Scientists’ side of the microphone: An examination of agricultural and natural resources podcast guests’ experiences

Jacqueline Aenlle; Jamie Loizzo; Lisa Lundy; Kevin Folta; James Bunch

doi:10.37433/aad.v5i3.421

Authors

Jacqueline Aenlle Kansas State University, USA https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7366-4981
Jamie Loizzo University of Florida , USA https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5575-2918
Lisa Lundy University of Florida, USA https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3498-7486
Kevin Folta University of Florida, USA https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3836-2213
James Bunch University of Florida, USA

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i3.421

Keywords:

Science Communication, Public Engagement, Mixed Methods

Abstract

While some food, agricultural, natural resources, and human science (FANRHS) experts participate in a variety of outreach opportunities, many face barriers to public interaction such as lack of incentive, knowledge, or confidence. This study examined scientists’ and Extensionists’ outreach experiences as guests on science podcasts. Results showed the guests had minimal formal science communication training yet were highly educated individuals and involved with informal education. Future research should examine how peer-modeling can be used to recruit more scientists to science communication opportunities and how institutions can improve training for outreach such as podcasts.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Andrews, E., Weaver, A., Hanley, D., Shamatha, J., & Melton, G. (2005). Scientists and public outreach: Participation, motivations, and impediments. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(3), 281-293. https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-53.3.281

Baker, L., Chiarelli, C., Rampold, S., McLeod-Morin, A., & Lindsey, A. (2021). Communication in a pandemic: Concerns of agricultural and natural resources opinion leaders during early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Advancements in Agricultural Development, 2(3), 72-82. https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i3.147

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175-1184. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.44.9.1175

Beattie, P.N., Aenlle, J.V., & Loizzo, J.L. (2020). Homegrown podcasts: Implementation of podcasts for agricultural and natural resource education and engagement. Agricultural Education Magazine, 93(1), 25-26.

Bik, H. M., Dove, A. D. M., Goldstein, M. C., Helm, R. R., MacPherson, R., Martini, K., Warneke, A., & McClain, C. (2015). Ten simple rules for effective online outreach. PloS Computational Biology, 11(4), https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003906

Burns, T. W., O’Connor, D. J., & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003). Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12(2), 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625030122004

Burt, R. S. (1999). The social capital of opinion leaders. ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 566(1), 37-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/000271629956600104

Chivers, C., Bliss, K., De Boon, A., Lishman, L., Schillings, J., Smith, R., & Rose, D. C. (2023). Videos and podcasts for delivering agricultural extension: Achieving credibility, relevance, legitimacy and accessibility. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 29(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224x.2021.1997771

Christensen, L. L. (2007). The hands-on guide for science communicators: A step-by-step approach to public outreach. Springer Science & Business Media.

Clark, A. (2020, June 8). Women are underrepresented in science coverage. Two UF scientists share insight on how to have your voice heard. University of Florida News. https://news.ufl.edu/2020/06/women-in-science-media/

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research (4th ed.). Sage.

Côté, I. M., & Darling, E. S. (2018). Scientists on Twitter: Preaching to the choir or singing from the rooftops? FACETS, 3(1), 682-694. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2018-0002

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed method research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

Critchley, C. R. (2008). Public opinion and trust in scientists: The role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers. Public Understanding of Science, 17(3), 309–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506070162

Dantas-Quieroz, M. V., Wentzel, L. C., & Quieroz, L. L. (2018). Science communication podcasting in Brazil: The potential and challenges depicted by two podcasts. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências, 90(2), 1891-1901. https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765201820170431

Devonshire, I. M., & Hathway, G. J. (2014). Overcoming the barriers to greater public engagement. PloS Biology, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001761

Edison Research and Triton Digital. (2023). The infinite dial. https://www.edisonresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/The-Infinite-Dial-2023.pdf

Fiske, S. T., & Dupree, C. (2014). Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics.. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, (Supplement 4), 13593-13597. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317505111

Geertz, C. (2008). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. Routledge.

Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436–445. https://doi.org/10.2307/798843

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine.

Hu, S., Li, Z., Zhang, J., & Zhu, J. (2018). Engaging scientists in science communication: The effect of social proof and meaning. Journal of Cleaner Production, 170, 1044-1051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.210

Huber, B., Barnidge, M., Gil de Zúñiga, H., & Liu, J. (2019). Fostering public trust in science: The role of social media. Public Understanding of Science, 28(7), 759–777. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519869097

Jensen, P., Rouquier, J.B., Kreimer, P., & Croissant, Y. (2008). Scientists who engage with society perform better academically. Science and Public Policy, 35(7), 527–541. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234208X329130

Lamm, K., Rumble, J., Carter, H., & Lamm, A. (2016). Agricultural opinion leader communication channel preferences: An empirical analysis of participants of agricultural and natural resource leadership development programs. Journal of Agricultural Education, 57(1), 91-105. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2016.01091

Loizzo, J., Jones, C., & Steffen, A. (2019). A pilot qualitative case study of agricultural and natural resources scientists’ Twitter usage for engaging public audiences. Journal of Applied Communications, 103(4). https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.2276

Long, J. M., Rutherford, T. A., & Wingenbach, G. J. (2011). Opinion leaders' influence on college students' perceptions of the national animal identification system. Texas Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 24, 18-27. https://txjanr.agintexas.org/index.php/txjanr/article/view/45

Lubell, M., Niles, M. & Hoffman, M. (2014). Extension 3.0: Managing agricultural knowledge systems in the network age. Society & Natural Resources, 27(10), 1089-1103, https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2014.933496

Matous, P. (2023). Male and stale? Questioning the role of “opinion leaders” in agricultural programs. Agriculture and Human Values, 40, 1205-1220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-023-10415-9

Miller, S., & Fahy, D. (2009). Can science communication workshops train scientists for reflexive public engagement? The ESConet experience. Science Communication, 31(1), 116–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547009339048

O'Connell, M. (2017). Turn up the volume: A down and dirty guide to Podcasting. Routledge.

Paisley, K. (2019, March 5). Public outreach: What is it and why it matters. M. S. Consultants. https://www.msconsultants.com/public-outreach-what-is-it-and-why-it-matters/

Poliakoff, E., & Webb, T. L. (2007). What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities? Science Communication, 29(2) 242-263. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547007308009.

Riccardi, P., Romano, V., & Pellegrino, F. (2022). Education and public outreach through vacuum science and technology. Vacuum, 196(110737).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vacuum.2021.110737

Rose, K. M., Markowitz, E. M., & Brossard, D. (2020). Scientists’ incentives and attitudes toward public communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(3), 1274-1276. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916740117

Schoerning, E. (2018). A no-conflict approach to informal science education increases community science literacy and engagement. Journal of Science Communication, 17(3) https://doi.org/10.22323/2.17030205

Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2009). Self-efficacy theory. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 35-53). Routledge.

Schunk, D. H. (2020). Learning theories: An educational perspective (8th ed.). Pearson.

Spencer, C. J., Gunderson, K. L., Hoiland, C. W., Schleiffarth, W. K. (2017). Earth-science outreach using an integrated social media platform. The Geological Society of America Today, 27(8), 28-29. https://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/groundwork/G333GW/article.htm