Duration: 10/01/2007 to 09/30/2012

Administrative Advisor(s):

NIFA Reps:

Non-Technical Summary

Statement of Issues and Justification

Biosecurity is a growing concern in the Midwest and the entire United States. Introduced pathogens, contaminants, and disease threaten the security of the U.S. food production and processing system. Federal officials have continued to warn about the strike of terrorists, and one of the vulnerable areas for this strike is in food production (Boone, 2003). In response to these concerns, government, academia, and industry have developed security measures, rapid detection methods, containment strategies and remediation plans. The collective success of these efforts will depend on the effectiveness of institutional communications and the ability to reach key audiences with timely risk and crisis messages. Strategic communication efforts can help manage and reduce risk by providing such information in a timely, accessible, and easily comprehensible manner.

During crisis events, the public looks toward government and expert sources for official information about possible risks and recommended protective measures, but often these institutions are hampered by myths about communications that make them unable or unwilling to communicate (Chess et al, 1988). This lack of communications can produce serious effects, leading to greater potential for hazard. Further, crises occur and, in addition to producing stress, can provide opportunities for organizational growth and change (Seeger, Sellnow & Ulmer, 2003).

Mass media can be a conduit for this information if media sources trust our institutions. Land-grants provide objective, research-based information to media and have traditionally been relied upon as information sources, especially for local media. While land-grant universities through Extension services are natural outlets for risk information, national media do not consistently turn to land-grants for information regarding biosecurity in the food system.

Trust is a key factor for institutions that desire to be viewed as reliable and credible information sources, especially for risk subjects (Covello, 1992; Boyd, 2003; Trumbo & McComas, 2003). An example of the need for institutional trust is exhibited in a case study from Great Britain. The Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy incident in Great Britain and the government's failure to provide timely, accurate information about it subsequently and significantly affected the British public's reception of information regarding Foot and Mouth Disease. Distrust of government information sources is due partly to the confusing and sometimes contradictory information about biohazards as well as delayed responses. Because of this distrust, the potential for harm from a biohazard can increase if audiences are not receptive to messages from land-grant institutions.

Public receptivity to risk messages is also influenced by message design and delivery. Messages need to be audience accessible, appropriate in language and complexity, and relevant to the apparent and underlying concerns of the public. Additional concerns include timing of the message, means of delivery, and perceived credibility and compassion of the spokesperson and the institution. Research into the unintended consequences of health and safety messages has shown that audiences may resist or reject safety behaviors they previously employed if the message development and delivery are inappropriate or the spokesperson lacks credibility. Inadequate or inappropriate messages can also create undue alarm and add to public outrage or inappropriately lower public concern. While a large body of communication literature addresses message design and delivery for a wide range of issues, relatively little is focused on biosecurity risks and virtually none addresses the particular challenges and constraints faced by land-grant universities.


In addition to credibility and expertise, land-grant universities must have administrative tools and protocols that enable them to communicate effectively about crisis events. In the aftermath of a crisis, it is critical to communicate with news media quickly and frequently. Land-grants need crisis communication plans in place with previously identified spokespersons and mechanisms for reaching media (Cartmell, Dyer, Birkenholz, & Sitton, 2003; Melgares, Rutherford, & Alexander, 2003). However, a recent study of 1862 and 1890 land-grant universities revealed that only about 60 percent of these universities had a central crisis communication plan, and nearly a third of the respondents were unaware of a plan at their university. Most extant plans were at the university level, not affiliated with Extension or Experiment stations (Whiting, Tucker, & Whaley, 2004).

A set of "best communications practices" has been developed by the National Center for Food Protection and Defense, which also has been working to develop scenarios to test the communications practices (Sellnow, Seeger, Ulmer, Venette, & Boone, 2005). However, additional work is needed to develop recommended practices to guide land-grant universities in communicating risk and safety messages about biosecurity and related concerns. A major goal of the NCERA proposed here is to determine the institutional communications practices that should be regularly used for biosecurity and related crisis events. This NCERA will help clarify the research agenda in this area and provide research findings to communications professionals in targeting risk and crisis messages to various key audiences.

Note: In this proposal, the term "land-grant universities" is used to capture AES and CES activities.

CRIS search

To our knowledge, few communications studies or projects that address both the accidental and intentional introduction of pathogens or contaminants into the U.S. food production and processing system. A project by Logue et al. in the CRIS database used a case study methodology to identify recommended industry communication practices for food safety issues. This work is focused exclusively on the introduction of salmonella in poultry production and processing. One of the authors proposing this NCERA also has a CRIS project related to this area (Boone). In addition Hallman's project (Food Policy Institute, Rutgers) addresses risk perception, media coverage and lay theories.

Objectives

Procedures and Activities

• Identification of coordinating council, comprising leaders for various outcomes (see organization/governance).
  
• Development of research agendas informed by practical land-grant communications problems. Data will be collected from communications professionals at land-grant universities to determine the biosecurity communications issues on which they need more information. Communications researchers will review these data and determine which issues can be addressed through a "Best Communications Practices" white paper and which require further research. The researchable topics will be presented in a research agenda. The research agenda for this area will be presented at the Association for Communications Excellence annual meeting and at the National Communications Association annual meeting and presented in a white paper.
  
• Development and dissemination of "best communications practices" informed by research findings. A white paper will disseminate this work.
  
• Development of materials for and implementation of training for scientists and administrators in land-grant universities to interact effectively with media and concerned publics. Existing training materials will be coupled with newly created ones where the need exists and participants will host training sessions at their home institutions. This initiative will leverage training materials in development for a Spring 2008 program targeted at scientists and administrators.
  
• Sponsorship of seminars with media regarding biosecurity and crisis communications (seek endorsement from Poynter or Press Association). Presentations will be made at state press association meetings.
  
• Creation of model biosecurity communication plans for land grant universities based on the research. Model plans will include institutional response recommendations, communication products and information channels for stakeholders and a guide to best practices. A model plan developed for a Summer 2006 workshop in crisis communications (created by the authors and funded by USDA) will be used as a basis for this model.
  
• Facilitation of networking and interaction among land-grant communicators and researchers. An annual meeting and e-newsletter will facilitate this interaction.

Milestones

Year 1: Establish coordinating council and meet bi-monthly. Formalize networking and researcher/communicator communications by establishing annual meeting schedule, launching e-newsletter, and holding annual meeting. Determine data collection procedures and develop instrumentation.

Year 2: Collect data. Present "Best Communciations Practices" and Research Agenda.

Year 3: Publish white papers for "Best Communications Practices" and Research Agenda.

Year 4: Produce and present model biosecurity communications plan. Produce training materials targeted at administrators and scientists.

Year 5: Present seminars for media covering biosecurity. Host trainings for administrators and scientists at home institutions of participants.

Expected Outcomes and Impacts

Projected Participation

View Appendix E: Participation

Educational Plan

Several of the members of this group are also members of the Association for Communications Excellence and will be able to have less formal meetings during the ACE annual meeting. ACE does not, however, draw every member to its meeting. This project will connect these groups in new ways. ACE will serve an excellent educational venue, as will the organization's newsletter and journal. The group also will provide the e-newsletter to others who are interested, including NASULGC members.

Organization/Governance

There will be two officers for the group. A secretary and chair will be elected every two years at the annual meeting. The secretary records and distributes minutes of the annual meeting and then becomes chair of the committee for the following two years. The chair directs the activities of the committee, serves as the liaison between the committee and the administrative advisor, and makes arrangements for the next annual meeting. Leaders will be identified by the chair to work with the e-newsletter, assessment of communications practices, research agenda development, training curricula, model communications plan development, and presentations at association meetings. These leaders, along with the chair and the secretary, will form a coordinating council and meet bi-monthly by teleconference or other distance technology facilitated by the chair's home institution. Specific individuals will be recruited for the group, including those associated with the National Center for Food Protection and Defense as well as land-grant communicators and communications researchers.

Literature Cited

Boone, K. (2003). Moderator of panel discussion: Breadbasket of Fear: Communication about food, farm and agricultural risk. Presented at the Association of Education in Journalism and Mass Communications Annual Meeting, Kansas City, Kan. July 2003.

Boyd, J. (2003). The Rhetorical Construction of Trust Online. Communication Theory. 13:392-410

Cartmell, D.D., Dyer, J.E., Birkerholz, R.J., & Sitton, S.P. (2003). Publishing agricultural news: A study of Arkansas daily newspaper editors. Journal of Applied Communications, 87, 4.

Chess C, Hance BJ, Sandman PM 1988. Improving Dialogue with Communities: A Short Guide to Government Risk Communication. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.

Covello V. 1992. Risk communication, trust, and credibility. Health and Environmental Digest 6(1):1-4 (April).

Melgares, P., Rutherford, T., & Alexander, L. (2003). How Newspapers in Kansas Are Using News Releases from K-State Research and Extension. Journal of Applied Communications. 87, 3.

Seeger, M.W., Sellnow, T.L., & Ulmer, R.R. (2003). Communication and organizational crisis. Greenwood Publishing Group: Westport, CT.

Sellnow, T., Seeger, M., Ulmer, R., Venette, S., & Boone, K. (2005). Best communications practices in biosecurity risk and crisis situations. Presented at the Association of Communications Excellence annual meeting, San Antonio, Texas, June 2005.

Trumbo, C.W. & McComas, K.A, (2003). The Function of Credibility in Information Processing for Risk Perception. Risk Analysis, 23, 2, 342-353.
Whiting, L.R., Tucker, M., & Whaley, S. (2004). Level of preparedness for managing crisis communication on land-grant campuses. Journal of Applied Communications, 88, 3.

Attachments

Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

AL, IA, IN, KS, LA, MI, NC, ND, NE, NJ, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, TX

Non Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

Kansas State University, NIFA