases

Note. Each of the theoretical models and/or theories depicted inform the conceptual framework of introducing and operationalizing the role of Ag Communicator.

Knowledge

Whereas some university-level Specialists felt they possessed explicit knowledge to an extent beyond county-based Extension professionals due to academic specialization or advancement in degree field, Extension professionals directly engaged with the community possess inherent and experienced tacit and implicit knowledge due to relationships built with community members, as well as access to explicit university-level knowledge (Knickel et al., 2009). County-based Extension professionals often participate in a “paradox of dual embeddedness” that includes one’s formal work organization coupled with the community within which they live and work (Eversole, 2012, p. 38). This combination of professional and local or indigenous knowledge allows for agricultural communicators to “connect such knowledge with knowledge generated through scientific agricultural research (Evans, 2006, pp. 22–23). This implies two things: (1) university-level and county-based Extension professionals must be trained to better understand each other’s role, and (2) community level knowledge must be considered, acknowledged, and applied in the communications processes regarding ANR and turfgrass innovations.

How Information is Communicated

The participatory relationship that a county-based Extension professional has with their community members provides them with access to not only local knowledge but also the advantage of using those relationships to garner a better understanding of the types of communications needed and desired by their clientele (Evans, 2006; Eversole, 2012). County-based Extension professionals noted the importance of effective and efficient information transfer to clientele and how diverse forms of communication must be utilized to increase impact. However, this flow of information is only effective and efficient if clientele value their own local knowledge, have an ability to express their local knowledge, and feel that the information that is being communicated is accurate and meets their needs (Masambuka-Kanchewa et al., 2020). This also implies that university-level Specialists must provide county-based Extension professionals with information in a way that is transferable to local clientele. It is imperative that agricultural knowledge and innovations become more effective in the convergence of public and private interests (Knickel et al., 2009).

By Whom?

The perception that one’s role within Extension is to both create and disseminate information was prevalent among university-level and county-based Extension professionals. Data show that university-level Specialists felt it necessary to create and disseminate information, even when culture and resource barriers were expressed, due to perceptions of their personal content (explicit) knowledge being more implicit in nature. County-based Extension professionals expressed dualism in both roles due to a need for content (communications materials) not available or provided for by their respective universities; thus, these materials often were crafted from information created by county-based Extension professionals. Without university-level Specialist oversight, what does this mean about information accuracy and consistency in messaging?

Resources

Organizations use knowledge management systems to organize information in databases and other infrastructures (physically and digitally) so that communications can be readily accessed. For example, this is demonstrated by North Carolina State University which has a repository of turfgrass information available online. County-based Extension professionals expressed this need for interconnectedness in the sharing of resources to connect university and community members to enhance communication.Apart from tools for knowledge storage, access, and transfer, lack of time, money, and the knowledge of using technology related to social media and multimedia for communication were revealed as being barriers to creating and disseminating turfgrass information (Worley et al., 2022, 2023).

Cultural Expectations

Extension’s culture was influential in the messages and communication channels used by both university-level and county-based Extension professionals for creating and disseminating information. Data reveal that expectations by administration for university-level and county-based Extension professionals to craft certain types of communications over others, or use certain communication channels, limited the scope for disseminating information. Incentives for using a particular channel influenced the likelihood of using that channel if a university-level Extension Specialist was being evaluated against it. Due to these formalization and interconnectedness factors, the messages and channels used to disseminate information in the turfgrass industry differed among university-level and county-based Extension professionals.

Conclusion

Innovations are created as solutions to existing and emerging challenges to bring about impactful and lasting outcomes (Militello et al., 2016). Technological innovations in agricultural sectors, coupled with ever rapid advancements in communications, have created a global transition in the way ANR information is shared and knowledge is produced (Doerfert et al., 2007). Communicating agricultural innovations have often been done through reactionary measures due to a variety of confounding factors including funding challenges. The environmental and social crises that challenge our planet justify the need for a framework that aligns with agricultural needs and provides (as opposed to responds) research-based information at such a critical global juncture. Communication of turfgrass innovations is vital, particularly as these innovations are those that are being developed to help mitigate and resolve the very issues that contributed to the crisis that has assailed our planet. Diffusing information regarding innovations, and subsequently the adoption of those innovations, can no longer be approached through traditional linear processes for facilitating change (Knickel et al., 2009). More targeted and coordinated research and communications delivery can ensure that stakeholders receive research-based information and solutions (Doerfert et al., 2007). Therefore, the relevancy that agricultural communications as a field, and the space agricultural communication plays in culture and all things ag, must be acknowledged.

It may seem that the authors are presenting a framework based on a dialectic by stating that communications should be holistic yet targeted and coordinated, but not necessarily through all aboard the social media bandwagon just because use of such channels are innovative. The basic concept of the framework is for turfgrass professionals and the entirety of the agricultural industry to consider the importance of the role of the Ag Communicator in Extension. Thus, communicating innovations efficiently and effectively to proactively address critical and emerging issues must be done so through this considered, non-hegemonic approach; one that allows for an understanding of whose role it is to create information, craft communications, and disseminate and communicate research-based information when we live in an era where most Extension professionals seem to be inundated with multiple other duties as assigned.

Implications and Future Research

While the Smith-Lever Act of 1914 established the Cooperative Extension service, more than 100 years later, the phrase best kept secret is often associated with the organization due to a public lack of awareness. A review of data by Worley et al. (2022, 2023) showed that turfgrass information needs to be effectively and efficiently communicated, but often knowing whose role it is to do so is unclear. Therefore, implications of the framework include a need for an increase in agricultural science communications professionals to work with creators and disseminators as Ag Communicators to effectively and efficiently craft and design turfgrass innovation information.

Whereas the framework and theoretical foundations provide for (yet neither suggest nor exclude) university-level and county-based Extension professionals to create, craft, and disseminate communications, future research points to determining if the responsibility for creation, crafting, and dissemination of communications materials and information transferred solely through new technologies (i.e., social media) lie within both roles. Considerations for this research could further examine the effects of organizational formalization on communications and potentially account for variables that measure the level of engagement with social media technologies, as well as demographics (i.e., age) of university-level and county-based Extension professionals.

Recommendations for future research also include a review of annual Extension performance expectations via a meta-evaluation of university-level and county-based Extension professionals (Stufflebeam, 2001). This would determine if the current evaluation models are congruent with practices and techniques relevant to agricultural communications. Promotion and tenure criteria (and Extension performance appraisal guidelines) within different academic units across universities should be reviewed to examine explicitly outlined metrics as expectations for communications creation and dissemination. Thus, analysis of how and by what metrics are those communications performance measures (if in existence and based on an individual’s role) being evaluated and rewarded is warranted.

References

Alavi, M. & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25, 107–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3250961

Bartunek, J. M., & Moch, M. K. (1987). First-order, second-order, and third-order change and organization development interventions: A cognitive approach. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 23(4), 483–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/002188638702300404

Charron, C., Favier, J. & Li, C. (2006). Social computing: How networks erode institutional power, and what to do about it. Forrester Research.

Chawla, S., Roshni, A., Patel, M., Patil, S., & Shah, H. (2018). Turfgrass: A billion-dollar industry. Proceedings of the National Conference on Floriculture for Rural and Urban Prosperity in the Scenario of Climate Change, 30–35.

Dobbins, C. E., Masambuka-Kanchewa, F., & Lamm, A. J. (2021). A systematic literature review of the intersection between social media and cultural identity: Implications for agricultural and environmental communication. Journal of Applied Communications, 105(2). https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.2372

Doerfert, D., Evans, J., Cartmell, D., & Irani, T. (2007). Developing an international framework and agenda for agricultural communications research. Journal of Applied Communications, 91(3), 7–2. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1245

Evans, J. F. (2006). Roaming the changing theoretical landscape of agricultural communications. Journal of Applied Communications, 90(1), 15–32. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1288

Ferguson, A. E. (1994). Gendered science: A critique of agricultural development. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 540–552. https://www.jstor.org/stable/682299

Knickel, K., Brunori, G., Rand, S. & Proost, J. (2009). Towards a better conceptual framework for innovation processes in agriculture and rural development: From linear models to systemic approaches. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 15(2), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/13892240902909064

Kurtzo, F., Hansen, M. J., Rucker, K. J., & Edgar, L. D. (2016). Agricultural communications: Perspectives from the experts. Journal of Applied Communications, 100(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1019

Lamm, K. W., Borron, A., & Holt, J. (2019). Communication channel preferences: A descriptive audience segmentation evaluation. Journal of Applied Communications, 103(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.2238

Lazer, D. M. J., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky A. J., Greenhill, K. M., Menczer, F., Metzger, M. J., Nyhan, B., Pennycook, G., Rothschild, D., Schudson, M., Sloman, S. A., Sunstein, C. R., Thorson, E. A., Duncan J. Watts, D. J., & Zittrain, J. L. (2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359(6380), 1094–1096. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao2998

Li, C., & Bernoff, J. (2007). Social technographics: Mapping participation in activities forms the foundation of a social strategy. A Forrester Report.

Masambuka-Kanchewa, F., Lamm, K., Lamm, A., (2020). Beyond diffusion of improved technologies to promoting innovation creation and information sharing for increased agricultural productivity: A case study of Malawi and Kenya. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, 27(1), 79–92. https://doi.org.10.5191/jiaee.2020.27106

Militello, M., Janson, C., & Tonissen, D. (2016). InQuiry: A participatory approach for understanding stakeholder perceptions. The Foundation Review, 8(1), 88–107. https://doi.org/10.9707/1944-5660.1286

Million, A. J., Hudson‐Vitale, C., & Moulaison Sandy, H. (2018). Restructuring and formalizing: Scholarly communication as a sustainable growth opportunity in information agencies. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 55(1), 377–386. https://doi.org.10.1002/pra2.2018.14505501041

National Turfgrass Federation. (2017). The turfgrass industry – Present and future.

The National Turfgrass Research Initiative. https://www.turfresearch.org/pdf/Industry%20Turf%20Initiative.pdf

Nonaka, I., Borucki, C., Byosiere, P., & Konno, N. (1994).Organizational knowledge creation theory: A first comprehensive test. International Business Review, 3(4), 337–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/0969-5931(94)90027-2

Reuben, J. A. (1996). The making of the modern university: Intellectual transformation and the    marginalization of morality. University of Chicago Press.

Rivera, W.M., Qamar, M.K. & Mwandemere, H.K., 2005. Enhancing coordination among AKIS/RD actors: An analytical and comparative review of country studies on agricultural knowledge and information systems for rural development (AKIS/RD). FAO. http://www.fao.org/sd/dim_kn3/kn3_050901_en.htm

Santos, P. L. F. D., & Castilho, R. M. M. D. (2018). Substrates in the development of a sports turfgrass “Tifton 419.” Ornamental Horticulture, 24, 138–144.

Stufflebeam, D. L. (2001). The meta-evaluation imperative. American Journal of Evaluation, 22(2), 183–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/109821400102200204

Tietze, S. & Dick, P. (2013). The victorious English language: Hegemonic practice in the management academy. Journal of Management Inquiry, 22(1), 122–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/105649261244316

Wright, B. D. (2012). Grand missions of agricultural innovation. Research Policy, 41(10), 1716-1728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.04.021

Worley, B., Peake, J., & Fuhrman, N. (2021). A quantitative approach to identifying turfgrass key players. Advancements in Agricultural Development, 2(1), 83–95. https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.85

Worley, B., Peake, J., & Fuhrman, N. (2022). Perceptions of agricultural extension and communication professionals regarding current, preferred, and emerging communication channels: A qualitative study. Journal of Agricultural Education, 63(4), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2022.04022

Worley, B., Peake, J. & Fuhrman, N. (2023). Identifying the behavioral intent to use social media through the application of UTAUT in ANR and turfgrass Extension. Journal of Applied Communications, 107(3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.2469

Jacob Englin
In Ag. Communications, Qualitative, Uncategorized, Vol. 74

Using Body Mapping to Assess Doctoral Students’ Preparedness to Serve as Science Communicators

Fally Masambuka-Kanchewa, Iowa State University, fallymk@iastate.edu

Millicent A. Oyugi, Texas A and M University, millicent.oyugi@ag.tamu.edu

Alexa J. Lamm, University of Georgia, alamm@uga.edu

PDF Available

Abstract

Land Grant Universities (LGUs) are pivotal in equipping the future agricultural workforce with the skills to effectively communicate agricultural and environmental science. This study utilized body mapping to assess graduate students’ readiness to become science communicators following a science communication theories course. Initially, doctoral students viewed communication merely as a tool, showing a need for more awareness about its significance in science. Deliberate efforts were exerted throughout the course to foster a classroom environment that empowered students as science communicators. By the end of the course, students had not only grasped the difference between ‘communication’ and ‘communications’ but also expressed a keen interest in tackling science communication-related issues. The evolution of communication technologies significantly influences public access to scientific information and the acceptance of science and related policies. Challenges such as these, augmented by urgent concerns like climate change and the Coronavirus pandemic, underscore the need for agricultural and environmental science graduates adept at communicating science upon entering the workforce. However, achieving this level of preparedness requires not only the provision of relevant courses but also innovative assessment methods that foster metacognitive and soft skills, thereby facilitating social, academic, and political empowerment.

Introduction

Communication is a complex process that involves the exchange of meanings, information, and messages among individuals, whereas communications refer to the array of tools and technologies to facilitate this exchange (Alder et al., 2016). In most cases there is increased focus on communications as opposed to communication. Such perceptions stem from the deficit model of communication which emphasizes the need for increased dissemination about scientific issues to shift public opinion towards a scientific consensus (Hart & Nisbet, 2012, p. 701). The deficit model primarily sees science communication as a tool for educating the public about scientific topics, often overlooking the essential element of encouraging dialogue (Trench & Miller, 2012). The rapid evolution of communication technologies and the rise of social media platforms have led to a significant increase in the spread of information (Masambuka et al., 2018).

Although science communication aims to educate and inform, it should equally promote open and meaningful interactions between scientists, experts, and the public. The emergence of agricultural communication as a distinct branch of communication is evidence of the need to share practical agricultural and domestic innovations with rural communities (Tucker et al., 2003). Over time, agricultural communication has seen considerable changes (Cannon et al., 2016). The focus has shifted from traditional print and broadcast news to science journalism and now includes communications related to advocacy and public relations, moving beyond mere technology transfer (Bonnen, 1986; Irani & Doerfert, 2013). In the United States, despite these changes, programs in this field are still widely known as agricultural communications programs (Akers & Akers, 2000; Cannon et al., 2016; Doerfert & Miller, 2006; Kurtzo et al., 2016; Miller et al., 2015; Telg & Irani, 2011; Tucker et al., 2003). These programs mainly focus on equipping students with technical communication skills, such as writing and graphic design, at the undergraduate level (Cannon et al., 2016).

The emerging challenges of the 21st Century, including the Coronavirus pandemic and the expanding array of information sources, underscore the necessity for educational courses to approach communication as a scientific discipline, not merely as a tool for public education. To adapt to these swiftly changing conditions, it is imperative that postsecondary and agricultural communication programs sufficiently prepare graduates for the evolving job market (Doerfert & Miller, 2006). This perspective is supported by the notion that higher education, particularly at land-grant universities (LGUs), should not only facilitate students’ ability to connect academic knowledge with the practical world but also foster critical thinking about the influence of existing societal structures (Roth & Desaultels, 2002; Schultz, 2008). Active learning and project-based activities are recommended as effective strategies to develop essential 21st-century skills (Gavazi, 2020). However, it is crucial to distinguish that increasing student engagement in the educational process does not automatically equate to empowerment, a concept that often needs to be understood (Dimick, 2012).

The body mapping technique is a valuable method for enhancing educational experiences. It explores individuals’ perceptions of control and power within specific contexts (Martinez, 2017), making participants more conscious of their embodied experiences and uncovering otherwise inaccessible insights (de-Jager, 2016). As a qualitative research tool, body mapping facilitates the collection of personal stories, offering insights into individuals’ identities (Coetzee et al., 2017) and providing scientists with a novel, visually and sensory-rich research methodology (Ball & Gilligan, 2010). Thus, body mapping is an effective way for students to evaluate their learning, expanding assessment perspectives beyond the teacher’s perspective to include the students’ viewpoints.

Traditional course content selection and assessment methods have been criticized for their top-down approach, as they tend to overlook student perspectives in the educational process. Huba and Freed (2000) highlight that instructors typically maintain complete control over educational content, limiting student input opportunities. Recent scholarly debates advocate for outcome-driven learning, emphasizing the enhancement of metacognitive and soft skills, such as communication, now sought after by employers for well-rounded graduates (Mitsea et al., 2021). These skills are vital for engaging in various domains, including personal, academic, and professional arenas (Mitsea et al., 2021).

While research activities at LGUs are crucial for addressing societal issues, concerns arise that de-emphasizing teaching and community engagement may affect the quality of education and reduce graduates’ employability (Gavazi, 2020). A notable concern is the need for more preparation of graduates for science communication careers, despite LGUs’ focus on training in this area. Incorporating student-led assessments, such as body mapping, has been scientifically validated to bridge this gap. This approach respects teacher authority while empowering students to evaluate their learning experiences (Biesta et al., 2015). As Fielding (1996) described, empowerment involves transferring some authority from those in power to those with less. Granting students, the agency to evaluate their learning can significantly enhance their knowledge and self-efficacy in communicating scientific or agricultural innovations in response to market demands (see Bandura, 1997). According to Bandura (1997), self-efficacy is a powerful motivator for action, fostering a sense of conviction and confidence in individuals’ abilities to complete assigned tasks.

In summary, body mapping in science communication teaching enriches the learning assessment spectrum, enhancing the quality of education by incorporating student perspectives. Research indicates that active learning strategies can significantly improve critical thinking, self-efficacy, and preparedness for science communication careers, equipping graduates to navigate complex challenges (Clem, 2013).

Purpose and Objectives

The purpose of this study was to use a body mapping strategy to assess graduate students’ perceived level of preparedness to serve as science communicators after taking an agricultural communications theories class.

The study used two research objectives to address the purpose:

  1. To describe participants’ visualization of their knowledge and experiences of science communication before and after taking an agricultural communications theory class.
  2. To describe participants’ science communication knowledge and experience before and after taking the class.

Methods

The study utilized a qualitative research approach to collect data through mapping data. “Body mapping draws from the tenet that ‘mind influences the body based on how socio-cultural context influences the mind,’ and acknowledges that by identifying how and where perception is experienced in the body, one can collect information beyond what traditional face-to-face interviewing offers” (Martinez, 2017, p. 2). This methodology effectively captures participants’ perspectives (Coetzee et al., 2017). In this study, participants used body mapping to articulate their understanding and interpretation of a communications theory class (Duby et al., 2016).

The research focused on first-year doctoral students enrolled in an agricultural communication theory class at the University of Georgia’s Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communication. The study used purposive sampling to recruit participants, seven students (three males and four females) were involved in the study. All participants were doctoral candidates in the Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communication, with two students majoring in agricultural communication, two in agricultural leadership, and three in agricultural education. However, three students also served as agricultural extension educators during the time that they enrolled in the course.

Course Content and Administration

The course was delivered synchronously in Fall of 2020, both in-person and online via Zoom. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, students opted to take the class online or in person. Three students attended in-person, while the rest did so online. To curb the spread of the virus, the university further mandated all classes to go online after the Thanksgiving holiday. As a result, the remainder of the course occurred online.

The course material covered communication theory, agricultural communication history, crisis, and risk communication, the importance of agricultural and science communication, and current issues in agriculture and science communication concerning communication theories. The class design was to be a discussion-based setting. During the first few days of class, the instructor requested students to participate in the discussions about the readings using shared reflection papers. Students were to critically analyze each class’s readings and present summaries to the rest of the class to help guide the discussions. However, during the first three weeks of class, students expressed their concerns via an anonymous questionnaire distributed as part of the feedback collection process. The student expressed difficulty understanding the material because most of them had never taken a communication theory course before, and they requested additional lectures. The instructor incorporated lectures into each class in response to students’ needs. In addition to lectures, students utilized case studies and mind maps to increase their engagement.

Data Collection

Data collection occurred during the last week of class. The instructor first requested participants to draw two body maps in response to prompts. Participants started by drawing a body map that represented their knowledge level about science communication, awareness of science communication issues and challenges, and their role as communicators before taking the class. On the second body map, they drew body maps based on the previous prompts with an additional prompt on preparedness to serve as a science communicator after taking the class. Participants also indicated notes on the body maps based on the prompts. Since the class was online, the students could use any technology of their choice to draw the body maps and submit them to the instructor. Since the topic for this study was not sensitive, body mapping activity ensured participants could express themselves freely without following a standard template. Participants were entirely in control of drawing their images based on their understanding.

Data Analysis

A content analysis of the body maps and their associated descriptions was conducted. In addition, content analysis of participants’ reflections and researchers’ observation notes made it possible to clearly describe the participants’ stories (Gastaldo et al., 2018) and triangulate the data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Due to the absence of a standardized data coding and analysis tool for body maps, the researcher used a modified evaluation tool based on the indicators of a standard scientist (see Chambers, 1983). Codes were developed based on body map structure (size, shape, and colors). In addition, codes for all the descriptions of the body maps were developed, which included types of description and issues addressed in line with the prompts, namely: awareness of challenges and issues in science communication, role as a communicator, knowledge, and skills in science communication and knowledge of communication theories. Each researcher coded the data independently based on the codebook.

Once coding was completed, images corresponding to each code were grouped and themes were developed by comparing each code with the descriptions that were provided by the participants’ reflection papers. The content analysis of the notes and reflection papers assisted in further triangulation and ensured the trustworthiness of the results (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Mikhaeil & Baskerville, 2019).

Subjectivity Statement

A postdoctoral research associate whose research primarily focuses on the use of communication as a science for amplifying voices of marginalized and vulnerable groups served as the lead course instructor. She provided academic oversight and infused the curriculum with innovative pedagogical strategies. These strategies included the introduction of mind and body mapping exercises alongside creating tailored prompts to facilitate these activities. Her approach was underpinned by a conscientious effort to mitigate the influence of her research bias, especially regarding identifying potential gaps in science communication and their implications for data analysis and the literature review. To this end, she undertook a thorough literature review to ensure that the development and application of coding schemes were aligned with established research paradigms.

The team also included a professor specializing in science communication. She shared the instructional responsibilities, bringing to the course a firm belief in the scientific nature of communication and the necessity of grounding scientific inquiry in solid theoretical foundations. Her contributions were instrumental in shaping the course content, and she was the architect behind a pivotal learning activity that generated the images and texts serving as the primary data for the study. Conscious of her bias towards emphasizing the need for improved communication within agricultural and environmental science, she opted out of the initial stages of data coding to safeguard the research’s objectivity.

A third key figure was another postdoctoral research associate, who brought a wealth of experience in agricultural education and communication. Her expertise is valuable in articulating and disseminating impactful messages tailored to meet clientele’s needs. This bias towards client-centric messaging was intertwined with her dedication to fostering innovative teaching and learning methodologies within agricultural communication curricula. Her overarching goal was to arm prospective agricultural communicators with a blend of theoretical understanding and 21st-century skills essential for navigating the multifaceted challenges of modern agriculture. She recused herself from the coding process to preclude and, thus, any biases that could skew the study’s findings.

These diverse perspectives and methodological rigor enhanced the research process, ensuring a credible approach to evaluating the effectiveness of the science communication course in improving the career readiness of the study participants as future agricultural communicators.

Results and Discussion

Participants’ Visualization of their Knowledge and Experiences Regarding Science Communication Before and After the Class

When the students drew body maps presenting their science communication experiences and knowledge in science communication, one theme emerged: Body maps not restricted to human bodies. Six participants represented their knowledge and experiences using the actual human body, while one participant drew an animal to represent his/her knowledge and experiences (See Figure 1).

Figure 1 depicts bodymaps presentation before and after taking the class. A subtheme, namely: variation in body map presentation, emerged when analyzing the images of the participants’ presentation of the body maps regardless of whether human or animal. Changes were observed in the colors, size, and features provided between and among participants to reflect the changes before and after taking the class. Different parts of the human were also presented, with four of the students presenting an entire human body form (Figures 1. 2, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6) while one person presented the head (Figure 1.7 a and b) and another presented the face only (1.5 a and b). In addition, variations in the use of colors were also observed. For example, while the color green represented a positive change in knowledge (Figure 1.4) the same color was used to represent awareness of science communication (Figure 1.3 a and b).

Figure 1

Body Maps Presentation Before and After Taking the Class

Participants’ Opinions Regarding their Knowledge and Experiences Regarding Science Communication Before and After the Class

Almost all participants had limited knowledge and experience in agricultural communication. Two themes emerged: the nature of agricultural communication and knowledge of agricultural communication and theories.

Nature of Agricultural Communication

The participants understood communication as delivering agricultural information using different communication channels. As an illustration, one of the participants stated, “My previous thinking was that Agcom was about writing articles about important events.” The nature of agricultural communication was evidenced in the body maps of two other participants (see Figure 1.7a and 1.7b). The content analysis of the reflection papers also indicated frequent use of the word communications as opposed to communication among all participants.

Knowledge of Agricultural Communication and Associated Theories

Participants indicated they had limited knowledge of agricultural communication and associated theories, as evidenced by the following quotes. “I had no formal knowledge of communication theories.” This was echoed by another quote, “My knowledge as a science communicator was very lacking…with no formal knowledge or background. I was unaware of any possible theories.” Another participant also raised similar sentiments as evidenced by the following quote: “Mediocre level of knowledge- struggled with specifics of communication.” To emphasize the point, the participant explained how the knowledge level was represented in the body map (see Figure 1.4a and b). In addition, another participant also provided a key that explained the colors on the body map, with yellow representing knowledge of communication theories (see Figures 1.4a and 1.4b).

Apart from these sentiments, the participants provided feedback to the instructor to change the administration focus of the class from student discussion of the content to more lectures. The lectures were proposed to ensure the students were taught about agricultural communication and associated communication theories due to limited knowledge.

Awareness of communication challenges and issues

Almost all the participants indicated having limited knowledge of the challenges and issues in agricultural communication, as evidenced by one participant who said, “I was not aware of challenges/issues in science communication.” Another participant stated that “I was not super aware of the many issues and challenges that are present.” Such sentiments were also vivid in the body map by one of the participants who presented a key where the green color implied awareness of challenges and issues in science communication (see Figure 1.3a and b).

The participants also provided opinions regarding their knowledge and experience in science communication, and the students reported an increase in knowledge of agricultural or science communication. Two themes emerged, namely: type of change and impact of change.

Type of Change

Three sub-themes emerged regarding the type of changes reported by participants: knowledge and skills about science communication and communication, perceptions about science communication, and role as a science communicator.

Knowledge and skills in science communication and communication

Most of the students’ body maps depicted a general increase in knowledge and skills in communication theories and their applications. (see Figures 1.4a and 1.4b; 1.2a and 1.2b as well as 1.1a and 1.1b). However, one participant reported the changes in knowledge and skills in general. They used different colors to represent each change and provided a key for each color where orange = knowledge of communication theories; Pink = assumptions about science; Purple = knowledge and skills in science communication; Blue = role as a science communicator, and green awareness of challenges (Figures 1.3a and 1.3b).

Perceptions about communication

Participants generally indicated developing an understanding of communication as illustrated in the following quote “communication is a HUGE world. It’s okay to feel overwhelmed, but I am able to understand and apply the theories.” Another participant affirmed prior sentiments saying that, “… communication is an ever-changing and challenging field due to changes in technologies and the world faces more issues.” Content analysis of the reflection papers and observation notes also indicated that all the students appreciated the complexity of communication during the class. This was evidenced by a statement made by one of the participants during class which implied that communication is often considered an easy task, however, it is more complicated than it appears. In addition, another participant’s reflection indicated a change of perspective regarding the role of science communication from a one-way communication model to a two-way communication model (figure 1.7a and 1.7b).

Preparedness to serve as a science communicator.

Participants’ statements indicated they felt empowered and more confident to serve as science communicators after taking the class. One participant said, “I feel more prepared to perform as a science communicator although there are still some things I may be lacking.” Another stated, “I feel more prepared to continue my program after taking this course and to work as a science communicator. I feel confident in my ability to address science communication.” Another participant added, “After class, I am confident in carrying conversations about communication methods and purposes. I am also familiar with theories, channels, organizational strategies, and much more.”

Conclusion/ Implications/ Recommendations

The qualitative nature of this study limits generalization to a broader audience but vails an opportunity for replication with a broader sample of students or across diverse contexts. The data revealed a discernible trend: Students exhibited an enhanced readiness to take on roles as science communicators post-course completion. Intriguingly, the results unveiled a transformative shift in perception—a transition from viewing communication merely as a tool to a broader understanding of it as communications. This transformation of outlook resonates with the narrative woven by the proliferation of agricultural communication programs across the United States (Akers & Akers, 2000; Cannon et al., 2016; Doerfert & Miller, 2006; Kurtzo et al., 2016; Miller et al., 2015; Telg & Irani, 2011; Tucker et al., 2003), suggesting a reevaluation of the subject matter itself. This raises the question: Is it opportune to reshape the teaching and evaluation of agricultural communication, pivoting it from a mere tool to an assimilation of scientific principles?

A resonant implication surfaces—educators are encouraged to embrace participatory methodologies, as the study’s findings underscored. Concepts like concept mapping have previously revealed students’ grasp of core ideas and their interconnections (Akinsanya & Williams, 2004). In parallel, body mapping stands out as a dynamic tool for assessing learning and as a catalyst for learning itself. The study underscores the necessity to shift from a predominant focus on technical communication within agricultural communication programs, particularly at the graduate level (Bray et al., 2012), urging for a broader scope of scientific awareness.

The spotlight extends to the gap in research concerning the effectiveness of graduate-level agricultural communication courses, a void highlighted by this study amidst the predominantly undergraduate program evaluations (Cannon et al., 2014; Clem, 2013; Corder & Irlbeck, 2018; Morgan, 2010). In a rapidly evolving landscape shaped by ICT advancements and the emergence of phenomena like the Coronavirus pandemic, the necessity for comprehensive science communication training transcends mere technical prowess. Nevertheless, the authors recognize that content inclusion alone falls short; the core lies in fostering empowering classroom environments that encompass social, political, and academic dimensions. Empowerment, as a focal point, necessitates instructors to go beyond mere participation assessments, steering students toward multifaceted opportunities for self-directed learning (Dimick, 2012).

Evident in the results is the profound empowerment students experienced—socially, politically, and academically. For instance, instructors introduced early autonomy, granting students the choice of in-person or online attendance, thereby inducing a sense of political empowerment (Dimick, 2012; Oyler & Becker, 1997; Schultz, 2008). This empowerment further materialized through the students’ willingness to confront science communication challenges—a testament to Breiting’s (2009) findings on political empowerment manifesting through a desire to address societal issues. Simultaneously, hints of social empowerment surfaced through students’ input into content delivery (Dimick, 2012). Academically, some students proactively addressed potential hindrances to implementing science communication interventions, revealing their empowerment (Roth & Desaultels, 2002; Schultz, 2008). Students’ readiness was not a mere byproduct of course content; instead, it emanated from the power and control they experienced throughout the learning journey.

The findings offer insights into how instructors can cultivate a classroom atmosphere that empowers students, fostering their confidence in applying their knowledge and skills to real-world challenges. Moreover, the research introduces an innovative dimension by pioneering the utilization of body mapping as a tool for capturing sensory experiences. These outcomes align with earlier research (Ball & Gilligan, 2010; Jager et al., 2016), underscoring the significance of visual data collection tools in capturing intricate perceptions that are otherwise elusive. For instance, participants demonstrated shifts in their understanding and abilities by manipulating the forms, colors, and dimensions within their body maps. Remarkably, these body maps unveiled emotions and insights that conventional research methods could not uncover, offering a fresh layer of depth to our understanding. Diversities in the types, styles, and hues employed in these body maps also furnished invaluable insights into how perceptions of different individuals are shaped.

In contrast to studies where participants adhered to pre-designed body map templates (Duby et al., 2016; Naidoo et al., 2020), the present study encouraged participants to sketch body maps based on their comprehension, granting them the autonomy to express their perspectives candidly. While body maps are frequently employed in health inquiries, a lack of standardized evaluation criteria exists, thus highlighting the need for further research to establish consistent methodologies for image analysis. This calls for cross-sectional studies that utilize body mapping to gauge students’ preparedness as science communicators at the commencement and culmination of their graduate journeys. The inherent potential of body mapping in empowering participants to voice their perceptions positions it as a promising technique for probing into students’ grasp of knowledge and the broader public’s perception of science communication. This genre of research aids in identifying gaps, ensuring that communication institutions equip graduates to disseminate scientific knowledge to the masses effectively. Interestingly, the findings also revealed disparities in individuals’ visual representations of their body maps. This prompts a suggestion for future researchers to incorporate interview questions that prompt participants to elaborate on the rationale behind their chosen images, forms, sizes, and hues.  

References

Alder, A. Rodman, G., & Du Pre, A. (2016). Understanding human communication (13th ed.). Oxford University Press

Akers, C. W. & Akers, C. (2000). High school agricultural communications competencies: A national Delphi study [Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University].  ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. https://www.proquest.com/docview/304626677?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true&sourcetype=Dissertations%20&%20Theses

Akinsanya, C., & Williams, M. (2004). Concept mapping for meaningful learning. Nurse Education Today, 24(1), 41–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0260-6917(03)00120-5

Ball, S, & Gilligan, C., (2010). Visualizing migration and social division: Insights from social sciences and the visual arts. Qualitative Social Research, 11(2), 1-33.  https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-11.2.1486

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman & Co. https://connect.springerpub.com/content/sgrjcp/13/2/158.full.pdf

Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Robinson, S. (2015). The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers and Teaching, 21(6), 624–640. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1044325

Bonnen, J. T. (1986). A century of science in agriculture: Lessons for science policy. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 68(5),1065–1080. https://doi.org/10.2307/1241854

Bray, B., France, B., & Gilbert, J. K. (2012) Identifying the essential elements of effective science communication: What do the experts say? International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 2(1), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2011.611627

Breiting, S. (2009). Issues for environmental education and ESD research development: Looking ahead from WEEC 2007 in Durban. Environmental Education Research, 15(2), 199–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620902807584

Cannon, K. J., Specht, A. R., & Buck, E. B. (2016). Agricultural communications: A national portrait of undergraduate courses. Journal of Applied Communications, 100(1), 2, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1018

Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The draw-a-scientist test. Science Education, 67(2), 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730670213

Clem, C. A. (2013). Exploring the competencies, skills, and abilities needed by agricultural communications students: a Delphi study (Doctoral dissertation). https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/bitstream/handle/2346/58458/CLEM-DISSERTATION-2013.pdf?sequence=1

Coetzee, B., Roomaney, R., Willis, N., & Kagee, A. (2017). Body mapping in research. In Handbook of research methods in health social sciences (pp. 1 – 19). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6_3-1

Corder, J. & Irlbeck, E. (2018). Agricultural communications skills, abilities and knowledge desired by employers compared to current curriculum: A literary review. Journal of Agricultural Education, 59(4), 177–193. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2018.04177

Jager, A. D., Tewson, A., Ludlow, B., & Boydell, K. (2016). Embodied ways of storying the self: A systematic review of body-mapping. In Forum qualitative sozialforschung/forum: Qualitative social research, 17(2), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-17.2.2526

Dimick, A. S. (2012). Student empowerment in an environmental science classroom: Toward a framework for social justice science education. Science Education, 96(6), 990–1012. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21035

Doerfert, D. L., & Miller, R. P. (2006). What are agriculture industry professionals trying to tell us? Implications for university-level agricultural communications curricula. Journal of Applied Communications, 90(3), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1273

Duby, Z., M. Hartmann, I. Mahaka, O. Munaiwa, J. Nabukeera, N. Vilakazi, F. Mthembu, C. J. Colvin, B. Mensch, & A. van der Straten. (2016). Lost in translation: Language, terminology, and understanding of penile–anal intercourse in an HIV prevention trial in South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. The Journal of Sex Research 53(9), 1096–1106. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2015.1069784

Fielding, M. (1996). Empowerment: Emancipation or enervation? Journal of Education Policy, 11(3), 399 – 417. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093960110308

Gastaldo, D., Rivas-Quarneti, N., & Magalhães, L. (2018). Body-map storytelling as a health research methodology: Blurred lines creating clear pictures. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 19(2), 1-26. https://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/2858/4199

Hart, P. S., & Nisbet, E. C. (2012). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 39(6), 701–723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211416646

Irani, T., & Doerfert, D. L. (2013). Preparing for the next 150 years of agricultural communications. Journal of Applied Communications, 97(2), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1109

Kurtzo, F., Hansen, M. J., Rucker, K. J & Edgar, L. D. (2016). Agricultural communications: Perspectives from the experts. Journal of Applied Communications, 100(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1019

Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8

Martinez, M. (2017). The mind body self: How longevity is culturally learned and the causes of health are inherited. Hay House, Inc

Masambuka, F., Rodriguez, M., & Buck, E. (2018). Drivers and shakers of agricultural communication: Implications for sustainable development in developing and developed countries. [Paper presentation]. The Association for International Agricultural and Extension Education Annual Conference, Yucatan, Mexico.

Morgan, A. C. (2010). Competencies needed by agricultural communication undergraduates: An industry perspective. Journal of Applied Communications, 94(1-2),19–32. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1184

Mikhaeil, C. A., & Baskerville, R. L. (2019). Using semiotics to analyze representational complexity in social media. Information and Organization, 29(4), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2019.100271

Mitsea, E., Drigas, A., & Mantas, P. (2021). Soft skills & metacognition as inclusion amplifiers in the 21st Century. International Journal of Online and Biomedical Engineering (IJOE), 17(04), 121–132. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v17i04.20567

Miller, J., Large, M., Rucker, J., Shoulders, K., & Buck, E. (2015). Characteristics of U.S. agricultural communications undergraduate programs. Journal of Applied Communications, 99(4), 76–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1063

Naidoo, S., Duby, Z., Hartmann, M., Musara, P., Etima, J., Woeber, K., … & Montgomery, E. T. (2021). Application of a body map tool to enhance discussion of sexual behavior in women in South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. Field Methods, 33(2), 143–158. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1525822X20982082

Oyler, C. & Becker, J. (1997). Teaching beyond the progressive-traditional dichotomy: Sharing authority and sharing vulnerability. Curriculum inquiry, 27(4), 453–467. https://doi.org/10.1111/0362-6784.00064

Roth, W. M., & Desaultels, J. (2002). Science education as/for sociopolitical action. Peter Lang.

Schultz, B. (2008). Spectacular things happen along the way: Lessons from an urban classroom. Teachers College Press

Telg, R., & Irani, T. A. (2011). Agricultural communications in Action: A hands-on approach. Cengage Learning.

Trench, B., & Miller, S. (2012). Policies and practices in supporting scientists’ public communication through training. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 722–731. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs090

Tucker, M., Whaley, S. R., & Cano, J. M. (2003). Agricultural education and agricultural communications: Striking a proper balance in the academy. Journal of Agricultural Education, 44(1), 22–30. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2003.01022

admin
In Ag. Communications, Journal, Quantitative, Vol. 68

Identifying Communication Strategies to Reach Florida about Government Regulated Water

Peyton N. Beattie, Alexa J. Lamm, Ricky W. Telg, & Cassie Wandersee
The largest consumers of water in Florida are single-family homeowners. The increase in population and the availability of quality water in Florida poses a concern. Identifying audience segments through demographic characteristics can assist in determining strategies to communicate with consumers about government regulated water policies. The purpose of this study was to examine how perceptions of government-mandated water conservation initiatives were related to reported water conservation behaviors based on demographics. Understanding the relationship between government-mandated water conservation initiatives and water conservation behaviors may assist in strategy development when communicating about the need to conserve water to various audience segments based on demographic characteristics.

Read More
admin
In Ag. Communications, Journal, Quantitative, Vol. 68

Identifying a knowledge gap of blueberry health benefits: The role of education, income, generation and gender

Shuyang Qu, Tori Bradley, & Joy N. Rumble
Lower socioeconomic groups may not learn as quickly or retain as much knowledge as higher socioeconomic groups because higher socioeconomic groups often have easier access to the relevant resources. With many health benefits associated with blueberry consumption, this study examined consumers’ knowledge level of blueberry benefits, and investigated whether a knowledge gap existed among high and low socioeconomic groups and among different demographic groups. An online survey using non-probability sampling was distributed to grocery shoppers from 31 states in the United States. Post-stratification weighting of data was used to adjust the bias resulted from non-probability sampling…

Read More