Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:11:43.396Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Farmers' use of validity cues to evaluate reports of field-scale agricultural research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Gerry Walter
Gerry Walter
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Office of Agricultural Communications and Education, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 60801.
Get access

Abstract

On-farm and farmer-directed research is claimed to lack validity when produced by methods that limit the generalizability of its results. However, farmers may consider such findings sufficiently valid for use in agricultural production even though agricultural scientists may not consider them scientifically valid. A general social-psychological theory of knowledge and information processing called lay epistemology suggests that farmers may assess the validity of any research report by its plausibility in relation to their knowledge and experience. Other communication research suggests that readers will look for cues to help them decide whether the research and findings are valid and useful.

To identify validity cues used by farmers in evaluating production research reports, we asked 56 Illinois cash-grain farmers to mark phrases and other items that influenced their confidence in a popularized research report and to explain the reasons for each mark. The kinds of validity cues that farmers used or sought had little relationship to their personal or enterprise characteristics. The researcher's name, location and affiliation were critical cues, but information on the methods and results were no more important than data about costs, risks, growing conditions, and longer term outcomes. Plausibility plays a key role when farmers decide whether production research is valid. It would be useful to farmers if research reports included more information about the system being studied, such as its costs and risks, along with data on the research methods used.

Keywords

on-farm researchagricultural communicationvalidity assessmentresearch design
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , September 1993 , pp. 107 - 117
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Ajzen, I. 1977. Intuitive theories of events and the effects of base rate information on prediction. J. Personality and Social Psychology 35:303–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Berlo, D.K., Lemert, J.B., and Mertz, R.J.. 1970. Dimensions for evaluating the acceptability of message sources. Public Opinion Quarterly 33:563–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Borgida, E., and Nisbett, R.E.. 1977. The differential impact of abstract vs. concrete information on decisions. J. Applied Social Psychology 7:258–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., and Moms, K.J.. 1983. Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation, recall, and persuasion. J. Personality and Social Psychology 45:805–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Delia, J.G. 1976. A constructivist analysis of the concept of credibility. Quarterly J. Speech 62:361–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Dervin, B. 1983. Information as a user construct: The relevance of perceived information needs to synthesis and interpretation. In Ward, S.A. and Reed, L.J. (eds). Knowledge Structure and Use: Implications for Synthesis and Interpretation. University Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, pp. 153–183.Google Scholar
7.Francis, C.A., Rzewnicki, P.E., Franzluebbers, A., Jones, A.J., Dickey, E.C., and King, J.W.. 1989. Closing the information cycle: Participatory methods for on-farm research. Paper presented to conference on Farmer Participation in Research for Sustainable Agriculture, Fayetteville, Arkansas.Google Scholar
8.Gaziano, C., and McGrath, K.. 1986. Measuring the concept of credibility. Journalism Quarterly 63(3):451–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Gillespie, G.W. Jr., and Buttel, F.H.. 1989. Farmer ambivalence toward agricultural research: An empirical assessment. Rural Sociology 54(3):382–408.Google Scholar
10.Harte, T.B. 1972. The Effects of Initial Attitude and Evidence in Persuasive Communications. Ph.D. thesis. Dept. of Speech Communication, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana.Google Scholar
11.Hecht, S.B. 1988. The evolution of agroecological thought. In Altieri, M. (ed). Agroecology: The Scientific Basis of Alternative Agriculture. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
12.Hovland, C., and Weiss, W.. 1951. The influence on source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly 15:635–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Illinois Dept. of Energy and Natural Resources. 1991.1990 Sustainable agriculture demonstration grant program results. Springfield.Google Scholar
14.Jackson, W. 1987. Altars of Unhewn Stone. North Point Press, San Francisco, California.Google Scholar
15.Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A.. 1973. On the psychology of prediction. Psychology Review 80:237–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Kline, J.A. 1969. Interaction of evidence and readers' intelligence on the persuasiveness of short messages. Quarterly J. Speech 55:407–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Kloppenburg, J.R. Jr., 1991. Social theory and the de/reconstruction of agricultural science: Local knowledge for an alternative agriculture. Rural Sociology 56(4):519–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Kruglanski, A.W. 1980. Lay epistemologic—process and contents: Another look at attribution theory. J. Personality and Social Psychology 87:70–87.Google Scholar
19.Kruglanski, A.W. 1989. Lay Epistemics and Human Knowledge. Plenum, New York, N.Y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Kruglanski, A.W., and Freund, T.. 1983. The freezing and unfreezing of lay-inferences: Effects on impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping, and numerical anchoring. J. Experimental Social Psychology 19(5):448–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Kruglanski, A.W., and Mayseless, O.. 1988. Contextual effects in hypothesis testing: The role of competing alternatives and epistemic motivations. Social Cognition 6:1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Mayseless, O., and Kruglanski, A.W.. 1987. What makes you so sure?: Effects of epistemic motivations on judgmental confidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 39:162–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.McQuarrie, F.O. 1984. The Effects of Inserting Research-based Information into a Standard Goal Setting Process. Ph.D. thesis. Dept. of Psychology, Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park.Google Scholar
24.Molnar, J.J., Duffy, P.A., Cummins, K.A., and Van Santen, E.. 1992. Agricultural science and agricultural counterculture: Paradigms in search of a future. Rural Sociology 57(1):83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Petty, R.E., and Cacioppo, J.T.. 1984. The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. J. Personality and Social Psychology 46:69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Petty, R.E., Harkins, S.E., and Williams, K.D.. 1980. The effects of group diffusion or cognitive effort on attitudes: An information-processing view. J. Personality and Social Psychology 38:81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T., and Goldman, R.. 1981. Personal involvement as a determinant of argument based persuasion. J. Personality and Social Psychology 41:847–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.Postman, N. 1992. Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. Knopf, New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
29.Restivo, S.R., and Loughlin, J.. 1987. Critical sociology of science and scientific validity. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 8(3):486–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30.Rzewnicki, P.E., Thompson, R., Lesoing, G.W., Elmore, R.W., Francis, C.A., Parkhurst, A.M., and Moomaw, R.S.. 1988. On-farm experiment designs and implications for locating research sites. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 3(4):168–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31.Suppe, F. 1987. The limited applicability of agricultural research. Agric. and Human Values 4(4):4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32.UWEX. 1989. Management guides for sustainable agriculture: Controlling weeds with cover crops in sustainable agriculture. Univ. of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension Service, Madison.Google Scholar
33.Walter, G.L. 1991. Extensions of extension: Socialization and credibility constraints on private crop advisors. J. Applied Communications 75(2):30–41.Google Scholar