Agricultural communication

History

The academic field originated from communication courses that taught students in the agricultural sciences how to communicate. Originally, agricultural journalists were needed to report farm news for a much larger agricultural and rural audience. As people moved from the farm to cities and suburbs, a much greater proportion of the population had less direct knowledge and experience regarding agriculture. While a need still exists for agricultural journalists, an equal, if not greater need exists for agricultural communicators who can act as liaisons between an industry with deeply rooted traditions and values and a public with little to no understanding of how agriculture operates and why it is the way it is.

Research

The key journal in the field is the Journal of Applied Communications. Researchers have focused on a variety of areas examining consumer attitudes toward agricultural products and practices including genetic engineering and genetically modified food, natural and organic food and production, and food-related risks. Another area of research has been media coverage of agriculture and agricultural issues. Topics have included media coverage of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease), YouTube videos of California Proposition 2 (2008), and television news coverage of food safety scares.

The Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, maintained by the University of Illinois, compiles research and articles related to agriculture and communications as well.

Agricultural journalism

Academic programs

Several colleges offer formal education at the undergraduate and graduate levels in the field of agricultural communication. What follows is a list with links directly to the programs.

• Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College
• Auburn University
• California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly)
• Colorado State University
• Missouri State University
• North Dakota State University
• The Ohio State University
• Oklahoma State University
• Kansas State University
• University of Florida
• University of Georgia
• University of Tennessee
• University of Illinois
• University of Missouri
• University of Nebraska-Lincoln
• University of Arkansas
• University of Minnesota - Twin Cities
• University of Wisconsin
• University of Wyoming
• Purdue University
• Tennessee Technological University
• Texas A&M University
• Texas Tech University
• West Texas A&M University
• Utah State University

Approaches

Conceptually speaking, agricultural communication is an applied theoretical field. The academic curriculum and scholarly endeavors typically stay within the context of agriculture, natural resources, and occasionally, the life sciences. It examines communication and human dimension issues as they relate to a variety of issues in agriculture and natural resources. Agricultural journalism is not always differentiated from agricultural communications in research. One could argue that when research focuses on media coverage of agricultural issues or when it examines issues within agricultural journalism specifically (i.e., what influences editors of agriculture magazines to publish risk information), then it is more within the realm of agricultural journalism. Journalism is often seen as a subset of communication that is supposed to be fair and balanced like traditional journalism, whereas the broader field of agricultural communication could potentially be viewed as advocacy communication.

Agricultural communicators are expected to have a certain amount of knowledge and familiarity with agriculture. One could also add to that definition and say the communicator also brings with him or her an appreciation, or even affection, for the agriculture industry. While this is also probably true of agricultural journalists, they at least need to be cognizant of their potential bias to ensure they ask critical questions and present unbiased information. Agricultural journalists are trained like traditional journalists, but bring with them an understanding of agricultural systems and science either through experience and/or academic training.

References

References

1. Harder, A., Roberts, G., & Lindner, J. R. (2021). Commonly Accepted Theories, Models, and Philosophies: The Subjective Norms of Our Discipline. Journal of Agricultural Education, 62(1), 196–211. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2021.01196
2. Treise, D., & Weigold, M. F. (2002). Advancing science communication: A survey of science communicators. ''Science Communication, 23''(3), 310-322.
3. Irani, Tracy and Doerfert, David L. (2013) "Preparing for the Next 150 Years of Agricultural Communications," Journal of Applied Communications: Vol. 97: Iss. 2. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1109
4. Boone, K., Meisenbach, T., & Tucker, M. (2000). ''Agricultural communications: Changes and challenges'', Iowa State University Press.
5. Evans, J. (2008). Agricultural Communication Oral History Project. ''Agricultural Communications Documentation Center.'' http://www.library.illinois.edu/funkaces/acdc/oralhistory/podcasts.html {{Webarchive. link. (2012-10-02)
6. Journal of Applied Communications. http://journalofappliedcommunications.org.
7. Irani, T., Sinclair, J., & O'Malley. (2002). The Importance of Being Accountable The Relationship between Perceptions of Accountability, Knowledge, and Attitude toward Plant Genetic Engineering. ''Science Communication, 23''(3). {{doi. 10.1177/107554700202300302
8. Meyers, C. A., & Miller, J. D. (2007). Selected Consumers’ Evaluations of Genetically Modified Food Labels. ''Journal of Applied Communications, 91''(1-2).
9. Abrams, K. M., Meyers, C. A., & Irani, T. A. (2009). Naturally confused: Consumers’ perceptions of organic and all-natural pork products. ''Journal of Agriculture and Human Values'' [in press]. {{doi. 10.1007/s10460-009-9234-5
10. Tucker, M., Whaley, S., & Sharp, J. (2006). Consumer perceptions of food-related risks. ''International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 41''(2), 135-146.
11. Ruth, A., Eubanks, E., & Telg, R. (2005). Framing of Mad Cow Media Coverage. ''Journal of Applied Communications, 89''(4) 39-54.
12. Ashlock, M., Cartmell, D., & Kelemen, D. (2006). The Cow That Stole Christmas: Framing the First U.S. Mad Cow Crisis. ''Journal of Applied Communications, 90''(2) 29-46.
13. Goodwin, J., & Rhoades, E. (2009). Agricultural legislation: The presence of California Proposition 2 on YouTube. Paper presented at the National American Association for Agricultural Education Conference, Louisville, KY. Available from http://www.aaaeonline.org/files/national_09/papers/2.pdf{{dead link. (October 2016)
14. Irlbeck, E., & Akers, C (2009). The Summer of Salmonella in Salsa: A Framing Analysis of the 2008 Salmonella Outbreak in Tomatoes and Jalapenos. Paper presented at the National American Association for Agricultural Education Conference, Louisville, KY. Available from http://www.aaaeonline.org/files/national_09/papers/5.pdf{{dead link. (October 2016)
15. Agricultural Communications Documentation Center. http://www.library.illinois.edu/funkaces/acdc