Trends In Agricultural Communication Research - Handout
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Trends In Agricultural Communication Research - Handout

on

  • 7,174 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
7,174
Views on SlideShare
7,174
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
90
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Trends In Agricultural Communication Research - Handout Document Transcript

  • 1. Trends in Agricultural Communication Research: 2000-2008 Research Presentation Eric A. Abbott, Professor Greenlee School of Journalism and Communication Iowa State University eabbott@iastate.edu Jennifer Scharpe Graduate Research Assistant Greenlee School of Journalism and Communication Iowa State University jenn_scharpe@hotmail.com James F. Evans Professor Emeritus, Agricultural Communications, University of Illinois Staff Associate, Agricultural Communications Documentation Center evansj@illinois.edu Sheng Ly Systems Analyst Greenlee School of Journalism and Communication Iowa State University machli@iastate.edu Presented Tuesday, June 9, 2009, to the joint international ACE/NETC meeting, Des Moines, Iowa 1
  • 2. Introduction Doerfert, Evans, Cartmell, & Irani (2007) reported on efforts to develop an International Framework and Agenda for Agricultural Communications Research in the next 5 years. Their article was based upon work done by teams collaboratively supported by the National Research Council, the American Association of Agricultural Education, and the USDA to identify priority areas for research under the umbrella theme of “knowledge management.” The third priority area identified was “Build Competitive Societal Knowledge and Intellectual Capabilities.” Under that general priority, there were two specific research questions that the current study was designed to address: 1. How can we gather and make available the widely scattered literature about agricultural communication? 2. How do we use communication networks, linkages, and approaches more effectively in agricultural knowledge management? The purpose of the present study is to examine broadly the types of agricultural communication research being done during the period 2000 to 2008. While three previous studies have examined patterns of research published in the Journal of Applied Communications, this study included a much broader collection of 391 agricultural communication research articles, books and theses/dissertations – four times as many articles as any of the previous three studies. Zumalt (2007) and Doerfert et al. (2007) both recognized the widely scattered nature of research literature in the agricultural communications field. One of the major accomplishments of the Agricultural Communications Documentation Center at the University of Illinois has been to amass more than 30,000 documents of various types concerning agricultural communication. The current study builds upon that database, but with a focus specifically on research. A second purpose matches the second research question: how to assist researchers in identifying those working in similar areas, and facilitating linkages among them for future research. By providing information about topics, authors, and their university/institutional affiliations, the present study is designed to facilitate future collaborative research and avoid duplication of research already carried out. Specifically, the research database created as a part of this study examines studies across a number of dimensions: • Agricultural topics being studied (the term agriculture is defined very broadly) • Communication medium or technology being studied • Research methodology used in the study • First author’s university or institutional affiliation • University or institutional affiliations of all authors • A listing of all authors included in the database The searchable database upon which the study is based is available to all interested agricultural communication scholars at: https://secure.jlmc.iastate.edu/app/agresearch 2
  • 3. Literature Review and Methodological Approach Several past studies have examined agricultural communication research, but the current study is unique in several respects. Williams and Woods (2002) studied agricultural research published in the Journal of Applied Communications between 1992 and 2001. This study was replicated by Miller, Stewart & West (2006) who studied a total of 56 articles by 119 total authors published in the Journal of Applied Communications between 2000 and 2004. A third study by Edgar, Rutherford and Briers (2008) examined 91 articles by 222 total authors in the Journal of Applied Communications from 1997 to 2006. A strength of all three of these studies is that they focused exclusively on published research, and they identified themes across time. However, Zumalt (2007), in his review of 30,000 documents in the Agricultural Communication Documentation Center University of Illinois database, noted that agricultural communication publications including research are published in a wide variety of journals and venues. More than half of the core periodicals in the ACDC are from outside the traditional agriculture and life science literature. Thus, although Edgar, Rutherford and Briers (2008) established that the Journal of Applied Communications is known as an important journal for agricultural communication research, they also noted that it is far from being exhaustive. In fact, in the current study, only 53 of 613 distinct authors were identified as members of the Association for Communication Excellence (ACE), which publishes this journal. For this reason, the current study included agricultural communication research listed in three databases (Communication Abstracts, Dissertation Abstracts, and the Agricultural Communication Documentation Center at the University of Illinois). In addition to broadening the scope of research that is included, the current study also used a more sophisticated coding scheme. Williams & Woods (2002) developed coding categories for research themes that were utilized and amplified by Miller, Stewart & West (2006). Edgar, Rutherford and Briers (2008) began with the research themes provided by the previous studies, and then invited agricultural communication scholars to add to the list. They also coded for both “primary” and “secondary” themes, which allowed them to identify themes that were present even though they were not primary. Although most of the themes identified in all three studies focused on communication aspects such as “radio” or “information technology,” at least some such as “biotechnology communication” and “food, agriculture, natural resources, health and family” seemed to focus more on agricultural themes rather than communication themes. The current study coded the articles according to three categories: (1) Agricultural topic (environment, agriculture, rural, biotechnology, etc..); (2) Communication medium or area (general communication, newspapers, public relations, Internet, information technology, etc.); (3) Research methodology (survey, content analysis, case study, focus group, historical analysis, general logical analysis, etc.). Every article had at least one coded agricultural topical category, and most also identified a communication medium or area in the title and abstract. However, only about a third indicated a research method in the title and abstract. Edgar, Rutherford and Briers (2008) also coded for research methodology, providing a possible comparison with the current study. 3
  • 4. Third, the current study makes it possible to examine research production by university, or even by individual scholars. Miller, Stewart & West (2006) also identified authors, and used them to indicate who were the “leaders” in the field. However, because there were only 56 articles, their analysis of authors was limited to six individuals who had published more than one article in a thematic area. One additional thing they did, which the current study could not do because of the volume of articles, was to examine the citations used in each of the 56 articles. These were also utilized to indicate who was being cited by thematic area. However, one limitation of this approach (recognized by the authors) was that many authors cited themselves frequently, so that the total number of citations did not necessarily represent independent recognition by others. Edgar, Rutherford and Briers (2008) also coded for authors without respect to whether they were first, second or third authors. This allowed them to identify publication frequency by author. Their study identified 12 authors who had published three or more articles during the period. Since some of the 12 authors often co-authored or even tri-authored articles, their approach did not make it possible to compare authors by home institutions since counting every author would double or triple-count the institution. In the current study, when articles were entered into the database the first author of each piece of research was identified by university/institution. This made it possible to count the productivity of each university/institution without double counting. It also made it possible to examine the actual research focus of the articles from each institution. In addition to coding the first author, the university/institutional affiliation of every author was also coded. This made it possible to list the total number of researchers from every university/institution who were publishing in the area of agricultural communication research. With this information, for example, one can list, by name, all of the individuals at one’s institution who have published articles in this area, either to see the range of individuals or determine who is most productive. Finally, a listing was made in alphabetical order of each individual in the database, along with his/her affiliation (and department or unit if possible). Overall, the goal was to identify the cadre of individuals who are working in this area, and make it possible to map this by topical area, institution or academic area. Benefits of knowing who is doing what research at other institutions are many. Evans & Prabha (1983) found in a national survey of agricultural communication scholars that there was a demonstrated need for access to the literature. More recently, despite the creation of the Agricultural Communication Documentation Center, Doerfert (2003) criticized previous researchers for unnecessary duplication of research, and urged researchers to become more aware of common research interests, and to be more collaborative in tackling them. Tucker (2004) has encouraged an examination of research as a means of determining both what has been done, as well as what has not been done. One other obvious use of the database of agricultural communication researchers created for the current study would be for those who wish to solicit more memberships in ACE and its research special interest group. 4
  • 5. Article Selection Method Finding relevant agricultural communication research articles is a challenge, since as Prabha and Evans (1979) and Zumalt (2007) have noted, the research is very scattered and there is no one abstracting service that tracks all of them. Exclusively agricultural abstracting services such as AGRICOLA and CAB Abstracts have few articles about agricultural communication research. It was also found that the top 10 periodicals included only 28% of all agricultural communication articles identified (Prabha & Evans, 1982). In addition, more than half of the core periodicals in the Agricultural Communication Documentation Center come from outside the traditional agriculture and life science literature. Zumalt (2007) reported that although Communication Abstracts is a respected and accessible source for communication research, he found that a relatively small proportion of all agricultural communication research articles are included. Between 1978 and 2006, he found only 110 articles matching the search term “agriculture.” Much depends on the journals covered, the ways titles/abstracts/key terms are written, and the system by which librarians determine what to include. Relevant books, for example, may or may not be included. Thus, Communication Abstracts was seen as a starting point for the current study. Research articles containing any of the following terms, including multiple versions (agriculture, agricultural, etc.) were selected: agriculture, animal, biotechnology, crop, environment, extension, farm, fish, food, horse, horticulture, livestock, meat, plant, poultry, rural, science and/or risk, telecommunication). Articles could include the terms in a title, keyword, or searchable abstract. Articles that were exclusively devoted to international topics were deleted, although those that included some US data, and those that did not indicate clearly that they were exclusively international, were retained. A total of 90 articles were identified that matched the search criteria. Next, a search of the Agricultural Communication Documentation Center database was conducted. For this search, a list of relevant journals was constructed from the ACDC database, along with a search for books with relevant titles/abstracts. To be selected, an article or book had to be about research, and had to include an agricultural and communication term. Journals searched via ACDC included; Journal of Applied Communications, Journal of Extension, Development Communication Report, Agriculture and Human Values, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, Journal of Communication, Journal of Agricultural Education, AgBioForum, Journal of Environmental Education, and Public Opinion Quarterly. The search process located a number of duplicates from the Communication Abstracts search, and these were deleted. Since only articles that included terms indicating that they were about agriculture or an agriculturally related topic were included, not all articles from these journals were used. For example, only 60 of the articles from the Journal of Applied Communications were included in the database. Book reviews, editorials, and some international articles were not included. A total of 203 additional studies were added using the ACDC database. The third addition to the database came from adding all theses and dissertations from Dissertation Abstracts that included both at least one communication term and one agricultural term. Communication terms included: advertising, communication, education, 5
  • 6. information technology, internet, interpersonal, magazine, mass communication, newspaper, public relations, radio, reporting, television/film, and visual communication. A total of 79 dissertations and 19 theses were added. This resulted in a total of 391 separate studies of agricultural communication in the database. Results Some highlights from the database of 391 articles are presented here. However, researchers are invited to access the database and conduct their own tailored searches for particular topics, authors or institutions. The database is meant as a productive tool for agricultural communication researchers, and can be used for many different purposes. Table 1 compares research themes from the current study with the three previous studies that used the Journal of Applied Communications as the base. While the first three studies are roughly comparable, the current study divided themes into agricultural and communication units instead of one overall thematic classification. One finding, perhaps not surprising, is that biotechnology research has been increasing. It was absent from the themes in the 1992-2001 study, constituted 5.4% of the 56 studies from 2000-2004, and 6.6% of the 91studies from 1997-2006. In the current study, which used a database of 391 articles, biotechnology was a theme in 14.6% of published research. The difference may be due solely to the rising visibility of this area of research, but it also could be due to the fact that other journals such as AgBioforum are placing much more emphasis on communication research in this area. The fact that the previous studies coded articles mainly for their communication aspect rather than their agricultural aspect could also be a confounding factor. A second area of interest is science and risk communication. Miller, Stewart & West (2006) in their analysis of 2000-2004 JAC articles noted that “research on crisis and risk communications seems to be a common topic of discussion among practitioners and researchers in agricultural communication, but none of the articles published had these as the primary theme.” Edgar, Rutherford & Briers (2008) found two of 91 articles focused on risk/crisis communication. The current study found 11.3% of the 391 articles in the wider database focused on “science and risk communication” issues. This provides some evidence for concluding that this issue has in fact been covered more widely by journals other than JAC. It was the fifth-ranked agricultural thematic topic in the current study. In the area of communication themes, one of the dominant themes in the previous three studies was information technology (or information sources and technology), which occupied either first or second place in the rankings. In the current study, information technology as a category ranked sixth. Taken as a whole, the JAC research tended to focus on topics of greater interest to information processors and deliverers (writing, publications, distance education, professional development, etc.), while the current study tended to focus on more traditional media categories such as newspapers, Internet, Advertising, public relations, etc. 6
  • 7. The Edgar, Rutherford & Briers (2008) study also examined research methods employed in JAC studies from 1997-2006. Table 2 shows the comparison between their results and the current study. It should be noted that while Edgar, Rutherford and Briers examined each entire article, the current study only searched title, abstract and key words. Only 106 of the 391 studies indicated the method used in title, abstract or keywords. This is a deficiency of the current study. Results show both studies rank “survey” as the most popular research methodology, with almost half of the JAC articles employing this method and slightly less than one-quarter of the more general database. Content analysis was also highly rated in both studies, taking second place (15.4%) in the JAC study, and third place with 19.8% in the current study. One area of difference was historical studies, which ranked sixth in the JAC study (4.4%) but second with 20.8% in the current study. Case studies were more frequent in the JAC study (9.9%) compared to 2.8% for the current study. In general, it appears that the larger database of studies used a more diverse group of research methods, while three-fourths of the JAC studies used either survey, content analysis or case study methods. The current study examined the 391 articles, books, and theses/dissertations by institution. A total of 132 separate university or institutional affiliations were found for the first authors of 358 of the articles. No university or institutional affiliation was available for the remaining 33, and they were excluded from the results. Table 3 shows the top 25. The complete list is shown in Appendix 1 (in both alphabetical order as well as by numeric frequency). Land grant universities dominate. These top 25, all of which are universities, contributed 205 of the 358 articles for which an author’s affiliation was given, or 57.3% of the total. It is clear from these results that land grant universities play a key role in agricultural communication research. Thus, the investment in research at these land grant universities will be a key determinant of future agricultural communication research. However, it is also clear that agricultural communication research is being undertaken by a wide variety of universities and institutions. There are 13 universities that have published 3 articles, another 22 universities (plus the USDA/Washington DC) that have published 2, and 74 more universities, businesses or institutions that have published one. One important implication here for agricultural communicators is that – given the wide dispersion of authors – professional organizations and database providers can play a role in helping bring them together for research purposes. The next step in the analysis was to identify all authors of all the articles. This would permit an examination of how many distinct researchers at each institution have published articles during the 2000-2008 period and how productive they have been. For example, if an article was written by three individuals, two from Auburn University and one from the University of Florida, each of the three would be credited with having published an article in this version of the database. A total of 613 distinct authors were found for the 391 articles, books, and theses/dissertations. Of these, no university or institutional affiliation could be found for 74, leaving 539 that could be included in the database. It should be noted that in order to ascertain the institutional affiliation, often the original article or work had to be located since it was not listed on the abstracting services. Even then, in a number of cases, the journal itself did not include this information. Even without the missing 74 cases, the 539 offer a means of examining the total number of 7
  • 8. individuals who are involved in agricultural communication research and their locations. A total of 53 of the 539 authors, or about 10%, were found to be ACE members. Table 4 shows the top 25 universities in terms of the number of distinct researchers doing agricultural communication research. Universities at the top of the list might have exceptionally strong agricultural communication research units, or they might have a broader range of different units that contribute collaboratively or separately to the total. Results from the table show that the top 25 universities were responsible for 298 of the 539 articles, or 55.3%. Many of the same universities repeated in the list. Iowa State University ranked first, with 32 separate individuals having authored at least one article during the period. This is due in part to a breadth of interest in communication issues by Extension, Agricultural Education, and Journalism programs. It is also due in part to the fact that multiple authors were often involved in publications from Iowa State, suggesting a collaborate approach. The University of Illinois also ranked higher in Table 4 than in Table 3. The bottom line is that Table 3 shows the overall productivity by institution, while Table 4 shows the number of distinct individuals interested in and participating in the research. Although there clearly is a concentration of researchers at the top 25 universities, most of which are land grant, it is also clear that agricultural communication research is being broadly undertaken by a tremendous variety of universities and institutions. Edgar, Rutherford & Briers (2008) expressed concern about relatively few agricultural communicators trying to do research in numerous research priority areas. The current study suggests that there are a large number of individuals who have done at least some research in this area. Given the large number of different institutions, attention to how to network, collaborate and coordinate activities would seem to be in order. A complete list of all universities/institutions is provided alphabetically and in numerical order in Appendix 2. A separate analysis of the 98 theses/dissertations was also conducted. Table 5 shows the 19 universities that produced at least 2 theses/dissertations matching the search criteria during the 2000-2008 period. The full list of all 52 universities is provided in the appendix. One observation is that academic research in agricultural communication is spread across a very large number of universities. A second observation is that the top 19 accounted for two-thirds of the total. The University of Wisconsin led with 7, followed by Oklahoma State University and Texas A&M University. Table 6 presents the 27 authors who published 3 or more articles contained in the database. One author published 9; one published 7; two published 6; three published 5; four published four; and 16 published 3 articles. Another 49 published 2 articles. The rest, 557 of all 633 total authors, published only one article. These results indicate both the large number of authors publishing, as well as the very small number who are publishing in any quantity in the specific areas included in this database. The field, as Zumalt (2007) noted, is truly scattered. A listing of all authors in alphabetical order with home institutions and departments (if known) is provided in Appendix 3. 8
  • 9. Conclusions The conclusions here represent only a starting point for the database. The authors invite all agricultural communication researchers to utilize the database and assist in generating insights. • By any measure, the literature of agricultural communication is widely scattered, as observed by Doerfert et al. (2007) and Zumalt (2007). The database for this study found 613 unique authors, 557 of whom have published only one article over the past 8 years. And this database is only a beginning. Jim Evans reports that while 11 ACDC journals that explicitly publish agricultural communication topics were used to build this database, since 2000 the Center has added research articles about agricultural communications from more than 100 journals. The median number of articles in each of these journals relating to agricultural communications was 4. Building this database demonstrates the contribution that the ACDC has made to collecting and making available the literature in this field. Databases such as Communication Abstracts, Agricola, and CABabstracts are missing most of the relevant literature. • Although widely scattered, it is not true as some have suggested that little agricultural communications research is going on. The 391 articles/books/dissertations collected in the current database from 2000 to 2008 represents only a portion of the total, yet it certainly demonstrates a large amount of research activity in this area. Zumalt (2007) reported that the total volume of agricultural communications articles of all types is estimated to be growing at a rate of 14% per year. • The problem, and thus opportunity, is how to help network the diverse group of researchers from 132 universities/institutions who are active researchers in agricultural communications. Networking can be useful for three majors tasks, all of which are important components of the International Framework and Agenda for Agricultural Communications Research. The three are: (1) Literature Review Development. As new issues emerge such as information technologies and biotechnology communication, quick and complete access to published research is vital to focusing scarce research dollars and efforts on priority communication questions. The ACDC has provided a crucial repository for this literature. Perhaps even more efforts to make materials accessible electronically from the database could make its materials even more accessible in the future. (2) Collaborative Research. The current database makes it possible to identify both the individual researchers and the institutions where a specific type of research is being undertaken. This should facilitate the development of multi-institutional multi- disciplinary proposals for research that not only are more rigorous, but also stand a better chance of being funded. (3) Conceptual Development of the Field. Conceptual development can result from an individual study, but more often it is the result of examining patterns of studies over time, and also from considering the many different ideas put forward in published work on a topic. It often is the heterogeneous ideas that come from outside one’s usual university or professional organization that stimulate new ways of thinking. How to facilitate this type of thinking should be an important priority made easier by identifying others from 9
  • 10. around the country or world who are working on a topic. While the ACDC provides a base, much more effort is needed to mine the database and make conceptual sense of what it means for the field. The current database was designed to provide one more small step in this direction. • The previous studies of the published contents of the Journal of Applied Communications made an important contribution to our understanding of how members of one professional association have focused their research efforts. However, given that ACE members constituted only about 10% of those doing agricultural communication research in the current study, and the fact that ACE members tend to come from certain types of universities with particular interests, it is not surprising that published research from this one journal would not represent the overall stream of research in this field. If one wishes only to summarize efforts of a certain professional group or area, a study of a journal such as JAC would be appropriate. However, if we wish to engage the larger field, future studies should be even more comprehensive than the database constructed for this study. • Faculty or university productivity levels have become a topic of increasing concern over the past decade. The current database provides basic information about which universities are publishing the most articles in the area of agricultural communications, and which authors are publishing the most articles. However, a question remains about what constitutes a significant level of scholarship. Fortunately, scholars in other fields have become interested in this issue as well. For example, a recent leading study in the field of advertising considered publication in the top three journals of the field over a period of about 10 years. Only a small number of authors published three or more articles in the three top journals during this time period, a result very similar to the current study. Before drawing conclusions about what an appropriate number of articles might be, more research and comparison with other fields is needed. • The current database makes it very clear that land grant universities continue to play a key role in agricultural communications research. For this reason, funding for research on agricultural communications will continue to have a great impact on the field, even though there are a wide variety of other researchers and institutions that are involved. Thus, attention to maintaining or increasing funding for research in areas critical to the field deserves systematic attention. From the 1970s through the early 1990s, there was a North Central Regional Communications Committee (NCR-90), that met each year to discuss completed research and to jointly plan research for the coming years. Many ACE members, non-ACE members, and also a number of institutions outside the North Central Region, were members of the committee. This function continues to be needed. While the ACE Research special interest group provides a focus for discussion within ACE, a group with a broader mandate that could interact regularly would also be useful. • The current database offers some specific opportunities for ACE to build up its membership and activities in the area of research. The database identifies by name and institution those who have been active over the past 8 years. These certainly 10
  • 11. are people who might join ACE, or might participate in research activities in some way in the future. 11
  • 12. References Doerfert, David L.; Evans, James; Cartmell, Dwayne; & Irani, Traci. (2007). Developing an international framework and agenda for agricultural communications research. Journal of Applied Communications 91: (3&4), 7-21. Doerfert, David L. (2003). Skate to where others are heading. Journal of Applied Communications 87(4), 39-41. Edgar, Leslie D.; Rutherford, Tracy; Briers, Gary E. (2008, February 2). Research themes, authors and methodologies in the Journal of Applied Communications: a ten-year look. Paper presented at the Agricultural Communications Section, SAAS Annual Meeting. Dallas. (Available at http://agnews.tamu.edu/saas/saasproceedings.html.) Evans, James F. and Prabha, Chandra G. (1983). User Interest in the Literature of Agricultural Communications: A National Survey. Mimeographed report, Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, University of Illinois, Urbana. Miller, Jefferson D.; Stewart, Dana M. & West, Lindsay M. (2006). Themes, authors, and citations in the Journal of Applied Communications, 2000-2004. Paper presented to the 2006 SAAS Agricultural Communication Section Meeting. (Also posted at http://agnews.tamu.edu/saas/2006/jacreview.pdf). Prabha, Chandra and Evans, James F. (1982). “The Literature of Ag Communication: A Partial View, 1970-1979.” Agricultural Communicators in Education Quarterly 65(4): 15-31. Tucker, Mark. (2004). Reply to Doerfert: A call to “skate” with caution. Journal of Applied Communications 88(4), 55-57. Williams, R.A. & Woods, M.D. (2002, August). A synthesis of agricultural communication research published in the Journal of Applied Communications from 1992- 2001. Paper presented to Research Special Interest Group, Agricultural Communicators in Education International Conference, Savannah, GA. Zumalt, Joseph R. (2007) Identifying the core periodical literature of the Agricultural Communications Documentation Center. Journal of Agricultural and Food Information 8(3): 43-63. (Also posted at http://www.ideals.uiuc.edu/handle/2142/3495). 12
  • 13. Table 1: Comparison of Agricultural Communication Research Themes JAC articles 1992-2001 JAC articles 2000-2004 JAC articles 1997-2006 Current Study: Communication Abstracts, ACDC Illinois Williams and Woods Miller, Stewart & West Edgar, Rutherford & Briers Database, and Dissertation Abstracts, 2000-2008 Research Themes Research Themes Primary Research Themes Ag Topical Themes Media Area Themes Theme % Theme % Theme % Theme % Theme % Information Tech 14.9 Comm 19.6 Info Sources & 18.7 Biotechnology 14.6 Communication 30.7 Management Technology (general) Electronic Media 13.2 Information Tech 10.7 Comm Management 14.3 Agriculture 12.0 Reporting 10.0 Comm 12.4 Media Relations 8.9 Communications of 9.9 Farm 12.0 Education 9.2 Management Scholarship Media Relations 10.7 Distance Ed 8.9 Biotechnology 6.6 Food 11.8 Newspaper 9.0 Communications Prof. Development 7.4 Prof. Development 8.9 Media Relations 6.6 Science/Risk 11.3 Internet 8.7 Distance Ed 6.6 Publications 8.9 Distance Ed 5.5 Environment 10.5 Info Technology 7.9 Publications 5.8 Accountability 7.1 Comm Technology 4.4 Rural 10.5 Mass Comm. 5.4 Research Methods 5.8 Biotechnology 5.4 Accountability 3.3 Extension 8.4 TV/Film 4.6 Communication International 5.0 Electronic Media 5.4 Consumer/Audience 3.3 Livestock 6.4 Magazine 2.8 response/analysis Writing 4.1 Research 3.6 Curriculum & 3.3 Animal 5.1 Public Relations 2.0 Program Devel. Accountability 3.3 International 3.6 Electronic Media 3.3 Crop 4.3 Advertising 1.8 Writing 3.6 Food, Ag, Nat. 3.3 Horticulture 4.1 Interpersonal 1.5 Rsrce, Health, Fam. Academic 3.6 Inst. Org. & 3.3 Meat 2.0 Visual 1.5 Programs Institutionalization Communication Graphic Design 1.8 Critical Thinking 2.2 Telecomm 1.5 Radio 1.0 Framing 2.2 Fish 1.3 Prof. Development 2.2 Plant .5 Risk/Crisis Comm. 2.2 Horse .3 Ag literacy 1.1 Poultry .3 Total Articles 56 Total Articles 91 Total articles 391 Total articles 391 13
  • 14. Table 2 Research methods used JAC articles 1997-2006; Edgar, Rutherford & Briers Current Study: Communication Abstracts, ACDC Illinois Database, and Dissertation Abstracts, 2000-2008 Research Method % Research Method % Survey 47.3 Survey 22.6 Content analysis 15.4 Historical 20.8 Case study 9.9 Content Analysis 19.8 Interviews 6.6 Analysis (general critical 10.4 analysis w/o statistics) Evaluation 4.4 Experimental 9.4 Historical 4.4 Interviews 8.5 Experimental 3.3 Secondary data analysis 3.8 Correlation 2.2 Case Study 2.8 Open-ended 2.2 Focus Groups 1.9 Questions/Reflections Surveys and Interviews 2.2 Ex Post Facto 1.1 Survey and Focus Group 1.1 Total articles 91 Based on 106 of 391 articles that indicated method in the title or abstract 14
  • 15. 15
  • 16. Table 3 Top 25 University/Institutional Affiliations of First Authors Number of University or Institutional Affiliation of Articles First Authors 17 University of Florida 16 The Ohio State University 16 Oklahoma State University 15 Iowa State University 14 Michigan State University 14 Texas A&M University 10 Cornell University 9 Kansas State University 9 University of Missouri 9 University of Wisconsin 8 University of Illinois 7 Louisiana State University 7 North Dakota State University 6 Oregon State University 6 Penn State University 6 Texas Tech University 5 College of Charleston 5 Purdue University 4 Colorado State University 4 University of Arizona 4 University of Arkansas 4 University of North Carolina 4 Virginia Tech University 3 Kansas University 3 Ohio University 205 This is 57.3% of the 358 articles for which there was a first author’s affiliation given 16
  • 17. Table 4: Top 25: Number of Distinct Authors by University/Institution (ALL Authors of 554 articles) Number of University or Institution Distinct Authors 32 Iowa State University 25 The Ohio State University 19 University of Florida 18 University of Illinois 17 Michigan State University 15 University of Wisconsin 14 Kansas State University 14 Oklahoma State University 13 Penn State University 13 Texas A&M University 11 Cornell University 10 University of Missouri 9 Auburn University 9 Oregon State University 9 University of Idaho 9 Virginia Tech University 8 Texas Tech University 8 University of Georgia 7 Kansas University 7 Rutgers University 7 University of Arizona 6 Colorado State University 6 Louisiana State University 6 North Dakota State University 6 University of Nebraska 298 =55.3% of all 539 authors. 17
  • 18. Table 5: Universities With 2 or More Thesis/Dissertations in Agricultural Communication Research: 2000-2008. N=19 University Number University of Wisconsin 7 Oklahoma State University 6 Texas A&M University 5 Iowa State University 4 Michigan State University 4 North Dakota State University 4 Purdue University 3 Temple University 3 University of Colorado 3 University of Florida 3 University of Missouri 3 University of Rochester 3 West Virginia University 3 Kansas University 2 University of Arkansas 2 University of California-San Diego 2 University of Oregon 2 University of Tennessee 2 University of North Carolina 2 Total 64 18
  • 19. Table 6: Productivity of Authors. Listing of Those with 3 or more Articles Published 2000-2008. Author Number of Articles Irani, Tracy 9 Cartmell, D. 7 Lundy, Lisa 6 Tucker, Mark 6 Boone, Kristina 5 Doerfert, David 5 Ruth, Amanda 5 Marks, L.A. 4 Priest, Susanna Hornig 4 VanDerZanden, A. 4 Whaley, Sherrie 4 Akers, Cindy 3 Brossard, D. 3 Chenault, Edith 3 Crawley, C.E. 3 Evans, Jim 3 Fannin, Blair 3 Kalaitzandonakes, N. 3 Maretski, Audrey 3 Meyers, Courtney 3 Rost, Bob 3 Shanahan, James 3 Sinclair, J. 3 Sitton, Shelley 3 Telg, Ricky 3 TenEyck, Toby 3 Zimmerman, D. 3 Note: 49 persons had 2 articles 557 persons had 1 article 19
  • 20. Appendix 1 Institutional Affiliation by First Author Only for Each Research Article Alphabetical Listing by Institution Total number of articles: 391; Total with author's institution listed: 358 (33 of the articles do not identify author's institution) Institution Number American Association for Advancement of Science 1 Angelo State University 1 Arizona State University 2 Auburn University 2 Bowling Green University 1 California State University-Fullerton 1 California State University-Long Beach 1 Capella University 1 Carnegie Mellon University 2 Central Florida University 1 Central Queensland University 1 Clemson University 1 Collge of Charleston 5 Colorado State University 4 Cornell University 10 Delft University of Technology (Netherlands) 1 Delta State University 1 DePaul University 1 FEMA 1 Florida State University 1 Fort Hays State University 1 Georgia State University 1 Glasgow Caledonian University (UK) 1 Hebrew University 1 Hort Research (Auckland, New Zealand) 1 Indiana University 2 International Food Information Council (USA) 1 Iowa State University 15 Kansas State University 9 Kansas University 3 Klein Buendel (Golden, CO) 1 Kutztown University of Pennsylvania 1 Louisiana State University 7 Marquette University 1 McMaster University 1 Merck Research Labs 1 Michigan State University 14 Michigan Technological University 1 Mississippi State University 2 New Mexico State University 1 North Carolina State University 2 North Dakota State University 7 Northwestern University 1 20
  • 21. Norwegian University of Science and Technology 1 Norwich Research Park Service 1 Oak Ridge Associated Universities 1 Ohio State University 16 Ohio University 3 Oklahoma State University 16 Old Dominion University 1 Oregon State University 6 Palfreman Film Group Inc. 1 Parker Telecommunications 1 Penn State University 6 Portland State University 1 Purdue University 5 Queens College (Flushing, NY) 1 Royal Netherlands Academy 1 Rutgers University 3 SciCompl (Washington DC) 1 Science (Journal) 1 Sonoma State University 2 Southern Illinois University 3 St. Michael's College (Utah) 1 Stephen F. Austin State University 1 Temple University 3 Texas A&M University 14 Texas Tech University 6 University College (Cork, Ireland) 1 University of Alabama-Birmingham 1 University of Amsterdam 1 University of Arizona 4 University of Arkansas 4 University of British Columbia 1 University of Calgary 1 University of California-Davis 2 University of California-Irvine 1 University of California-San Diego 2 University of California-Santa Cruz 2 University of Cincinnati 2 University of Colorado 3 University of Connecticut 1 University of Delaware 1 University of Denver 1 University of Florida 17 University of Georgia 3 University of Georgia-Griffin 1 University of Guelph 1 University of Hawaii 1 University of Hohenheim (Germany) 1 University of Idaho 3 University of Illinois 8 University of Iowa 1 21
  • 22. University of Kentucky 2 University of Maine 2 University of Maryland 2 University of Melbourne (Australia) 1 University of Michigan 1 University of Minnesota 2 University of Missouri 9 University of Nebraska 3 University of Nevada 1 University of Nevada-Reno 1 University of New Mexico 3 University of North Carolina 4 University of North Carolina-Greensboro 1 University of Oregon 2 University of Pennsylvania 1 University of Plymouth (UK) 1 University of Queensland (Australia) 1 University of Rochester 3 University of San Francisco 1 University of South Carolina 2 University of Southern California 1 University of Souther Maine 1 University of Southern Mississippi 1 University of Sussex 1 University of Tennessee 3 University of Texas 2 University of Texas-San Antonio 1 University of Utah 2 University of Vermont 1 University of Washington 1 University of Western Australia 1 University of Wisconsin 9 Uppsala University (Sweden) 1 USDA (Washington DC) 2 Virginia Polytechnic Institute 1 Virginia Tech University 4 Wageningen University (Netherlands) 2 Washington State University 2 West Virginia University 3 Total 358 22
  • 23. Institutional Affiliation by First Author Only for Each Research Article Listing by Institution -- Most to Least Number Institution 17 University of Florida 16 Ohio State University 16 Oklahoma State University 15 Iowa State University 14 Michigan State University 14 Texas A&M University 10 Cornell University 9 Kansas State University 9 University of Missouri 9 University of Wisconsin 8 University of Illinois 7 Louisiana State University 7 North Dakota State University 6 Oregon State University 6 Penn State University 6 Texas Tech University 5 Collge of Charleston 5 Purdue University 4 Colorado State University 4 University of Arizona 4 University of Arkansas 4 University of North Carolina 4 Virginia Tech University 3 Kansas University 3 Ohio University 3 Rutgers University 3 Southern Illinois University 3 Temple University 3 University of Colorado 3 University of Georgia 3 University of Idaho 3 University of Nebraska 3 University of New Mexico 3 University of Rochester 3 University of Tennessee 3 West Virginia University 2 Arizona State University 2 Auburn University 2 Carnegie Mellon University 23
  • 24. 2 Indiana University 2 Mississippi State University 2 North Carolina State University 2 Sonoma State University 2 University of California-Davis 2 University of California-San Diego 2 University of California-Santa Cruz 2 University of Cincinnati 2 University of Kentucky 2 University of Maine 2 University of Maryland 2 University of Minnesota 2 University of Oregon 2 University of South Carolina 2 University of Texas 2 University of Utah 2 USDA (Washington DC) 2 Wageningen University (Netherlands) 2 Washington State University 1 American Association for Advancement of Science 1 Angelo State University 1 Bowling Green University 1 California State University-Fullerton 1 California State University-Long Beach 1 Capella University 1 Central Florida University 1 Central Queensland University 1 Clemson University 1 Delft University of Technology (Netherlands) 1 Delta State University 1 DePaul University 1 FEMA 1 Florida State University 1 Fort Hays State University 1 Georgia State University 1 Glasgow Caledonian University (UK) 1 Hebrew University 1 Hort Research (Auckland, New Zealand) 1 International Food Information Council (USA) 1 Klein Buendel (Golden, CO) 1 Kutztown University of Pennsylvania 1 Marquette University 1 McMaster University 1 Merck Research Labs 1 Michigan Technological University 1 New Mexico State University 1 Northwestern University 1 Norwegian University of Science and Technology 1 Norwich Research Park Service 1 Oak Ridge Associated Universities 24
  • 25. 1 Old Dominion University 1 Palfreman Film Group Inc. 1 Parker Telecommunications 1 Portland State University 1 Queens College (Flushing, NY) 1 Royal Netherlands Academy 1 SciCompl (Washington DC) 1 Science (Journal) 1 St. Michael's College (Utah) 1 Stephen F. Austin State University 1 University College (Cork, Ireland) 1 University of Alabama-Birmingham 1 University of Amsterdam 1 University of British Columbia 1 University of Calgary 1 University of California-Irvine 1 University of Connecticut 1 University of Delaware 1 University of Denver 1 University of Georgia-Griffin 1 University of Guelph 1 University of Hawaii 1 University of Hohenheim (Germany) 1 University of Iowa 1 University of Melbourne (Australia) 1 University of Michigan 1 University of Nevada 1 University of Nevada-Reno 1 University of North Carolina-Greensboro 1 University of Pennsylvania 1 University of Plymouth (UK) 1 University of Queensland (Australia) 1 University of San Francisco 1 University of Southern California 1 University of Souther Maine 1 University of Southern Mississippi 1 University of Sussex 1 University of Texas-San Antonio 1 University of Vermont 1 University of Washington 1 University of Western Australia 1 Uppsala University (Sweden) 1 Virginia Polytechnic Institute 358 Total 25
  • 26. Appendix 2 Number of Distinct Authors of Ag Communication Research by University/Institution Complete List of Affiliations for 554 distinct authors in the database. No author location could be determined for another 74 of the total 628 distinct authors. Note: Includes separate listing for each author of multiple-authored works. If an article at Auburn University was written by 3 authors from Auburn, it would count as 3 in the Number list. If an article is written by authors from different institutions, each would receive a listing under their own institution. Some authors have moved from one institution to another. Where possible, the institution they were at when published is used in the database. Note: A total of 53 of the 554 authors were confirmed as members of ACE. Listed in Alphabetical Order University/Other Location Number Agriculture Weather Information Service 1 American Association for Advancement of Science 1 Ameridcan Paint Horse Journal 1 Arizona State University 2 Auburn University 9 California (general) 2 California Extension 1 California State University-Fullerton 1 California State University-Long Beach 1 Capella University 1 Carnegie Mellon University 2 Central Florida University 2 Central Queensland University 1 Chicago Census Data Center 1 Children's Hospital 1 Clemson University 1 College of Charleston 1 Colorado State University 6 Cornell University 11 Del Monte Co. 1 Delta State University 1 DePaul University 1 Discovery Cove 1 Diversified Training Associates 1 EPA Region 10 1 Fleishman-Hillard 1 Florida A&M University 1 Florida County Extension Director 1 Florida Farm Bureau 1 Fort Hays State University 1 Georgia State University 1 German Agency for Technical Cooperation 1 Glasgow Caledonian University 1 Hebrew University 1 Horticulture Research 2 26
  • 27. Illinois State University 1 Indiana University 1 International Food Information Council 1 Iowa State University 32 James Madison University 1 Kansas State University 14 Kansas University 7 Karita Research 1 Katholieke Universiteit 1 Klein Buendel Inc. 1 Kutztown University of Pennsylvania 1 Lockhart Post-Register Newspaper 1 Loughborough University 1 Louisiana State University 6 MACRO International 1 Marist College 1 McMaster University 1 Merck Research Labs 1 Michigan Department of Community Health 1 Michigan State University 17 Michigan Technological University 1 Mississippi State University 3 Naitonal Pork Producers 1 National Tropical Botanical Garden 1 New Mexico State University 1 New York (general) 1 North Carolina County Extension 2 North Carolina State University 3 North Dakota State University 6 Northern Arizona University 1 Northwestern University 1 Norwegian University of Science and Technology 1 Norwich Research Park Station 1 Oak Ridge Associated Universities 1 Ohio State University 25 Ohio University 3 Oklahoma State University 14 Old Dominion University 1 Oregon State University 9 Parker Telecommunications 1 Penn State University 13 Pheasant Projects Inc. 1 Piedmont College 1 Portland State University 1 Princeton University 1 Private Consultant 1 Publix Supermarkets 1 Purdue University 5 Queens College 1 Royal Netherlands Academy 1 27
  • 28. Rutgers 7 San Francisco State University 1 SAS Institute 1 SciCompl 1 Science (journal) 1 Slippery Rock University 1 Sonoma State University 1 Southern Illinois University 2 St. Michael's College 1 State University of New York 1 Stephen F. Austin State University 1 Strategic Communications 1 Syncho Ltd 1 Taos County Health 1 Temple University 3 Texas A&M University 13 Texas Cooperative Extension 1 Texas Tech University 8 Trenton Ohio High School 1 Tulane University 1 U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1 University of Alabama 1 University of Alabama-Birmingham 2 University of Amsterdam 2 University of Arizona 7 University of Arkansas 5 University of Arkansas-Little Rock 1 University of British Columbia 1 University of Calgary 4 University of California-Berkeley 3 University of California-Davis 5 University of California-Irvine 1 University of California-Los Angeles 1 University of California-San Diego 2 University of California-Santa Cruz 1 University of Central Florida 1 University of Chicago 2 University of Cincinnati 2 University of Colorado 3 University of Colorado-Denver 1 University of Connecticut 4 University of Delaware 1 University of Denver 1 University of Florida 19 University of Georgia 8 University of Guelph 2 University of Hawaii 1 University of Hawaii-Hilo 1 University of Hohenheim 2 University of Idaho 9 28
  • 29. University of Illinois 18 University of Iowa 2 University of Kentucky 4 University of Louisville 1 University of Maine 2 University of Maryland 4 University of Melbourne 1 University of Miami 2 University of Michigan 1 University of Minnesota 5 University of Missouri 10 University of Nebraska 6 University of Nevada 4 University of New Mexico 5 University of Newcastle 2 University of North Carolina 6 University of North Carolina-Greensboro 1 University of Oregon 2 University of Pennsylvania 1 University of Pittsburgh 1 University of Plymouth 1 University of Queensland 2 University of Rochester 3 University of San Francisco 1 University of South Carolina 1 University of South Dakota 1 University of Southern California 1 University of Southern Maine 1 University of Southern Mississippi 1 University of Sussex 2 University of Tennessee 3 University of Texas 3 University of Texas-San Antonio 1 University of Toronto 1 University of Utah 2 University of Vermont 1 University of Washington 1 University of Western Australia 2 University of Wisconsin 15 University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point 1 Upper Grand Family Health Team 1 Uppsala University 3 USDA - Washington DC 5 Virginia Polytechnical University 1 Virginia Tech University 9 VU-University Medical Center 1 Wageningen University 1 Washington State University 5 West Virginia University 4 YWCA 1 29
  • 30. Total 554 Number of Distinct Authors of Ag Communication Research by University/Institution Listing by Numbers from Most to Least Number University/Other Location Iowa State 32 University Ohio State 25 University 19 University of Florida 18 University of Illinois 17 Michigan State University 15 University of Wisconsin 14 Kansas State University 14 Oklahoma State University 13 Penn State University 13 Texas A&M University 11 Cornell University University of 10 Missouri 9 Auburn University 9 Oregon State University 9 University of Idaho 9 Virginia Tech University 8 Texas Tech University University of 8 Georgia 7 Kansas University 7 Rutgers 7 University of Arizona 6 Colorado State University 6 Louisiana State University 6 North Dakota State University 6 University of Nebraska 6 University of North Carolina 5 Purdue University 5 University of Arkansas 5 University of California-Davis 5 University of Minnesota 5 University of New Mexico 5 USDA - Washington DC 30
  • 31. 5 Washington State University 4 University of Calgary 4 University of Connecticut 4 University of Kentucky 4 University of Maryland 4 University of Nevada 4 West Virginia University 3 Mississippi State University 3 North Carolina State University 3 Ohio University 3 Temple University 3 University of California-Berkeley 3 University of Colorado 3 University of Rochester 3 University of Tennessee 3 University of Texas 3 Uppsala University 2 Arizona State University 2 California (general) 2 Carnegie Mellon University 2 Central Florida University 2 Horticulture Research 2 North Carolina County Extension 2 Southern Illinois University 2 University of Alabama-Birmingham 2 University of Amsterdam 2 University of California-San Diego University of 2 Chicago 2 University of Cincinnati 2 University of Guelph 2 University of Hohenheim 2 University of Iowa 2 University of Maine 2 University of Miami 2 University of Newcastle 2 University of Oregon 2 University of Queensland 2 University of Sussex 2 University of Utah 2 University of Western Australia 1 Agriculture Weather Information Service 1 American Association for Advancement of Science 1 Ameridcan Paint Horse Journal 1 California Extension 1 California State University-Fullerton 1 California State University-Long Beach 1 Capella University 1 Central Queensland University 1 Chicago Census Data Center 1 Children's Hospital 31
  • 32. 1 Clemson University College of 1 Charleston 1 Del Monte Co. 1 Delta State University 1 DePaul University 1 Discovery Cove 1 Diversified Training Associates 1 EPA Region 10 1 Fleishman-Hillard 1 Florida A&M University 1 Florida County Extension Director 1 Florida Farm Bureau 1 Fort Hays State University 1 Georgia State University 1 German Agency for Technical Cooperation 1 Glasgow Caledonian University 1 Hebrew University 1 Illinois State University 1 Indiana University 1 International Food Information Council 1 James Madison University 1 Karita Research 1 Katholieke Universiteit 1 Klein Buendel Inc. 1 Kutztown University of Pennsylvania 1 Lockhart Post-Register Newspaper 1 Loughborough University MACRO 1 International 1 Marist College 1 McMaster University 1 Merck Research Labs 1 Michigan Department of Community Health 1 Michigan Technological University 1 Naitonal Pork Producers 1 National Tropical Botanical Garden 1 New Mexico State University 1 New York (general) 1 Northern Arizona University 1 Northwestern University 1 Norwegian University of Science and Technology 1 Norwich Research Park Station 1 Oak Ridge Associated Universities 1 Old Dominion University 1 Parker Telecommunications 1 Pheasant Projects Inc. 1 Piedmont College 1 Portland State University 1 Princeton University 1 Private Consultant 32
  • 33. 1 Publix Supermarkets 1 Queens College 1 Royal Netherlands Academy 1 San Francisco State University 1 SAS Institute 1 SciCompl 1 Science (journal) 1 Slippery Rock University 1 Sonoma State University 1 St. Michael's College 1 State University of New York 1 Stephen F. Austin State University 1 Strategic Communications 1 Syncho Ltd 1 Taos County Health 1 Texas Cooperative Extension 1 Trenton Ohio High School 1 Tulane University 1 U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1 University of Alabama 1 University of Arkansas-Little Rock 1 University of British Columbia 1 University of California-Irvine 1 University of California-Los Angeles 1 University of California-Santa Cruz 1 University of Central Florida 1 University of Colorado-Denver 1 University of Delaware 1 University of Denver 1 University of Hawaii 1 University of Hawaii-Hilo 1 University of Louisville 1 University of Melbourne 1 University of Michigan 1 University of North Carolina-Greensboro 1 University of Pennsylvania 1 University of Pittsburgh 1 University of Plymouth 1 University of San Francisco 1 University of South Carolina 1 University of South Dakota 1 University of Southern California 1 University of Southern Maine 1 University of Southern Mississippi 1 University of Texas-San Antonio 1 University of Toronto University of 1 Vermont 1 University of Washington 1 University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point 1 Upper Grand Family Health Team 33
  • 34. 1 Virginia Polytechnical University 1 VU-University Medical Center 1 Wageningen University 1 YWCA 554 Total Distinct Authors 34
  • 35. Appendix 3 All Authors in Alphabetical Order In cases where an individual published at more than one university, both are listed. University/Institutio Last Name First Name n Department/Unit Abadi A. Iowa State Ministry of Ag Abbott Tatyana Ukhanova University Russia Abel Jennifer Penn State University University of Adams Charles M. Florida Florida Sea Grant Ohio State Human & Comm Agunga Robert University Rrc US Bureau of Land Akerelrea C. Management Alaska State Office Akers Cindy Texas Tech University Akridge Jay Aldoory L. University of Maryland Dept. of Comm. Alexander Lori Kansas State University Ag Comm. Allan Chantal Marie University of Southern Calif. Allison Kevin Amberg Shannon M. University of Idaho Anderson Erik University of Idaho Andersson K. Karita Research, Norway Andrianifahanana Mahefatiana Auburn University Ent. & Plant Path. Ohio State Ext. Fam. & Con Angell Deborah L. University Sci Annou Mamane University of Arkansas Ag & Ext. Education Steven University of Queensland, Centre for Marine Arquitt P. Aust. St. Ashlock Marcus A. Kansas State University Dept. of Comm. Azzam Azzeddine University of Nebraska Ag Econ Sch. Journ & Back James Oklahoma State University Bdcast Glenda Comm. & Balas R. University of New Mexico Journalism Banning Stephen A. Louisiana State University Info Network & Bannister Mark C. Fort Hays State University Tele. Florida Farm Basford Adam Bureau Bateman Ken North Carolina County Extension Bauske Ellen M. Ag Weather Info Service Auburn AL Beaudoin C.E. Indiana University Tulane University New Berman Suzanne York Besley John C. Cornell University Columbia Univ. University of Bickford J. Calgary Family Medicine Bird N. Rutgers University Ohio State Human& Comm Birkenholz Robert J. University Rsc 35
  • 36. Blue Gwendolyn G. University of North Carolina Ext. Potato Bohl William University of Idaho Research Boone Kristina Kansas State University Dept. of Comm. Bord R.J. Penn State University Bortree Denise Penn State University Univ. of Florida Boyette Cheryl T. Stephen F. Austin State Univ. University of Dept. of Braman S. Georgia Entomology University of Brashear Genefer L. Illinois Animal Science University of Braun Sandra Florida J. & Mass Comm University of Breazeale Don Nevada Coop. Extension Brennan Mary University Newcastle UK Sch of Agriculture Bressers B. Kansas State University Ag Lead. Ed Briers Gary E. Texas A&M University &Comm Ag & Nat. Brodt Sonja B. University of California-Davis Resources Brossard D. Cornell University Univ. of Wisconsin Brower Matthew Francis University of Rochester University of Texas-San Eart & Env. Brown Stephen C. Antonio Sciences Brown J. Lynne Penn State University Klein Buendel Inc. Golden Buller David B. CO Bullock Susie J.R. Texas Tech University Burch E.A. Sonoma State University Comm. Studies University of College of Burke Kelly Hawaii Bus/Econ Burris-Woodall Patricia University of New Mexico Catherin Burwell e Purdue University Ext YD & Ag Educ. Soil & Crop Byrne Patrick Colorado State University Sciences Hort, Fors. & Rec Cable Ted Kansas State University Res Cabrera Victor E. New Mexico State Cain Steve Calafell Burnadette M. Univ. of Alabama- Callahan Dale W. Birmingham Elec & Comp Engr Canaday M. Ohio State Cano Jamie M. University Hum & Comm Rrsc Carerre Antonio Hans- Carlsson Erik Uppsala University, Sweden Neuroscience Carpenter Serena Michigan State University Carpenter John Harrison Michigan Technological Univ. Cartmell Dwayne Oklahoma State University Ag Ed, comm & YD 36
  • 37. Christa Catchings L. Lockhart Post-Register News Texas. Sales Rep. North Dakota State Chamberlain Kristen Ann University Champ Joseph Grant University of Colorado Chan Christopher SAS Institute, Houston TX Chenault Edith A. Texas Cooperative Extension Choi Hyunju Temple University University of Calif.- San Chris Cynthia Diego University of Hohenheim, Christinick Anja Ger. At & Ext. Comm. Res. & Manag. Chung Chanjim Cornell University Econ Chute Michael Douglas Univ. of Southern Mississippi Ciuffetelli Gina Rose Oklahoma State University Clark Terrie Kansas State University Dept. of Comm. Norwich Research Park Clarke Belinda Science UK Clemens Stephanie S. Penn State University Coffin Donna R. University of Maine Extension Educ. Donald University of Toronto, Cole C. Canada Public Health Sci. Corbett Julia B. University of Utah T. University of Queensland, Marketin Cornwell Bettina Aus. g Agron & Plant Corselius Kristen L. University of Minnesota Genet. Craig Steve Crawley C.E. Oak Ridge Associated Univ. Univ. of Tennessee University of Melbourne, Creed Barbara Austral. Sch of Public Cutter Gary R. University of Alabama Health Daberkow Stan University of Ag & Resource Dahlgran Roger Arizona Econ Iowa State Damhorst M.L. University Dardis Francis University of South Carolina Davis Chad Texas Tech University Diversified Training Davis Glenna Sue Associates Monte Vista CO Dawson Emily L. Indiana University School of Law McMaster University, Ontario Inst of Envir. & Dawson Jennifer CA Health Californi Delgadillo Viviana a DeLoreme D.E. University of Central Florida Nich. Sch of Comm. Dickinson G. Dillow M.R. Doerfert David L. Texas Tech University Ag Educ. & Comm. LaRae Donnellan M. Florida A&M University U. of Tennessee 37
  • 38. Ohio State Hum & Com Rrc Donnermeyer Joseph University Dev Drottz-Sjoberg Britt-Marie Norwegian Univ. of Sci. and Tech Dudo Anthony D. University of Wisconsin University of Dufresne M. Florida Dunwoody Sharon University of Wisconsin J & Mass Comm. Univ. of California-Santa Sociolog Dupuis E. Melanie Cruz y Durham F. University of Iowa University of Dyer James E. Florida Ag Ed. & Comm. Eckhart Erin Discovery Cove, Orlando FL Horrticulture Edgar Leslie Texas A&M University Univ. of Arkansas Edgar Don W. Texas A&M University Iowa State Extensio Edwards William M. University n Iowa State Eggers Timothy R. University Economics University of Einsiedel Edna Calgary Elamin Elbasha H. Merck Research Labs Elder Glen H. Univ. of North Carolina Car. Population Ctr. Iowa State Sociolog El-Ghyamrini S. University y Ellerbeck Edward Kansas University Medical Center KC University of Ellinger Paul Illinois Ag Marketing Iowa State Ellis Jason Dean University Univ. of Nebraska Engelman Kimberly Kansas University Medical Center KC Erichsen Amanda R. Oklahoma State University Ohio State Ag, Env & Dev. Ernst Stanley C. University Econ Espejo R. Syncho Ltd. Norway Estes Jonela R. Portland State University Publix Eubanks Emily E. Supermarkets Plant City FL University of Evans James Illinois Agricultural Comm. University of Fairchild Dean G. Florida Fedale Scott Washington State University Dept CAHNRS University of Ag & Rrce Fernicola Kathleen Arizona Economic Fischhoff Baruch Carnegie Mellon University Princeton Fischhoff Ilya University Fisher M. New Zealand Fisher Ann Penn State University Iowa State Fitzgerald Robert University Animal Science Flail Gregory James Georgia State University 38
  • 39. University of Fleising Usher Calgary Anthropology Iowa State Sociolog Flora Cornelia Butler University y Californi Flores Nicolas a University of Florkowski W.J. Georgia Ag & Applied Econ University of Flowers Kelly Kirby Florida J. & Mass Comm. University of Ford Ross Florida J. & Mass Comm. Fox Robert Comm. Of Assoc. for Comp Machnery Frank Dooley Ohio State Fredin E.S. University University of Freeman Carrie Packwood Oregon Frewer L.J. George University of Friswold B. Arizona Ag & Rrsce Econ Fry John T. University of Iowa Joshua Frye J. Purdue University Gabany-Guerrero Tricia University of Connecticut Int Affairs/Ctr for LA Queens College, Flushing Gabel D. NY Econ Gamble Joanna HortResearch, Auckland NZ Univ. of Amsterdam, Sydney Gerbec Diana AU Info Industry Geurink Jean University of Wisconsin Gilpin Dawn Temple University Glazer Edward Michigan State University Communication Glenn Cathy B. Southern Illinois University Speech Comm Good Darrel L. University of Ilinois Ag Marketing Goodman Robert Auburn University Ag Econ & Rur Soc University of Gorman Richard W. Arizona University of Graham Jocie Florida Biological Scientist Iowa State Graham Margaret B. University Ctr Innovation & Grantham Andrew University of Sussex, UK Man. University of Calif. - San Gray Mary Diego Greenwald M. Ohio University Gregg Jennifer University of Louisville Human &Comm Grieshop James I. University of Calif. -Davis Dev. Griffin Robert J. University of Wisconsin Grubesic Tony H. University of Cincinnati Geography USDA Nat Res. Conservation Guerrero-Murillo Narcizo S. Connecticut 39
  • 40. Ha Ju Yong Southern Illinois University Hagelin Joachim Uppsala University, Sweden Neuroscience Hagen S.C. Central Florida University Civil & Envir. Engr. Hall Kelsey Texas Tech University Hall Matthew Kansas University Medical Center Hallman William Rutgers University MACRO Halverson Lynn International Hampl J.S. Arizona State University Nutrition Hanlin Jennifer California State Univ.-Long Beach University of Harder Amy Florida Ag Educ. & Comm. Harrington Judy Colorado State University Soil & Crop Science Harry J.C. Slippery Rock University Communication Harter L.M. Ohio University Comm Studies Hartman Amy Kansas State University University of Hasler C.M. Illinois Hau Barbara Taos County Health, New Mexico Hau Jann Uppsala University, Sweden Neuroscience Haygood Jacqui D. Marketin Heiman Amir Hebrew University, Israel g Manitou Springs Heimendinger Jerianne CO Hellsten Iina University of Amsterdam Sch of Comm Res. Henderson Jason Iowa State Extensio Henroid Daniel University n Herbert D. Ames Jr. Virginia Tech Tidewater Center Herring Margaret Peg Oregon State University Hilgert Christopher Oregon State University Horticulture University of Educational Hill George Nevada Leadersh Hill Steve Kansas State University Ag Comm & Journ. Hillison John Virginia Tech Ag & Ext. Education Hindman D.B. Washington State University North Dakota State Children's Hospital, Denver Hines Joan M. CO Hines Pamela Science (Journal) Ext. Food Saf. & Hirsch Diane Wright Universityof Connecticut Nut Hodson Pamela B. Louisiana State University University of Hohenheim Hoffman Volker (Ger.) Ag Ext. and Comm. Holcombe Gloria Kansas State University University of Telecommunication Hollifield Ann Georgia s University of Hollis Gilbert Illinois Swine Ext. Spec. Hopkins Bryan University of Idaho Ext. Specialist Michigan State Horan Richard Univ. Ag Econ 40
  • 41. Hou Shen Kansas University Michigan State Com, Ag Rec & Howard Phil Univ. Res Michigan State Howell Jennifer Leigh Univ. University of Hudson B. Missouri Huey Tina Anderson University of Pennsylvania Hunnings Joseph Virginia Tech 4-H specialist Iowa State Extensio Huss Jim University n Hutcheson Clayton E. Florida County Ext. Director Hyde J. St. Michael's College (Utah) Hyllegard Karen Colorado State University Ohio State Extensio Imerman Eric University n University of Irani Tracy Florida Ag Ed. & Comm. University of Irwin Scott Illinois Ag Marketing Israel Glenn D. Jarosz Lucy University of Washington Geography Ohio State Jasinski James R. University Ext. Education Jasper Cynthia University of Wisconsin Jensen Lynn Oregon State University Ext. Specialist Ag & Resource Jin Yanhong University of Calif.-Berkeley Econ Johansen Peter Iowa State Johnson Ana University Animal Science Johnson Becky Fleishman-Hillard, KC MO Iowa State Swine Ext. Johnson Colin University Specialist Johnson Kim P. University of Minnesota Jolly Laura University of Tennessee Jones Rebecca E. Univ. of North Carolina-Greensboro Jones Amanda Faith Oklahoma State University University of Jordan Jeffrey L. Georgia Ag & Applied Econ App. Econ & Just David R. Cornell University Manag. Ag & Resource Just Richard E. University of Maryland Econ Kahlor LeeAnn University of Wisconsin Kaiser Harry M. Cornell University Res & Man. Econ Kaitibie Simeon University of Kalaitzandonakes Nicholas Missouri University of Kanfer A.G. Illinois Iowa State Karriker Locke University Animal Science Karst Mike 41
  • 42. Kassardjian Elsa HortResearch, Auckland NZ Steven Katz B. North Carolina State Univ. University of Health Comm Keesecker Nicole M. Chicago Spec. Kelemen Danna B. Oklahoma State University Envir. Science & Kelley Alicia SUNY New York For Ag Ed, Com. & Kelsey Kathleen Dodge Oklahoma State University Lead Kemble Joseph M. Auburn University Horticulture Kenyon John Ketterer S. Oklahoma State University Journ. & Broadcast Keys James P. Oklahoma State University Kim Minjeong Oregon State University King Jamie M. Oklahoma State University Kingwell R. Kinnucan Henry W. Auburn University Ag Econ &Rur Soc Kirsch Erika Oregon State University Horticulture North Carolina State Kistler Mark J. University Ag &Ext. Education University of Western Klerck Deon Australia Klonsky Karen University of California-Davis Ag & Res. Econ Knecht Thomas Mississippi State University North Dakota State Koch Becky University Iowa State Sociolog Korsching Peter University y Ohio State Kosicki G.M. University Kotowski Michael University of Tennessee Comm Studies Human Resource Kotrlik Joe W. Louisiana State University Ed Kozloff Robin Private Consultant, Davis Ca Kraft David Strategic Communications Toronto, Canada Kroma Margaret M. Cornell University Dept. of Education Corwin Sociolog Kruse R. University of Minnesota y Kubey Robert Rutgers University School of Kuznesof Sharon University of Newcastle (UK) Agriculture Ohio State Ag Crops Team LaBarge Greg A. University Coor Marcel LaFollette C. SciCompol, Washington DC Iowa State Lamberti Adrienne University Lang John T. Rutgers University University of Sociolog Langworthy Mark Chicago y University of Larkin Sherry L Florida Food & Res Econ LaRose R. Michigan State University Telecom, Info Stud. 42
  • 43. Larson Kiley A. Kansas University Latimer J.G. Virginia Polytechnic Institute Horticulture YWCA, Seattle Law Angela WA Iowa State Layman Lori University Research Associate Lee Eunjung Cornell University Dept. of Comm. Legrand Ana I. University of Connecticut Ext. Entomology Sharon Lennon J. University of Delaware Lentz R.G. University of Texas Radio, TV & Film Letson David University of Miami Dept. of Lewenstein Bruce V. Cornell University Communicat Lewis Preston Angelo State University Iowa State Licht Melea University College of Ag Lievrouw L.A. Lindeman Neil San Francisco State Univ. Ag Lead, Ed Linder James R. Texas A&M University &Comm Robert Clemson Lippert M. University Ext. Soil Fertility Lockie Stewart Central Queensland Univ. AU Ctr. Soc Sci Res. University of Logan Robert A. Missouri Love Kenner Virginia Tech Ext Agent Lubbers Charles Unversity of South Dakota Kansas State Univ. Lundy Lisa Louisiana State University Univ. of Florida Mahler Robert L. University of Idaho Water Quality Coor. Majors M. Iowa State Ind. Manufact Sys Malladi Sasidhar University E Tidewater Ag Res Malone Sean Virginia Tech University Ext Audrey Maretzki N. Penn State University Mariger S. Christian Virginia Tech University Bio Systems Engr Ext. Livestock Mk Mark Darrell R. University of Nebraska Sp University of Marks Leonie A. Missouri University of Marlowe Erin Foote Missouri Marsh S. Martin Retha jane University of Tennessee Iowa State Martin Robert University Ag Educ & Studies University of Mather Charles Calgary Anthropology Maugh C.M. University of Dept Wildlife Mazzotti Frank Florida Ecology McBride William D. 43
  • 44. McCarthy J.C. McCluskey Jill J. McComas Katherine A. University of Maryland McElroy Jane Ann University of Wisconsin McFeters Courtnay Michigan Dept. of Comm. Health McInerney C. Rutgers University University of McPherson Britton Florida Food Sci & Nutrition Meijman Frans VU-University Med Center Amsterdam, Neth. Meisenbach Terry USDA Washington DC Melgares Pat Kansas State University University of Texas Tech Meyers Courtney A. Florida University University of Michaels J.P. Jr Illinois Miles Susan Consumer Sciences Group Inst. For Food Res. Miller Gay Y. USDA ERS Washington DC Miller Stacy M. West Virginia University Iowa State Miller Greg University Ag Educ & Studies Extensio Miller Jeffrey University of Idaho n Miller Jefferson University of Arkansas Ag & Ext. Education Extensio Miller Haven University of Kentucky n Miller Rene P. Texas A&M University Iowa State Miller Wade University Ag Educ & Studies Iowa State Min K.J. University Ind Man Sys Engr Mitchell J.A. University of Monserrate Rachel Denver University of Morris S.A. Illinois Mosley Raul A. Purdue University Robert Ohio State Mullen W. University Soil Fertility Spec. Murdock G. Ag Lead Ed & Murphy Tim H. Texas A&M University Comm Murphy John F. Auburn University Ent & Plant Path Mwaijande Francis A. University of Arkansas University of Myer Gordon Nevada Farm Man. Spec. Naile Traci L. Oklahoma State University Namuth Deana University of Nebraska Agronomy & Hort Ohio State Napier T.L. University Neufeld Jerry D. University of Idaho Ext. Education Neuwirth Kurt University of Cincinnati Nganje E. William Nicholas Kyle Old Dominion University 44
  • 45. Nisbet Matthew Cornell University Nordstrom P. Norton Todd Washington State University School of Journ. Nucci M.L. University of Nwoha Ogbonnaya John Illinois O'Connor Robert E. Penn State University Oden M.D. University of Texas Comm & Reg Plan O'Keefe Garrett Colorado State University University of Wisc. Olsen Nora University of Idaho Ext Specialist O'Malley Michelle Kansas State University O'Neill Karen M. Rutgers University American Paint Horse Orr Chandra L. Journal Copy Ed., Ft. Worth University of Osgood D.E. Arizona Ag & Res Econ Texas State Univ.-Round Oskam Judy Rock Palfreman Jon Panach Macey A. University of Arkansas Pannell D. Eunkyun Ohio State Park g University Park Travis D. Cornell University Dept. of Education Gleneden Beach Parker Edwin B. Parker Telecommunications OR Glasgow Caledonian Univ. Parker Caroline UK Computing Dept. University of Extensio Parker Kimberly L. Vermont n Parrot R.L. Human & Comm Pence Robert A. University of California-Davis Dev Penner Karen Kansas State University Animal Science Peper-Sitton Shelly Ruth Oklahoma State University University of Percival Susan S. Florida Food Sci & Nutrition Perez Jan Perpich Denise Kansas University Medical Center Peter G. Peters Gregg James Madison University Sociology & Anthro Peterson Shelly Ruth Kansas University Medical Center Pettis Victoria Piedmont College Athens GA Pezzullo P.C. Pfeiffer Douglas G. Virginia Tech University Entomology Pheasant Susan Pheasant Projects Inc. President (WA) Phibbs Elizabeth Virginia Tech University Horticulture Phillips Kathleen Texas A&M University Pierson David Univ. of Southern Maine Pitts C. University of Plank Owen Georgia Ext Crop & Soil Sci 45
  • 46. Guillerm Podesta o University of Miami Poe Mary Elizabeth C. Texas A&M University Powell L.A. Powell Maria C. University of Wisconsin Price Joan E. Ohio University Priest Susanna Hornig University Nevada Texas A&M Univ. German Agency for Tech Probst Kirsten Coop. Windhoek, Nimibia Comm & Tech Probyn Laura K. Michigan State University Serv. Qin Wei Penn State University Radhakrishna Rama Penn State University Ag & Ext Educ Californi Ramirez Debora a Ray Andrea University of Colorado Reddy Steve J. University of Idaho Ext. Education Reed Patty Louisiana State University University of Human & Comm Reisner Ann Illinois Dev Relf Diane Virginia Tech University Ohio State Rhoades Emily University Rhodenbaugh Eric Kansas State University Associate Editor Robert Ricard M. University of Connecticut Dept. of Extension Richards M. Agribusiness & R. Richards Timothy Arizona State University M. North Carolina State Richardson John G. University Ag & Ext. Education Journ & Mass Richardson Mavis University of Minnesota Comm Riffe Dan University of North Carolina Riggs T. Lynn Chicago Census Data Center Ritchie D. University of Robinson Shane Missouri Iowa State Rodriguez Lulu University Journ. & Comm. Everett Rogers M. New Mexico (deceased) Rollins Jessica R. West Virginia University Rosenbaum Rene Perez Michigan State University Com, Ag, Rec&Rrc Rosenman Kenneth D. Michigan State University Medicine Rost Rob Oregon State University Roth Hein New Zealand Rudy Alan Michigan State University College of Ruth Amanda Charleston Ag Lead, Educ & Rutherford Tracy Texas A&M University Co Ruud Gary California State Univ.- 46
  • 47. Fullerton Saba Laura University of Colorado Pharmacology Univ. of Wisconsin-Stevens Sadler Chris Pt. Div. of Comm. Salvador Santiago Del Monte Co, Miami FL Sander Lisa S. Univ. of California-Irvine Iowa State Sociolog Sapp Stephen University y Sattell Susan S. Northwestern University Savestoski Stephen University of San Francisco Scherler Christi Life Science Scheufele Dietram University of Wisconsin Comm. Schilizzi S. Schlosberg David Northern Arizona University International Food Info Schmidt David B. Council Applied Econ & Schmit Todd M. Cornell University Man Kutztown Univ of Schneider Gary P. Pennsylvania University of Schnitkey Gary Illinois Ag Marketing Scholl Jan Penn State University Ag & Ext. Educ. Seago Jan EPA Region 10 Seattle WA CES Liaison Self W.R. North Dakota State Sellnow Timothy University Dept. of Comm. Sethi Nishi University of Sewake Kelvin Hawaii County Ext. Agent Shanahan James Cornell University Dept. of Comm. Ohio State Hum & Comm Sharp Jeff University Rrsce Sharpe Willliam E. Penn State University Forest Hydrology Sheaffer Amy L. Purdue University University of Guelph, Ontario Sheeshka Judy CA Fam Rel & Ap Nutri. Shock Cedric A. Oregon State University Research Aide Clinton Shock C. Oregon State University Malheur Exp. Sta. Shulman S. University of Pittsburgh Edward Sikora J. Auburn University Ent. & Plant Path University of Silk K.J. Georgia Simmons Robert Washington State University Water Qual Coord. Simmons Steve R. University of Minnesota Ag & Plant Gen. Simonson P. Sinclair Janas University of North Carolina Sitton S.P. Oklahoma State University Extensio Skillman Laura University of Kentucky n 47
  • 48. Ohio State Slater Michael D. Colorado State University University University of Smagorinsky P. Georgia Small Bruce New Zealand Small Rebecca M. University of Nebraska Ag Econ Smethers Steven Kansas State University Smith James Lyle Capella University USDA Forest Smith J.K. Service Rocky Mtn. Res Sta Smith Sandi W. Michigan State University Comm. University of Snowdon Gail Illinois Sohar Kathleen Soileau Sally Maureen Louisiana State University University of Spelke Ken Illinois Iowa State Spicer Lynette University Ext./Cont. Educ Sprague Jo Northern Arizona University Life Sciences Sprecker Kim University of Wisconsin Comm Iowa State Stalder Kenneth University Swine Spec. An Sci Univ. of California-Los Stanton Annettee Angeles Psychology Starling Randall University of New Mexico Alcoholism Center Staton Joy North Carolina Co. Ext. Dir. Stewart V. Stout I.J. Central Florida University Biology Straubhaar Joseph University of Texas Radio, TV & Film Strover Sharon University of Texas Radio, TV & Film Lexington, Stuhfaut M.W. Kentucky Comm, Ag, Rec & Suvedi Murari Michigan State University Rs Swan D. Sharienn Ohio State Sweeney e University Econ and Sweeney J.C. Univ. of Western Australia Commerce Katholieke Universiteit- Swinnen Johan F.M. Belguium World Bank Swistock Bryan R. Penn State Forest Resources Natural Tropical Botanical Tayana Gaugau Gard. Ag & Resource Teegerstrom T. Univ. of Arizona Econ Iowa State Teig Paula M. University Teisl Mario F. University of Maine University of Telg Ricky Florida Ag Educ. & Comm. Ten Eyck Toby A. Michigan State University 48
  • 49. Robert University of Terry Jr. Missouri Ag Education University of Tewksbury D. Illinois Univ. of Alabama- Info Engr. & Thomas Daniel Birmingham Manage Thomas Taban Ohio State Thomison Peter R. University Corn Prod. Spec. Thompson Leslie Texas Tech University Iowa State Thompson S. University Thomson Joan Penn State University University of Thorson Ester Missouri School of Journ. California Tourte Laura Extension Santa Cruz County Trautmann Julianne Illinnois State University Triunfol M.L. Troester Maura University of Wisconsin Tronstad R. University of Tschida David A. Missouri Tseukouras George University of Sussex UK Ct Res. Innov. Man Ohio State Tucker Mark Purdue University University University of Turner R. Elaine Florida Food Sci & Nutrition Uddin Lisa University of Rochester Ulmer R.R. University of Ark.-Little Rock Unnevehr Laurian USDA ERS Washington DC Unune Kalpesh University of Colorado Vaillant D. Valenti JoAnn University of Michigan Valentino Tara University of Nebraska Van der Zanden M.C. Van der Zanden A.M. Oregon State University Van Dyke M.A. Marist College Varlamoff Susan M. North Dakota State Veil Sheri R. University Dept. of Comm. North Dakota State Venette S.J. University Dept. of Comm. Ag Lead, Ed. & Vestal T.A. Texas A&M University Com M. Vilceanu Olguta Temple University Vinyard Ashlee Texas Tech University Ohio State Viswanath Kasisomayajula University Vonhof Sarah Vozzo Rosa Elena Mississippi State University Wailes E.J. 49
  • 50. Walker Robyn University of Utah Walls Christopher West Virginia University Ward Heather University of Wisconsin Ward Robert I Jr. Michigan State University Warner Kellie J. Trenton, OH high School teacher Warren Martyn University of Plymouth UK Rural Futures Unit Waterbury Josie A. University of Nebraska Ag Econ Waters Emily University of North Carolina Cancer Center Watley Kamy Williams Texas Tech University Ohio State Hort & Crop Watters Harold University Science Upper Grand Fam. Health Waugh Amy Team Fergus, Ontario, CA Webb Aileen Michigan State University Western Washington Marquette Webb S.M. University University College of Weckman R. University of Kentucky Agriculture Weir Tom Oklahoma State University Journ & Broadcast Westwood-Money Kinsey Oklahoma State University Wethington Holly R. Michigan State University Ohio State Whaley Sherrie University Whatley Carol Auburn University University of Wheeler Matthew B. Illinois Animal Science Whitacre Brian E. Oklahoma State University Virginia Polytechnic Ohio State Decease Whiting Larry University d Ohio State Hum, Comm Res Whittington M.Susie University Dev University of Wilkins L. Missouri Journalism Willard A.M. Montrose CA Willard Barbara E. DePaul University Dept. of Comm. Williams Anna E. University of Rochester Williams Roshun N. Delta State University Willilams Sharon Williment Melissa Michigan State University Wilson Kristen M University of Texas Iowa State Wilson Lester University Wingenbach Gary J. Texas A&M University Ag Lead, Ed. &Com Witham D. University of Kentucky College of Ag Ohio State Extensio Wolford Gwen University n University of Wood Ashley Florida IFAS Wood Michelle University of Wisconsin Woodall W.Gill University of New Mexico Comm & Journ. Woodson Dorothy M Texas A&M University University of Wool D.L. Illinois 50
  • 51. University of Worden Eva C. Florida IFAS Extension Worthy Sheri Mississippi State University Networked Wouters Paul Royal Netherlands Academy Res&Digit Wynn James Carnegie Mellon University Yadav Sunita Yodanis Carrie University of British Columbia Young Audrey Kansas State University Dept. of Comm. Zakharova Ludmila Zehnder Geoffrey W. Auburn University Ent. & Plant Path. National Pork Producers Zenger Sara Assoc. Zheng Yuquing Auburn University Ag Econ; Rural Soc University of California- Ag & Resource Zilberman David Berkeley Econ Zimmerman D.E. Colorado State University Technical Comm. 51