Abstract
As Cooperative Extension Services (CES) grow, agriculture evolves, and urbanization increases, Extension professionals are challenged to continue meeting the needs of their constituents by providing reliable, research-backed information to their communities. This includes utilizing appropriate communication means to reach their constituents. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the communication preferences of University of Idaho CES professionals and their constituents and the communication types and channels most used. We used a cross-sectional descriptive census survey design and administered the survey to all University of Idaho CES faculty and educators. We analyzed the data via descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and paired sample t-tests. University of Idaho CES professionals ranked mainly individual communication channels as their preferred method of communication. However, they felt their constituents may prefer mass or group communication channels more than they do. CES professionals should utilize audience segmentation to serve their constituents better. COVID-19 also significantly increased the time spent preparing communications and utilizing mass communications. While technological-based communication increased during COVID-19, it is important to consider access and availability to constituents. Understanding what resources constituents have available and how they prefer to receive their information, can help CES professionals maintain relationships with their audiences.
Publisher
Advancements in Agricultural Development, Inc.
Reference20 articles.
1. Agunda, R. (1989). Communicating with the audience in mind. Journal of Applied Communications, 73(2), 17-24. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1532
2. Curtis, K. J., Veroff, D., Rizzo, B. & Beaudoin, J. (2012). Making the case for demographic data in extension programming. Journal of Extension, 50(3). https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.50.03.66
3. Daamen, D. D., Staats, H., Wilke, H. A. M., & Engelen, M. (2001). Improving environmental behavior in companies: The effectiveness of tailored versus nontailored interventions. Environment and Behavior, 33(2), 229-248. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160121972963
4. Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
5. Economic Research Service [ERS]. (2020, December 16). Ag Sectors and the Economy. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/ag-and-food-sectors-and-the-economy/