AGED 5302 Research proposal

!1
EXPLORING UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS’ PERSPECTIVES, EXPERIENCES,
INVOLVEMENT, AND BELIEFS ABOUT AGRICULTURAL DIALOGUE ON SOCIAL
MEDIA
By
MICHAEL DALLAS MARLEY, B.S
A Research Proposal
Texas Tech University
December 06, 2014

!2
CHAPTER I
Introduction
“Agriculture ... is our wisest pursuit, because it will in the end contribute most to real wealth,
good morals & happiness.”
Thomas Jefferson to George Washington
Background and Setting
According to Davis, (2011) rural populations are decreasing due to rural-urban migration.
Agriculture literacy levels are decreasing due to urbanization (Doerfert, 2011). Less than two
percent of Americans are engaged in farming as their primary profession (Vilsack, 2014).
Despite this fact, agriculture continues plays a role in the lives of everyone, whether it is food,
medicine, or clothes (Whitaker & Dyer, 2000). Furthermore, agriculture impacts the government,
the economy, the environment, the global marketplace, and science (Thomson, 1996). The
worldwide population is estimated to grow to approximately 9 billion people by 2050
(Rutherford, 2008). Technological advancements and innovations are the only way farmers and
ranchers will be able to efficiently meet the increased demand (Rutherford, 2008). The
significance and demand for agriculture are becoming increasingly important. (Rutherford,
2008).
Although agricultural production is in high demand, agricultural literacy, or the basic
understanding of agricultural principles, continues to rapidly decline (Doerfert, 2011). The job
of agricultural educators and communicators is to transmit accurate agriculture related

!3
information between agriculture and nonagricultural stakeholders. Additionally, agricultural
communicators and educators deal with the issues of ethics and image in efforts to transmit
truthful information along with the ideals of the agricultural production and processing
industries.
According to Evans, (2006) the theoretical roots of agriculture related communication are
constantly changing. A majority of Americans are removed from the agriculture industry
(Duncan & Broyles, 2006). Thomson (1996) stated the public is more likely to look to news
sources for information when they have less direct experience regarding any certain issue.
Furthermore, urban populations have little interest in agricultural or rural affairs (Pawlick, 2001).
Agriculture is not high on the agenda for major news media outlets. According to Reisner &
Walter, (1994) when agricultural stories do make the news, they are event based and conflictual.
People have progressively moved toward online media as their source for media
consumption (Yoo & Kim, 2012). People are looking more and more towards Facebook, Twitter,
and YouTube for their news and information. Social media is becoming a more pertinent source
of information. According to PR Newswire, (2014) “41% of 18-34 year olds chose social media
as their preferred news source, after television and news websites.” This would not be a problem
if it were not for the fact that false and invalid information is often disseminated through social
media. In fact, misinformation on social media can even lead to false memory formation (Fenn,
Griffin, Uitvlugt, & Ravizza, 2014). People are being misinformed by anti agricultural
organizations and uninformed individuals due to the fact that social media websites such as
Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube allow users to post user-generated content without any means of
verification.

!4
In my own experience, I have seen a consider amount of friends and peers advocating
misinformation through negativity on social media for and against agricultural and natural
resources industries. I find it discouraging when I see people express negative views and
attitudes towards the industry or by people attempting to “defend” the industry, especially when
they are not properly informed, their views are established on invalid information, or they are
completely ignorant of any knowledge whatsoever. I believe it is imperative that agricultural
educators find better ways to motivate agriculturists on formal methods of assessing and
addressing misinformation online. Ultimately, I would like transparence in and of our industry. I
think educational establishments are an amazing component for teaching and preparing
individuals to advocate agriculture as communicators and educators. Agricultural educational
facilities can better prepare students if they first come to better understand their students and the
characteristics that are important in motivating problem solving.
This is more so a call for duty and responsibility. There are extremists on both ends of the
spectrum supporting and opposing different agricultural industries and procedures. There is a
large gap in knowledge in the middle of the spectrum of people who are blatantly and
unashamedly ignorant. They are blind and easily persuaded in either direction. They make
decisions that are not grounded on logical thinking or knowledge. I believe each side should take
responsibility for the current state of affairs. Misinformation abounds on social media
battlegrounds where people have moved away from advocacy procedures to negativity. Opinions
are being swayed based on which side can present the opposition was worse. When I originally
drafted this research, I believed all who opposed agriculture were victimizing agricultural
communicators. My belief now is that both sides are responsible for acting in ways that do not

!5
reflect a positive environment for which the ill informed masses could come to find objective
knowledge. I’m afraid that we have all reached a place where achieving an agenda is more
important than actually allowing people to make their own informed decisions.
Statement of the Problem
As agricultural systems become increasingly efficient, there are fewer and fewer
agricultural workers every year (Rutherford, 2008). As populations become increasingly urban
and as rural populations decrease, Americans’ understanding of agriculture will become further
skewed and agricultural literacy levels will continue to suffer (Doerfert, 2011).
Because of the way these sites allow users to post uncensored, user-generated content, it
is easy for false and invalid information to be disseminated (Fenn, et al., 2014) Therefore, many
people are being misinformed by anti-agriculture organizations, as well as uninformed
individuals. As social media continues to evolve and become more pertinent in the lives of
Americans, people are becoming increasingly reliable upon websites such as Facebook, Twitter,
and YouTube as viable sources of information (PR Newswire, 2014).
Agricultural educators and communicators need to be more effective in their social media
presence for advocating agriculture and combating misinformation. The design of this study will
seek to describe and interpret the perspectives, involvement, experiences, and beliefs of students
in the Texas Tech Department of Agricultural Education and Communications concerning
dialogue about agriculture on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. Findings from this study will
help to raise questions that warrant further research to advance the conceptualization of social
media in agricultural affairs research. Gaining a better understanding of the participants’

!6
experiences, perspectives, involvement, and beliefs about agriculture on social media could aid
educators in preparing and motivating students to communicate and advocate agriculture online
more effectively.

!7
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework for this study is constructed around the situational theory of problem
solving (STOPS) developed by Jeong-Nam Kim & James Grunig in 2011.

!8
!
Figure 1: Situational Theory of Problem Solving (STOPS)
The situational theory of publics was developed by Grunig in 1997 and is more widely
known, however, STOPS improves upon the situational theory of publics, as it is more
comprehensive and generalized. STOPS utilizes the situational theory of publics’ theoretical
goals and power; however, it also introduces a new independent variable: communicant
activeness in problem solving. Communicant activeness in problem solving consists of behaviors

!9
that can be observed as passive or active. These are information seeking, information processing,
information forwarding, information sharing, information forefending, and information
permitting. Communicant activeness is greater when situational motivation is greater. To
illuminate communicant activeness in problem solving, STOPS hones the independent variables
in the situational theory of publics. These variables are problem recognition, constraint
recognition, involvement recognition, and referent criterion. This study was especially interested
situational motivation in problem solving, which is a new variable introduced in STOPS (Kim &
Grunig, 2011). The emphasis of the situational theory of problem solving is to identify
characteristics of people who are willing to actively make known their opinions to solve
problems, and the driving force that is motivating them to do so. Figure 1 shows relationships
between the variables.
This theoretical framework is the foundation for analyzing Texas Tech Agricultural
Education and Communications departmental students perspectives, involvement, experiences,
and beliefs about participating in dialogue about agriculture on social media as well possible
factors that motivated or inhibited the students to participate in online dialogue.
Purpose and Objectives
The purpose of this exploratory research is to assess the current perspectives,
experiences, involvement, and beliefs of currently enrolled students in the Department of
Agricultural Education and Communications at Texas Tech University concerning participation
in dialogue about agriculture through social media.
This study was guided by the following research questions:

!10
1. What are subjects’ current perspectives about their duty and responsibility to the
agricultural industry in the participation of dialogue on social media about
agriculture?
2. What are the subjects’ previous experiences involving agriculture on social media?
3. What are subjects’ current involvements in advocacy of agriculture on social media
websites?
4. What are subjects’ beliefs about the tools needed for agricultural advocacy and the
availability of these tools?
The study’s participants will consist of males and females who are currently seeking a
Bachelor’s degree in the Department of Agricultural Education and Communications at Texas
Tech. Participants will be observed and studied with these research objectives in mind.
Definition of Terms
Advocacy: A phenomenon observed as a result of communicative behavior that is beneficial to
the process of problem solving.
Agricultural Literacy: “A person possessing agricultural literacy would have the capacity to
synthesize, analyze, and communicate basic information about agriculture” (Frick, et al., 1991).
“Possessing knowledge and understanding of the food and fiber system” (Frick, Kahler, &
Miller, 1991).
Department of Agricultural Education and Communications (AEC): An academic department
within the College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources that houses two different
degree programs: agricultural communications and interdisciplinary agriculture with a leadership
or teacher certification option.

!11
Misinformation: Knowledge or information that is invalid, untrue, or not credible. This definition
of misinformation is purposely broad and encompassing as to increase generalizability. For the
purposes of this research, misinformation is non-excluding or limited by the method, purpose, or
result of its dissemination.
Negativity: A phenomenon observed as a result of communicative behavior that is detrimental to
the process of problem solving.
Problem Recognition: “A problem doesn’t exist until we recognize it” (Kim & Grunig, 2011).
Recognition occurs when reality doesn’t align with expectations.
Social Media: For the purposes of this research, social media is all online social networking
communities and websites that allow users to publicly, privately, or anonymously share,
disseminate, or market information, opinions, ideas, audio, video, and other forms of digital
content. All social media have inherent differences in their design, function, audience, purpose,
privacy level, and level of anonymity.
Texas Tech University (TTU): The four-year institution that encompasses the College of
Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources. TTU is comprised of 11 academic colleges with
over 33,000 students enrolled in fall of 2013.
Limitations of the Study
The following limitations of this study should be considered:
• Data will be collected from current students in the Department of Agricultural
Education and Communications at Texas Tech University.
• Members of the population may be unwilling to participate.

!12
• The generalizability or transferability of the findings is limited to TTU
Department of Agricultural Education and Communications.
• Not all participants may have prior experience or attitudes about online dialogue
concerning agriculture.
Basic Assumptions
The following are basic assumptions made about this study:
• Participants will respond to the focus group questions honestly and to the best of
their ability.
• Participants are students currently enrolled at TTU in the Department of
Agricultural Education and Communications.
• Participants to be used in the study will have experiences and prior knowledge
relevant to the purpose of the study.
Significance of the Problem
A society that is agriculturally literate is vital for the continued success of the U.S.
agriculture industry (Igo & Frick, 1999). The American Association of Agricultural Education’s
2011-2015 National Research Agenda (Doerfert, 2011) highlighted the need for public and policy
maker understanding of agriculture and natural resources. An agriculturally illiterate population
of individuals could negatively impact the sustainability of agriculture through public policy,
decreased demand for certain products, and by complicating the furthering of agriculture
production technologies. These problems affect producers’ ability to meet the needs of an ever-
growing population. A sound knowledge of the agriculture industry is necessary for consumers

!13
due to the fact that they make voting, policy, purchasing, education, and career choices (Doerfert,
2003).
With a more ever present amount of negative information about agriculture being
disseminated online, agriculturists need to understand how to effectively combat this
information. The role of agriculture communicators and educators is constantly evolving and is
becoming as important as ever. The methods used to by parties for and against agricultural
industries and techniques to address perceived problems in online social media environments are
questionable. Negativity is being met with more negativity and misinformation continues to
affect people.
It is important for agriculture to remain relevant to people who are far disconnected from
the setting and processes. Agricultural communicators must be diligent in evaluating current
standing. If we do not know where we currently stand, we cannot expect to accurately and
efficiently move in a positive direction for greater agricultural sustainability. It is vital to
examine our future agricultural educators and communicators’ current perspectives, experiences,
involvements and concerning online dialogue concerning agriculture so that we may properly
prepare them to better advocate agriculture online.

!14
CHAPTER II
Literature Review
Introduction
My literature review begins with a thorough of review and analysis of the related
literature that has led to the development of this research proposal. I would explain how my
study is relevant to this literature by creating a network of relationships between different
literature and data that provide evidence for my problem statement by revealing gaps in
knowledge and pointing to relevant issues. I would analyze the related research to better place
my research questions in perspective and show that previous research and current knowledge
cannot solve the problem I have presented accurately enough. This will help explain how this
research will effectively add knowledge to the area of agriculture literacy and agriculture on
social media. I will review the research methods, techniques, and concepts of the related
literature to assure that conclusions were warranted, and therefore creating validity for the related
research that I chose. Finally, I will discuss how the theoretical framework shaped the variables/
research questions in my study and how they will be measured/answered.

!15
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework for this study is based on the situational theory of problem
solving developed by Jeong-Nam Kim & James E. Grunig in 2011. Communicant activeness in
problem solving consists of six subvariables: information seeking, information processing,
information forwarding, information sharing, information forefending, and information
permitting. To explain communicative activeness in problem solving, the situational theory of
problem solving refines four of the situational theory of publics’ independent variables: problem
recognition, constraint recognition, involvement recognition, and referent criterion. However, it
also introduces a new variable: situational motivation in problem solving (Kim & Grunig, 2011).
The situational theory of problem solving focuses on identifying characteristics of people who
are willing to actively make their opinions known to solve problems and their motivations.
This theoretical framework is the foundation for analyzing Texas Tech Agricultural
Education and Communications departmental students perspectives, involvement, and
experiences in concerning agriculture on social media as well possible factors that motivated the
students to share their opinion in these online situations.
Communicant Activeness
Communicative action in problem solving is the dependent variable in this theory.
Communicative activeness is a concept that describes a persons activities regarding information
taking, selecting, and giving as one engages in problem solving (Kim & Grunig, 2011). Each of
these three domains is then further broken down into an active or passive component making for
six communicative behaviors. Kim & Grunig describe them as follows:

!16
Information seeking (active) and information attending (passive) in the information
acquiring domain, information forefending (active) and information permitting (passive)
in the information selecting domain, and information forwarding (active) and information
sharing (passive) in the information transmitting domain.
This research focuses on the active transmission of information forwarding. Information
forwarding happens when a giver forwards information even if it was not requested; it is a self-
propelled, planned giving of information to others (Kim & Grunig, 2011).
Antecedent Variables & Mediating Variable
Kim & Grunig posit that there are 5 variables that affect the dependent variable,
communicative action. Figure 3 shows how the variables are related. Problem recognition,
constraint recognition, involvement recognition, and referent criterion are antecedent variables.
Situational motivation is a mediating variable.
Problem recognition occurs “when people detect that something should be done about a
situation and stop to think about what to do” (Kim & Grunig, 2011). Problem recognition is the
primary agent but not the only cause of subsequent communicative and cognitive activity in a
problem situation. Involvement recognition is an observed connection between the problem
situation and the self (Kim & Grunig, 2011). Constraint recognition occurs when obstacles in a
situation are perceived that limit one’s ability to solve a problem. Referent criterion is what a
person uses after the recognition of a problem in which they conduct an internal, cognitive search
for prior experience.
Finally, we have situational motivation in problem solving, which is a state of situation-
specific, epistemic and cognitive readiness to make efforts at problem solving (Kim & Grunig,
2011). Kim and Grunig also state that situational motivation increases as a person is able to

!17
recognize a problem, how the problem relates to him or her, and with the absence of constraints
in doing something about it, as shown in Figure 2.
!
!
Figure 3 illustrates that communicative activeness is positively correlated with situational
motivation, which is affected by problem, involvement and constraint recognition (Kim &
Grunig, 2011). Problem recognition and involvement recognition have a positive correlation with
Problem
Recogintion
Involvement
Recognition
Constraint
Recognition
Situational
Motivation
Situational
Motivation
Referrent
Criterion
Communic
ant
Activeness
Figure 2: Factors Affecting Situational Motivation in Communicant Activeness.
Figure 3: Factors Affecting Situational Communicant Activeness in Problem Solving.

!18
situational motivation; while constraint recognition is negatively correlated with situational
motivation, as can be seen in Figure 3. Furthermore, referent criterion is positively correlated
with communicant activeness (Kim & Grunig, 2011). In simpler terms, situational motivation is
increased when a person is able to recognize a problem and perceive that they are connected to
the problematic situation at hand. When a person recognizes constraints or an obstacle in a
situation limiting their ability to act, their situational motivation decreases.
!
Relation to the Study
The researcher was interested in the situational theory of problem solving because of its
potential ability to identify what motivates agriculturists to participate in dialogue about
agriculture online. The situational theory of problem solving is capable of explaining student’s
current levels of agriculture communicant activeness on social media. Additionally, by using this
theory, antecedent variables of student’s current active (or inactive) communication behaviors
online can be better identified.
Research Questions:
Situational
Motivation
Constraint
Recognition
Figure 4: Constraint Recognition and Situational Motivation.

!19
agriculture?
By exploring student’s perspectives about their current perception of their duty and
responsibility to the agricultural industry to contribute knowledge and participate in dialogue on
social media, the theory can help explain which antecedents are affecting these students’ abilities
to actively communicate. For example, if students are not recognizing the problem of
misinformation on social media, he or she may not see agriculture discourse and advocacy online
as critical. Additionally, by determining subjects’ beliefs about duty and responsibility in the
participation of online dialogue, the theory can help identify which antecedent variable(s) is (are)
most limiting to situational motivation.
By assessing experience, this theory can be used to understand the underlying variables
that caused previous communication behavior. This objective will also help to assess individuals
with referent criterion, narrowing down the list of other possible variables that affect motivation.
websites?
If current levels of involvement of participants can be determined, variables currently
affecting the participants that have lead to their current activeness (or inactiveness) in
communication can be identified.
4. What are subjects’ beliefs about the tools needed for agricultural advocacy online and
the availability of these tools?

!20
By exploring the opinions about the tools needed for online advocacy and their current
accessibility through the lens of this theory, constraints can be identified that are currently
inhibiting situational motivation.
According to Kim and Grunig, sometimes members of publics need to be stimulated by
practitioners to voluntarily circulate information about problems in which they are interested.
According to the situational theory of problem solving, “information behaviors are most likely to
increase when individuals are motivated because they recognize problems and involvement and
do not feel constrained” (Kim & Grunig, 2011). By reaching the objectives defined in this
research, we can better identify which antecedent factors are currently affecting the participants’
communicant activeness. In this case, educators at Texas Tech could use the results of this study
to prepare better strategies for increasing motivation and enhancing desired information
behaviors (Kim & Grunig, 2011).
CHAPTER III
Methodology
Introduction

!21
This chapter explains in detail the procedures used to guide the research process. The
topics of focus will include rationale, data collection, participant selection, researcher’s role,
validity and reliability, data analysis, and standards for qualitative rigor.
Rationale
The purpose of this research is to assess the current perspectives, experiences,
involvement, and beliefs of currently enrolled students in the Department of Agricultural
Education and Communications at Texas Tech University concerning participation in dialogue
about agriculture through social media.
This study was guided by the following research questions:
agriculture?
websites?
4. What are subjects’ beliefs about the tools needed for agricultural advocacy and the
availability of these tools?
The study’s participants will consist of males and females who are currently seeking a
Bachelor’s or Master’s degree in the Department of Agricultural Education and Communications
at Texas Tech. Participants will be observed and studied with these research objectives in mind.
Data Collection

!22
The basic qualitative research method for this study is focus group research. The focus
group will commence in late March 2015. It will take place at a specific location that is yet to be
determined on the campus of Texas Tech University. The focus groups will be semistructured.
The focus groups will center on agriculture as seen through the lens of social media and
agricultural communications. According to Ary, focus groups are effective for helping people
form their own attitudes, beliefs, and choices. Furthermore, the semistructured interview format
allows for the researcher to form questions and ideas about the phenomenon at hand. Because
this research is meant to gain interpretation and is exploratory in nature, a semistructured focus
group interview is the best choice for eliciting rich data.
Selection of Participants
This research will select participants using convenience sampling. Convenience sampling
is choosing a sample for purposes of availability, time, location, or ease of access. The study’s
participants will consist of males and females who are currently seeking a Bachelor’s or Master’s
degree in the Department of Agricultural Education and Communications at Texas Tech. 20
Students’ will be selected based on faculty suggestions in an attempt to represent the diversity of
undergraduate departmental students from all three majors within the college, while still trying to
maintain a level of homogeneity to ensure comfort of all participants to be willing to share
honestly. Convenience sampling fits the needs for the purposes of this study to gain better
understanding on perceptions, experiences, involvement, and beliefs.
The researcher’s role is observer as participant so observation can be made without losing
the ability to participate in guiding discourse in a suitable direction for the exploratory nature of
the research. Since the researcher is acting as instrument, field notes will be scribed in

!23
conjunction with video recording procedure so that data can be further analyzed at a later date.
According to Ary, field notes are effective in allowing the researcher to describe how things were
perceived as well as reflect to develop cognitive observations and speculate on data analysis.
Video recording makes data collection much more efficient and doesn’t inhibit the researcher to
employ Seidman’s three levels of listening (2006).
“(1) listening to what the participant is saying; (2) listening to the “inner voice,” the
unguarded response that is not targeted to an external audience; and (3) listening while
remaining aware of process and nonverbal cues.”
Video recordings will allow for transcriptions to be made at a later date that are deeper
and contain data that can help the research find meaning and develop explanations. Video
recordings will be transcribed into thick rich data at a later date into in the research so that the
full context can be understood and the phenomenon can be better understood.
Bracketing
Working as human instrument in this research it is imperative that I make note of my
experiences leave opportunity for threats to validity. As a means to remove bias and assumptions
from data acquisition and analysis, bracketing of the experiences of the researcher is important to
remove bias and ensure that previous experiences and beliefs do not affect the objectivity and
confirmability. My experiences in agriculture have played an important role in the development
of this research. In addition to a commercial goat operation, my family owned a seed company. A
business perspective coupled with a rough idea of lawmaking and political constituency has
made me cognizant of the potential threats to our country’s welfare and sustenance. This
awareness has magnified my view on the importance of agricultural literacy and deepened my
sense of duty and responsibility to this industry.

!24
Furthermore, a reflective log will be kept to help identify the biases of the researcher.
This log will be referred and written in during data analysis and other points during the process
to help identify bias and make it less likely that biases are not being imposed on the study.
Data Analysis
The research utilizes the data pyramid technique to develop themes that can be further
analyzed to draw conclusions. A data pyramid takes large data pieces and breaks them down into
categories, then fractures categories in into themes. (Ary, 2013). Constant comparative method of
analysis will be employed. The constant comparative method is described by Ary (2013):
“examine each new unit of meaning (topic or concept) to determine its distinctive
characteristics. Then you compare categories and group them with similar categories. If
there are no similar units of meaning, form a new category. Thus, there is a process of
continuous refinement; initial categories may be changed, merged, or omitted; new
categories are generated; and new relationships can be discovered.”
These two techniques will be sufficient in gaining understanding and meaning from the
data collected.
Standards for Qualitative Rigor
Peer review will be utilized to reach a consensus and to assure that the analysis of the
data reflects the data that was collected to help assure credibility. As stated earlier, a reflective
log will be referred to and written in throughout the process of collection and analysis to control/
limit biases of the researcher.
Thick rich description of the data sets will be made so that the study will have better
transferability. Thick rich descriptions allows for congruence to be seen between the context of
the research already conducted and what is hoped to be conducted next so that the second
researcher can decide if the study would be applicable to the target audience under investigation.

!25
Narrative analysis from the data will be used to help provide a clearer sense of
transferability. Narrative is not limited to only the conversations between participants, but also
the environment and descriptions of the entire event. It is a verbal picture of drawn to help place
the reader in the midst of the focus group so they may better understand the context of the
research. Furthermore, narrative analysis can help establish credibility as it provides an
opportunity for another researcher to determine if the findings are supported by the narrative
analysis.
Audit trail technique will be applied to help establish confirmability and dependability.
An audit trail is used to keep an audit of the researcher’s thoughts and actions throughout
qualitative research. Since qualitative research generally evolves and develops over time, it is
important for an outside researcher to evaluate the data for fraud or error. In an audit trail, all
choices made regarding theory, methods and analysis are documented so other researchers can
decide if findings from the research are truly grounded in data.

!26
References
(2014). In TV We (Still) Trust: 73 Percent of Americans Cite Television as Their Preferred and
Most Trusted News Source - Topping Online, Print and Social Media. PR Newswire.
Ary, D; Jacobs, L; Sorensen, C K.; Walker, D. (2013). Introduction to research in education.
Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.
Davis, K. (2011). The urbanization of the human population. The City Reader, 2-11.
Doerfert, D. L. (Ed.) (2011). National research agenda: American Association for Agricultural
Education’s research priority areas for 2011-2015. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University,
Department of Agricultural Education and Communications.
Doerfert, D. L. (2003). Agricultural literacy: An assessment of research studies published within
the agricultural education profession. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Western Region
Agricultural Education Research Conference, Portland (Vol. 41).
Duncan, D. W., & Broyles, T. W. (2006). A comparison of student knowledge and perceptions
toward agriculture before and after attending a Governor’s School for Agriculture.NACTA
Journal, 50(1), 16-21.
Evans, J. F. (2006). Roaming the changing theoretical landscape of agricultural communications.
Journal of Applied Communications, 90(1), 16-32.
Fenn, K., Griffin, N., Uitvlugt, M., & Ravizza, S. (2014). The effect of Twitter exposure on false
memory formation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0639-9
Frick, M., Kahler, A., & Miller, W. (1991). A definition and the concepts of agricultural literacy.
Journal of Agricultural Education, 32(2), 49-57, doi:10.5232/jae.1991.02049

!27
Igo, C., & Frick, M. (1999). A case study assessment of standard and benchmarks for
implementing food and fiber systems literacy. Proceedings of the 18th annual Western Region
Agricultural Education Research Meeting. Corpus Christi, TX.
Kim, J., & Grunig, J. E. (2011). Problem Solving and Communicative Action: A Situational
Theory of Problem Solving. Journal Of Communication, 61(1), 120-149. doi:10.1111/j.
1460-2466.2010.01529.x
Pawlick, T. (2001). The invisible farm: The worldwide decline of farm news and agricultural
journalism training. Burnham Inc, Chicago, Ill.
Reisner, A., & Walter, G. (1994). Agricultural journalists’ assessments of print coverage of
agricultural news. Rural Sociology, 59(3), 525-37.
Rutherford, B. (2008, December 24). Feeding the world one technology at a time. Beef.
Retrieved from http://beefmagazine.com/business/0101-feeding-worldpopulation
Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College
Press.
Thomson, J. S. (1996). Suburbanites’ Perceptions about agriculture: The challenge for
agricultural education. Proceedings of the 23rd National Agricultural Education Research
Meeting, 38-48. Cincinnati, OH.
Vilsack, T. (2014). 2012 Census of agriculture preliminary report. United States Department of
Agriculture. Retrieved from http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/
Preliminary_Report/Full_Report.pdf

!28
Whitaker, K., & Dyer, J. (2000). Identifying sources of bias in agricultural news reporting.
Journal of Agricultural Education, 41(4), 125-133, doi: 10.5032/jae.2000.04125 .
Yoo, J. H., & Kim, J. (2012). Obesity in the new media: A content analysis of obesity videos on
YouTube. Health Communication, 27(1), 86-97. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2011.569003

AGED 5302 Research proposal

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to AGED 5302 Research proposal

Similar to AGED 5302 Research proposal (14)

AGED 5302 Research proposal