Duration: 10/01/2024 to 09/30/2029

Administrative Advisor(s):

NIFA Reps:

Non-Technical Summary

This project will contribute to national priorities 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.

Statement of Issues and Justification

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. 

Related, Current and Previous Work

To the best of our knowledge, no work has been done to strategically integrate science communication with team science. There are multi-state projects that focus on agricultural literacy (W3006) or efforts to advance agricultural communication (S1095). In addition, current USDA grant-funded projects in progress focus on developing science communication training for students (2023-70003-38773, 2022-68015-37140, and 2021-77040-34875). While these projects may have similar interests in increasing science or AFNR literacy and awareness, our project differs in approach by focusing on doing so at the beginning stages of interdisciplinary team research and through developing a strategy for our AFNR science communication discipline to intentionally engage, contribute fully, and evaluate the success of our roles in team science.  

A team science approach, when realized to its full potential, “holds great promise for accelerating scientific progress” (McDaniel et al., 2018, p. 533). Team science is defined broadly as, “scientific collaboration, i.e., research conducted by more than one individual in an interdependent fashion,” (National Research Council, 2015, p. 2). Such teams, which differ in membership size, vary in their approach to facilitating collaboration, which may include unidisciplinary, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary research (National Research Council, 2015). Interdisciplinary research is “information, data, techniques, tools, perspectives, concepts, and/or theories from two or more disciplines or bodies of specialized knowledge to advance fundamental understanding or to solve problems whose solutions are beyond the scope of a single discipline or field of research practice” (NAS, 2015, p. 26). This approach requires integration and synthesis of the team members’ individual contributions to address a complex problem. 

Little is known about integrating science communication into team science (Cravens et al., 2022; Halpern & O'Rourke, 2020). In addition, team science itself is understudied, despite science becoming increasingly collaborative (Hall et al., 2018; McDaniel et al., 2018). The field of the Science of Team Sciences (SciTS) has begun to identify and evaluate components of successful team science (Love et al., 2022; Roelofs et al., 2019). One of those components is building the right team for success, rather than selecting the right people (Love et al., 2022). Our project builds on and fills gaps in the SciTS literature to identify how the role of AFNR science communicators contributes to building the right team, as science communication skills and expertise are essential to systematically untangle the complex societal and environmental issues we face (Bammer, 2020; Hall et al., 2018; Love et al., 2022). 

Objectives

1. Research best practices to prepare communication faculty members to work on team science projects and contribute to the body of literature around science communication and specifically the Decision-Making Model for ANR Science and Technology (Ruth et al., 2018).
   
2. Apply the Decision-Making Model for ANR Science and Technology (Ruth et al., 2018) to different contexts involving agricultural, food, and natural resource sciences to expand the success and adoption of scientific advances through effective communication.
   
3. Evaluate the impact of AFNR science communication research on team science projects in the agricultural, food, and natural resources sciences.
   
4. Evaluate the success of AFNR science communication faculty members relative to their involvement in team science projects in agricultural, food, and natural resource sciences.
   

Methods

Faculty on the technical committee will work together to lead the project objectives.  

For objective 1, research best practices to prepare faculty members to work on team science projects and contribute to the body of literature around science communication and specifically the Decision-Making Model for ANR Science and Technology (Ruth et al., 2018), the team will conduct a needs assessment with AFNR Science Communication Faculty and AFNR faculty through both qualitative and quantitative approaches. To complete this work, the team is proposing a quantitative survey of both faculty groups followed by purposive qualitative in-depth interviews of those with team science experiences. For the survey, a census of AFNR Science Communication Faculty will be conducted and a stratified sample of 30 AFNR faculty from each of the 4 regions will be targeted. Semi-structured interviews with each group will be conducted until saturation is reached. The instruments will be developed collaboratively through workdays at our annual disciplinary conference as well as collaborative file sharing and zoom calls as needed. The faculty on the technical committee will form 4 sub-groups, each responsible for conducting the needs assessment with faculty in each of the US regions (southern, western, north central, northeastern). Additionally, the team will bring their results together for a comprehensive and collaborative analysis. This work will be completed in years 2-4.

For objective 2, apply the Decision-Making Model for ANR Science and Technology (Ruth et al., 2018) to different contexts involving agricultural, food, and natural resource sciences in order to expand the success and adoption of scientific advances through effective communication, the technical committee will use and analyze the use of the model on team science projects. The committee will specifically implement the model, through qualitative and quantitative means, to team science projects of which they are a part. Additionally, they will recruit other AFNR science communicators throughout the multi-state region to utilize the model. The recruited researchers will be trained in the model’s use and given guidance on quantitative and qualitative ways to use the model. Data collected with the use of the model throughout the project, will then be compiled into a meta-analysis, which will in part be used in objective 3. This work will be done in years 1-4 and again will take place through workdays at our annual disciplinary conference as well as collaborative file sharing and zoom calls as needed. 

For objective 3, evaluate the impact of AFNR science communication research on team science projects in the agricultural, food, and natural resources sciences, the committee will conduct a summative evaluation of AFNR research conducted during the project period. The summative evaluation will include both qualitative and quantitative approaches. Much like objective 1, the committee will split the work by regions. The team will collaboratively work together to develop the evaluation instruments and procedures at our annual disciplinary conference and zoom calls as needed. Evaluation data points will come from a combination of quantitative and qualitative data from AFNR faculty, AFNR science communication faculty, administrators, grant records, and interdisciplinary research records. This work will be completed in year 5.  

For objective 4, evaluate the success of AFNR communication faculty members as it relates to their involvement in team science projects in agricultural, food, and natural resource sciences, the committee will specifically turn its attention to AFNR science communication faculty members. The summative evaluation will include both qualitative and quantitative approaches and the committee will again collaboratively split the work by regions. The team will quantitively collect data from AFNR communication faculty regarding their academic metrics related to team science projects. Additionally, qualitative in-depth interviews will be conducted to better understand the success the faculty felt during and after their participation in team science projects. This work will be completed in year 5.  

Throughout the project, the committee will disseminate findings as well as mentor and recruit faculty to research activities through regular annual meetings.

Measurement of Progress and Results

Outputs

• Analyzed needs assessments with AFNR science communication faculty and AFNR sciences faculty related to team science projects
• Analyzed survey data from team science participants
• Analyzed qualitative data (interview and focus groups) from team science participants
• Meta analysis of quantitative data collected in year 1-4 of the project
• Development of strategic framework for AFNR science communicators to integrate into team science projects

Outcomes or Projected Impacts

• Increased number of AFNR science communication faculty on team science projects
• Increased number of grants awarded for team science projects involving AFNR science communication faculty
• Increased number of AFNR science faculty engaged in science communication efforts
• Increased science literacy and/or adoption of scientific advances among the public

Milestones

(2025):Needs assessments with AFNR science communication faculty and AFNR sciences faculty related to team science projects

(2026):Needs assessments with AFNR science communication faculty and AFNR sciences faculty related to team science projects, survey data from team science participants, qualitative data (interview and focus groups) from team science participants.

(2027):Needs assessments with AFNR science communication faculty and AFNR sciences faculty related to team science projects, survey data from team science participants, qualitative data (interview and focus groups) from team science participants.

(2028):Needs assessments with AFNR science communication faculty and AFNR sciences faculty related to team science projects, survey data from team science participants, qualitative data (interview and focus groups) from team science participants. Evaluate the success of AFNR communication faculty members as it relates to their involvement in team science projects in agricultural, food, and natural resource sciences. Evaluate impact of AFNR science communication research on team science projects.

(2029):Meta analysis of data collected in year 1-4 of the project; present/share strategic framework for AFNR science communicators to integrate into team science projects with stakeholders.

Projected Participation

View Appendix E: Participation

Outreach Plan

The research generated through this project will be published in peer-reviewed journals such as the Journal of Applied Communication, Journal of Science Communication, Journal of Human Sciences and Extension, and Journal for the Public Understanding of Science. Project members will also present their findings at regional, national, and international conferences including the National Agricultural Communications Symposium, Association for Communication Excellence, Public Understanding of Science and Technology Conference, and the North American Colleges and Teachers of Agriculture (NACTA). NACTA is a national conference that has a range of technical scientists in attendance from disciplines such as plant and soil sciences, animal science, and agricultural economics. The results of the project will also be made available through non-refereed presentations to public audiences through Extension training and workshops, professional development webinars, and other presentations to stakeholder groups. Finally, results will be shared as a series of webinars hosted by the Kansas Science Communication Initiative (KSCI). KSCI hosts monthly webinars with a national audience that includes various faculty, graduate students, communication centers and practitioners.

Organization/Governance

Membership 

The work as described in the project proposal will be conducted by the technical committee as defined in the “Guidelines for Multistate Research Activities”. Each participating institution may have more than one participating member, but only one designated voting member is allowed per institution. 

Management 

Executive Committee: The multistate project will be governed by an executive committee that is elected by the technical committee biannually (every two years) at the in-person meeting. The executive committee leads efforts for broad project participation across relevant and applicable entities. 

The executive committee shall consist of the following officers: 

• Chair – responsible for calling and conducting project meeting; developing required reports; coordinating with appointed Administrative Advisor; and general oversight of project, its works, and its progress toward stated objectives. 


• Vice Chair – responsible for assisting Chair in fulfilling responsibilities; completing Chair responsibilities in absence of Chair; and service as liaison to any appointed committees. 


• Secretary – Responsible for recording minutes of all official project meetings; distributing minutes; receiving technical committee approval of minutes; submitting approved minutes; and conducting correspondence as necessary on behalf of technical committee or project at large. 


• Administrative Advisor – Appointed by the sponsoring regional association, responsible for approval and submission of annual and termination reports; provide oversight to progress toward fulfilling project objectives; serve as liaison between project and NCRA office; and coordinate with NIFA representative to share updates with project participants. 

Additional Committees: The executive committee is authorized to develop and determine membership for additional committees/subcommittees as necessary to fulfill obligations of project. 

Business 

Regular business of the project shall be conducted annually at an in-person meeting with location, date, and time scheduled by the executive committee. Additional business sessions are permissible via distance technology with date and time determined by the executive committee. Business items for annual meeting may include, but are not limited to, coordinating, reporting, and sharing research activities, procedures, and results; analyzing data; producing additional output and reporting documents; addressing future project phases; and electing new executive committee members. 

Literature Cited

Bammer, G. (2020). Should science communication become part of a discipline of integration and implementation sciences (i2S)? Journal of Science Communication, 19(4), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19040304  

Bennett, W. L., & Iyengar, S. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58(4), 707-731. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00410.x 

Besley, J. C., & Tanner, A. H. (2011). What science communication scholars think about training scientists to communicate. Science Communication, 33(2), 239-263. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547010386972 

Brewer, P. R., & Ley, B. L. (2012). Whose science do you believe? Explaining trust in sources of scientific information about the environment. Science Communication, 35(1), 115-137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012441691 

Cravens, A. E., Jones, M. S., Ngai, C., Zarestky, J., & Love, H. B. (2022). Science facilitation: Navigating the intersection of intellectual and interpersonal expertise in scientific collaboration. Nature, 9(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01217-1  

Drinkwater, L. E. (2016). Systems research for agriculture: Innovative solutions to complex challenges. Department of Agriculture Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education. https://www.sare.org/wp-content/uploads/Systems-Research-for-Agriculture.pdf 

Fingerhut, H. (2017, July 20). Republicans skeptical of colleges’ impact on U.S., but most see benefits for workforce preparation. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/20/republicans-skeptical-of-colleges-impact-on-u-s-but-most-see-benefits-for-workforce-preparation/ 

Gunn, C. M., Amerson, A. M., Adkisson, K. L., & Haxel, J. H. (2022). A framework for effective science communication and outreach strategies and dissemination of research findings for marine energy projects. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10020130 

Hall, K. L., Vogel, A. L., Huang, G. C., Serrano, K. J., Rice, E. L., Tsakraklides, S. P., & Fiore, S. M. (2018). The science of team science: A review of the empirical evidence and research gaps on collaboration in science. American Psychologist, 73(4), 1-43. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/amp0000319  

Halpern, M. & O'Rourke, M. (2020). Power in science communication collaborations. Journal of Science Communication, 19(4), 1-1212. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19040302  

Heleta, S. (2017, March 8). Academics can change the world – if they stop talking only to their peers. The Conversation. http://theconversation.com/academics-can-change-the-world-if-they-stop-talking-only-to-their-peers-55713 

Hopfensperger, K. N., Larson, E. I., Washko, S. E., & Moody, E. K. (2021). Elevate your work through incorporation of public engagement. Freshwater Science, 40(1), 221-227. https://doi.org/10.1086/712607 

Howell, E. L., & Brossard, D. (2021). (Mis)informed about what? What it means to be a science-literate citizen in a digital world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(15). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1912436117 

Love, H. B., Fosdick, B. K., Cross, J. E., Suter, M., Egan, D., Tofany, E., & Fisher, E. R. (2022). Towards understanding the characteristics of successful and unsuccessful collaborations: a case-based team science study. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01388-x  

Mcdaniel, S. H., Salas, E., Kazak, A. E., Hall, K. L., Vogel, A. L., Huang, G. C., . . . Fiore, S. M. (2018). The science of team science: A review of the empirical evidence and research gaps on collaboration in science. American Psychologist, 73(4), 532-548. doi:10.1037/AMP0000319 

Miller, J. D. (2010). Adult science learning in the internet era. Curator: The Museum Journal, 53(2), 191-208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2010.00019.x 

National Research Council. (2015). Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. National Academies Press. 

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11153.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018, July 18). New report identifies five breakthroughs to address urgent challenges and advance food and agricultural sciences by 2030. https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2018/07/new-report-identifies-five-breakthroughs-to-address-urgent-challenges-and-advance-food-and-agricultural-sciences-by-2030 

National Academy of Sciences. (2019). Strategic plan for the National Academy of Sciences: 2020-2025. https://www.nasonline.org/about-nas/nas-strategic-plan/2025-strategic-plan.pdf 

Pearson, G. (2001). Participation of scientists in public understanding of science activities: The policy and practice of the U.K. Research Councils. Public Understanding of Science, 10(1), 121-137. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3109/a036860 

Roelofs, S., Edwards, N., Viehbeck, S., & Anderson, C. (2019). Formative, embedded evaluation to strengthen interdisciplinary team science: Results of a 4-year, mixed methods, multi-country case study. Research Evaluation, 28(1), 37-50. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvy023  

Ruth, T. K., Rumble, J. N., Galindo, S., Lundy, L. K., Carter, H. S., & Folta, K. M. (2019). Can anyone hear us? An exploration of echo chambers at a land-grant university. Journal of Applied Communications, 103(2). https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.2242 

Ruth, T. K., Rumble, J. N., Lamm, A. J., & Ellis, J. D. (2018). A model for understanding decision making related to agriculture and natural resource science and technology. Journal of Agricultural Education, 59(4), 224-237. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2018.04224 

Ruth, T. K., Rumble. J. N., Lundy, L. K., Galindo-Gonzalez, S., Carter, H. S., & Folta, K. M. (2020). Motivational influences on Land-Grant faculty engagement in science communication. Journal of Agricultural Education, 61(2), 77-92. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.02077 

Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state and higher education. Johns Hopkins University Press. 

Takahashi, B., & Tandoc, E. C. (2015). Media sources, credibility, and perceptions of science: Learning about how people learn about science. Public Understanding of Science, 25(6), 674-690. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515574986 

United States Department of Agriculture. (2019). USDA science blueprint: A roadmap for USDA science from 2020 to 2025. https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/usda-science-blueprint.pdf  

Weerts, D. J., & Sandmann, L. R. (2010). Community engagement and boundary-spanning roles at research universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 81(6), 632-657. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40929570  

Wong-Parodi, G., & Strauss, B. H. (2014). Team science for science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(4), 13658-13663. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320021111  

Attachments

Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

GA, IA, IN, KS, MS, OH, TN, VA

Non Land Grant Participating States/Institutions