11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Have farmers had enough of experts?

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The exponential rise of information available means we can now, in theory, access knowledge on almost any question we ask. However, as the amount of unverified information increases, so too does the challenge in deciding which information to trust. Farmers, when learning about agricultural innovations, have historically relied on in-person advice from traditional ‘experts’, such as agricultural advisers, to inform farm management. As more farmers go online for information, it is not clear whether they are now using digital information to corroborate in-person advice from traditional ‘experts’, or if they are foregoing ‘expert’ advice in preference for peer-generated information. To fill this knowledge gap, we sought to understand how farmers in two contrasting European countries (Hungary and the UK) learnt about sustainable soil innovations and who influenced them to innovate. Through interviews with 82 respondents, we found farmers in both countries regularly used online sources to access soil information; some were prompted to change their soil management by farmer social media ‘influencers’. However, online information and interactions were not usually the main factor influencing farmers to change their practices. Farmers placed most trust in other farmers to learn about new soil practices and were less trusting of traditional ‘experts’, particularly agricultural researchers from academic and government institutions, who they believed were not empathetic towards farmers’ needs. We suggest that some farmers may indeed have had enough of traditional ‘experts’, instead relying more on their own peer networks to learn and innovate. We discuss ways to improve trustworthy knowledge exchange between agricultural stakeholders to increase uptake of sustainable soil management practices, while acknowledging the value of peer influence and online interactions for innovation and trust building.

          Related collections

          Most cited references95

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Comparison of Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing.

              The widespread prevalence and persistence of misinformation in contemporary societies, such as the false belief that there is a link between childhood vaccinations and autism, is a matter of public concern. For example, the myths surrounding vaccinations, which prompted some parents to withhold immunization from their children, have led to a marked increase in vaccine-preventable disease, as well as unnecessary public expenditure on research and public-information campaigns aimed at rectifying the situation. We first examine the mechanisms by which such misinformation is disseminated in society, both inadvertently and purposely. Misinformation can originate from rumors but also from works of fiction, governments and politicians, and vested interests. Moreover, changes in the media landscape, including the arrival of the Internet, have fundamentally influenced the ways in which information is communicated and misinformation is spread. We next move to misinformation at the level of the individual, and review the cognitive factors that often render misinformation resistant to correction. We consider how people assess the truth of statements and what makes people believe certain things but not others. We look at people's memory for misinformation and answer the questions of why retractions of misinformation are so ineffective in memory updating and why efforts to retract misinformation can even backfire and, ironically, increase misbelief. Though ideology and personal worldviews can be major obstacles for debiasing, there nonetheless are a number of effective techniques for reducing the impact of misinformation, and we pay special attention to these factors that aid in debiasing. We conclude by providing specific recommendations for the debunking of misinformation. These recommendations pertain to the ways in which corrections should be designed, structured, and applied in order to maximize their impact. Grounded in cognitive psychological theory, these recommendations may help practitioners-including journalists, health professionals, educators, and science communicators-design effective misinformation retractions, educational tools, and public-information campaigns.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                mark.reed@sruc.ac.uk
                Journal
                Environ Manage
                Environ Manage
                Environmental Management
                Springer US (New York )
                0364-152X
                1432-1009
                11 October 2021
                11 October 2021
                : 1-14
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.1006.7, ISNI 0000 0001 0462 7212, Centre for Rural Economy, School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, , Newcastle University, ; Kings Road, Newcastle, NE1 7RU UK
                [2 ]Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Lancaster House, Hampshire Court, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, NE4 7YH UK
                [3 ]Institute of Advanced Studies Kőszeg, Chernel u. 14, Kőszeg, 9730 Hungary
                [4 ]GRID grid.129553.9, ISNI 0000 0001 1015 7851, Georgikon Campus, , Institute of Agronomy, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, ; 16 Deák Ferenc Str, 8360 Keszthely, Hungary
                [5 ]GRID grid.252547.3, ISNI 0000 0001 0705 7067, School of Science, , Auckland University of Technology, ; 55 Wellesley Street East, Auckland CBD, Auckland, 1010 Aotearoa New Zealand
                [6 ]Sustainable Fibre Alliance, 84 Seatown, Cullen, Buckie, AB56 4SL UK
                [7 ]GRID grid.4818.5, ISNI 0000 0001 0791 5666, Strategic Communication Group, , Wageningen University, ; Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN Wageningen, The Netherlands
                [8 ]GRID grid.21027.36, ISNI 0000000121919137, Countryside and Community Research Institute (CCRI), , University of Gloucestershire, ; Francis Close Hall, Cheltenham, GL50 4AZ UK
                [9 ]GRID grid.507625.3, ISNI 0000 0001 1941 6100, Instituto de Estudios Sociales Avanzados (IESA-CSIC), ; Campo Santo de los Mártires 7, 14004 Córdoba, Spain
                [10 ]GRID grid.1022.1, ISNI 0000 0004 0437 5432, Griffith Business School, Griffith University, ; 170 Kessels Rd, Nathan, QLD 4111 Australia
                [11 ]GRID grid.129553.9, ISNI 0000 0001 1015 7851, Georgikon Campus, , Institute of Agronomy, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, ; 16 Deák Ferenc Str, Keszthely, 8360 Hungary
                [12 ]GRID grid.426884.4, ISNI 0000 0001 0170 6644, Thriving Natural Capital Challenge Centre and Rural Policy Centre, Department of Rural Economy, Environment & Society, , Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC), ; Peter Wilson Building, Kings Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG UK
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8958-8474
                Article
                1546
                10.1007/s00267-021-01546-y
                8503873
                34633488
                1a7302d7-d50f-43df-b298-380c5aad310a
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 6 September 2021
                : 25 September 2021
                Categories
                Article

                Environmental management, Policy & Planning
                innovation,social learning,social media,sustainable agriculture,technology adoption,trust,soil management

                Comments

                Comment on this article