Need 

McDaniel et al. (2018) said “collaborations among researchers and across disciplinary, organizational, and cultural boundaries are vital to address increasingly complex challenges and opportunities in science and society” (p. 1). However, the call for these collaborations has outpaced the policies, structure, cultures, and processes to support functional team science (McDaniel et al., 2018). There has also been a push in recent years to incentivize collaboration across AFNR disciplines to promote interdisciplinary team research. Additionally, grant funding agencies have identified the need for agricultural, food, and natural resource (AFNR) scientists to effectively communicate and disseminate their work to key stakeholder groups. (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NAS], 2018). However, faculty with expertise in science communication may not be invited to participate in the development of the proposals until most of the work has been completed – treated almost as if they are an afterthought (Gunn et al., 2022). This approach to collaboration can be ineffective, and there is a need to strengthen the symbiotic relationship between researchers across the disciplines of AFNR sciences (McDaniel et al., 2018). Therefore, for the purpose of this multi-state project, our approach is to integrate science communication with team science. 

The USDA (2019) Science Blueprint for 2020-2025 outlines five thematic program areas intended to frame and drive agricultural science initiatives. Our objectives align closely with Ag Science Policy Leadership, a theme focused on the human dimensions of scientific advancements in agriculture. This theme highlights the development of strategic communication for world decision makers, building transdisciplinary teams, and evaluating the social impacts of new technologies, all of which align well with our proposed project (USDA, 2019). Furthermore, within the USDA (2019) blueprint, public perception of science is cited as a current interdisciplinary movement in agriculture in need of attention to enhance trust in science while reducing political polarization of scientific discoveries. 

Our objectives also align with initiatives in the broader scientific community, including the National Academy of Sciences (2019) whose 2020-2025 strategic plan prioritizes science communication as one of three major goals. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018) identified a convergent approach is needed to increase the capacity of food and agricultural science to solve complex problems. The breakthrough opportunity is, “a systems approach to understand the nature of interactions among the different elements of the food and agricultural system can be leveraged to increase overall system efficiency, resilience, and sustainability” (para. 5). 

We will contribute to the national priorities discussed above by creating a strategic structure and culture that prepares and enables AFNR science communication faculty to provide science communication research and expertise to team science projects. Our project will provide needed expertise and research to interdisciplinary teams, while also putting a mechanism in place to elevate the communication and engagement practices of all scientists. These efforts will result in an increase in dissemination and impact of scientific progress, thus leading to an increase in science literacy and decision making as well. We are proposing in this multi-state research activity to create a strategic structure and culture that prepares and enables AFNR science communication faculty to provide science communication research and expertise to team science projects. 

Importance of Work 

Science literacy in the United States has been a growing concern in recent years due to the spread of misinformation (Howell & Brossard, 2021) and Americans’ declining trust in higher education (Fingerhut, 2017). This apparent decline in science literacy has made it challenging for members of the public to make informed decisions related to science that can impact personal health, community vitality, and local and national policies (Miller, 2010; Takahashi & Tandoc, 2016). Science communication, which is communication from science experts about science to non-scientists (Bennett & Iyengar, 2008; Pearson, 2001), can help diminish the impact of science misinformation while strengthening trust between the public and scientists at universities. By addressing these issues, the public and key stakeholder groups can then engage in decision-making supported by science and research opposed to being motivated by feelings, skepticism, and misinformation.   

The public has consistently indicated that scientists are their most trusted sources of information when it comes to science (Brewer & Ley, 2012). However, scientists have been accused of not actually understanding the needs of their stakeholders (Besley & Tanner, 2011; Weerts & Sandmann, 2010) and prioritizing research productivity over outreach activities (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004). Even when scientists do engage in communication and outreach, they often converse with other researchers at conferences or highly motivated stakeholders who follow them on Twitter or read their blogs (Heleta, 2017; Ruth et al., 2019). Communicating within these homogenous networks creates echo chambers, which limits the ability to communicate scientific information with diverse audiences (Ruth et al., 2019). 

This limited approach to science communication also reflects the Deficit Model, which relies on one-way communication with the purpose of distributing knowledge to stakeholders. While this approach is rooted in good intentions, its impact is limited compared to two-way communication between scientists and stakeholders. Implementing two-way communication allows mutual knowledge-building and learning, which can increase public trust in science, positively inform science policy, and assist researchers in contributing to meaningful changes in society (Hopfensperger et al., 2021). One of the reasons university faculty members struggle to engage in effective, two-way science communication is simply a lack of proper training, structure, or support in this area (Ruth et al., 2020).  Agricultural, food, and natural resource (AFNR) scientists can partner with science communication scholars to address these issues and develop impactful communication and engagement strategies to promote scientific understanding and acceptance (Ruth et al., 2020). This interdisciplinary team approach to research will be necessary for future advancements in AFRN sciences (NAS, 2018). 

When team science projects in the AFNR sciences include science communication scholars early in the process of developing research proposals and plans, an effective feedback loop to improve the quality and impact of the research can emerge (Hopfensperger et al., 2021). This feedback loop can be effective because not only does science communication help facilitate the adoption and application of research outcomes, but the two-way communication can also allow stakeholders to provide feedback, identify problems, and describe barriers to adoption (Hopfensperger et al., 2021). By engaging in two-way communication throughout the entirety of research programs, team science groups can ensure their work is utilized and increase the overall impact of their findings. Additionally, partnering with science communication scholars can lead to increased public support for science, as well as additional funding opportunities (Hopfensperger et al., 2021). 

There is not a clear framework to help science communication scholars collaborate with other AFNR researchers in a meaningful way (Gunn et al., 2022). Organizations and programs such as the USDA Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education program (2016), provide recommendations and steps to move interdisciplinary teams through an integrated research process, but not distinct guidelines for how science communication can or should be integrated into the research planning and execution process. There is a need to understand the best practices for science communication scholars to offer their expertise to these team science groups and ensure their skillset is being appropriately applied. Developing this framework to engage science communication scholars in team research projects can lead to increased numbers of successfully funded projects, enhanced science communication activities, and improved impacts of team science projects due to increased adoption and acceptance of AFNR science and technology. 

Technical Feasibility of the Research 

Over the last 10 years, AFNR science communicators have been called on to participate in interdisciplinary team science projects, at varying levels of success. However, the consensus among our experiences is that our roles in team science projects are often misunderstood, underutilized, and unable to reach their full potential.  

Our work builds on previous collaborative decision-making models to increase the impact of team science projects in AFNR. These models include the Decision-Making Model for Agricultural and Natural Resources (ANR) Science and Technology (Ruth et al., 2018) and the USDA Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education program (2016). Case studies describe the process and evaluation of various teams that have sought to interweave team science and science communication (Love et al., 2022; Wong-Parodi & Strauss, 2014). We seek to use models and cases to establish a framework for enhancing science communication expertise so such scholars can offer their expertise to team science groups and ensure their skillset is being appropriately applied. 

The Decision-Making Model for Agricultural and Natural Resources (ANR) Science and Technology (Ruth et al., 2018) is one framework that science communication scholars can use to help increase the impact of team science projects in AFNR. This framework was developed based on concepts from the Diffusion of Innovations (Rogers, 2003), Spiral of Silence (Noelle-Neumann, 1974), and the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM; Petty et al., 2009). The model proposes that people’s decision to accept or reject ANR science and technology is largely guided by how they perceive the characteristics of the ANR science and technology (observability, complexity, compatibility, relative advantage, and trialability) and how they perceive the social environment surrounding the science (perceptions of others’ attitudes, perceived future trends in attitudes, and willingness to expose their own attitudes). Personal characteristics, like age, gender, and race/ethnicity, can inform these perceptions, but initial attitudes are not necessarily everlasting. 

Persuasive communication can change attitudes and in turn either acceptance or rejection of science and technology. However, not all persuasive communication is created equal, and people do not have the time to give equal consideration to every piece of communication they see. When communication elicits high levels of elaboration because the receiver is motivated and able to engage in the content, central processing occurs, which leads to lasting changes in attitude that are predictive of behaviors. When people are not motivated or able to thoughtfully consider the communication, they engage in peripheral processing and rely on peripheral cues, like sources and imagery, to inform attitude. These changes in attitude are often not long-lasting nor are they predictive of behavior. This peripheral processing route is also what is most identified in AFNR science communication research. 

Science communication scholars are uniquely qualified to apply this decision-making model to team science research projects. If science communication scholars can identify how stakeholders perceive the science/technology in the research and understand the social environment around discussing the topic, they can more effectively develop and test messages to elicit high levels of elaboration. By understanding which messages will be most effective for specific audiences when communicating about AFNR science and technology, science communication scholars help increase the overall success of the team science projects. Additionally, by engaging key stakeholders throughout the research process and identifying how they perceive innovation characteristics of the science or technology, science communication scholars can work with AFNR scientists to ensure the final product will be more easily adopted by the end user. 

Advantages for doing the Work as a Multistate Effort 

Many complex issues facing AFNR reach across regions, states, and even the nation. When addressing these issues through team science projects, naturally expertise is involved from multiple states. Additionally, our discipline is represented throughout the nation and could widely benefit from a strategy to integrate science communication into team science projects. The need for science communication expertise on team science projects is not specific to one state or location. 

Likely Impacts of Work 

We anticipate that the results of this work will lead to increased numbers of successfully funded projects, enhanced science communication activities, and improved impacts, including increased science literacy, of team science projects due to increased adoption and acceptance of AFNR science and technology.