































   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 5, Issue 2, 2024 
  agdevresearch.org 

 

1. Ataharul Chowdhury, Associate Professor, School of Environmental Design and Rural Development, University of Guelph, 
50 Stone Road East, Ontario, Canada, N1G 2W1, ataharul.chowdhury@uoguelph.ca,  

 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2432-0933  
2. Khondokar H. Kabir, Banting postdoctoral fellow, School of Environmental Design and Rural Development, University of 

Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Ontario, Canada, N1G 2W1, kabirk@uoguelph.ca,  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9219-2529 
3. Edward Kusi Asafo-Agyei, Graduate Student Research Assistant (GSRA), School of Environmental Design and Rural 

Development, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Ontario, Canada, N1G 2W1, easafoag@uoguelph.ca  
4. Abdul-Rahim Abdulai, Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Geography, Environment and Geomatics, University of Guelph, 

Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Ontario, Canada, N1G 2W1, aabdulai@uoguelph.ca,  

 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4699-2407  
81 

 

Participatory and community-based approach in combating 
agri-food misinformation: A scoping review 

 
A. Chowdhury1, K. H. Kabir2, E. K. Asafo-Agyei3, A.-R. Abdulai4 

 
 

Article History 
Received: May 25. 2023 
Accepted: July 31, 2023 
Published: January 31, 2024 
 
 
Keywords 
agricultural extension and advisory 
services (AAS); disinformation; farmer 
field schools (FFS); information hub; 
technology stewardship; misinformation; 
participatory approach 
  

Abstract 
The spread of ill information with or without the intention of deceiving or 
causing harm has negatively impacted agricultural development both in 
social and digital spaces. This has led to a lack of trust in adopting new 
technologies and practices, which has hindered the process of facilitating 
agricultural development. Although the study of agri-food 
misinformation is still in its early stages, this paper draws on a scoping 
review of existing literature and lessons learned from other fields, such 
as political science and public health, which have extensive experience in 
combating misinformation in social settings. The article explores how 
Farmer Field Schools (FFS), a popular participatory and community-based 
approach, can incorporate media literacy education and how a local 
agricultural information hub, platform approach and a relatively new 
approach called technology stewardship in agricultural extension can 
help those working in the agri-food industry combat misinformation. 

mailto:ataharul.chowdhury@uoguelph.ca
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2432-0933
mailto:kabirk@uoguelph.ca
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9219-2529
mailto:easafoag@uoguelph.ca
mailto:aabdulai@uoguelph.ca
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4699-2407


Chowdhury et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349   82 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
Agricultural extension and advisory services (AAS) focus on providing authentic and reliable 
information to support the livelihood improvement of clients. As there is an increasing trend of 
digitalization of AAS (Sugihono et al., 2022), the generation and diffusion of agricultural 
information have become susceptible to misinformation and disinformation (Dilleen et al., 
2023)—broadly defined as spreading false information to cause harm or deceive (Baines & 
Elliott, 2020; Lewandowsky et al., 2017; Wardle & Derakhshan, 2017)—especially within the 
digital spheres. With the increased penetration of the Internet and social media, the risk of ill 
information has increased, and it opens doors for everyone to become a producer and 
consumer of information (Allcott et al., 2019; Anderson & Rainie, 2017; Berriche & Altay, 2020). 
Misinformation has the potential to hinder the adoption of new technologies and practices as 
well as create division within the agricultural community (Pfeiffer et al., 2022). For example, 
myths that the controversial Golden rice, a product of agricultural development activities, was 
unnatural, unsafe, and risky have sown skepticism to hinder its diffusion and uptake 
(Purugganan, 2013). The rise of digital technology has enabled activists and advocacy groups to 
effectively promote their viewpoints on controversial topics, such as genetically modified (GM) 
crops. Unfortunately, this has sometimes led to controversies in the agri-food sectors, as seen 
in the case of Golden rice. Despite its invention in the 1990s, it took almost two decades, until 
2013, for the controversy to amplify to a level where activists destroyed the research field in 
Bicol, according to the McGrath (2013). The inherent potential for misinformation within 
agriculture development makes it essential to understand the concept within the field 
(Chowdhury et al., 2023) but, as a matter of urgency, also develop practices of countering to 
strengthen the legitimacy of science and evidence-based decision-making. 

In today’s digital age, distinguishing between accurate information and misinformation is 
becoming more challenging. Misinformation refers to false or misleading information that is 
spread without any intention to deceive (Wardle & Derakhshan, 2017). This can be detrimental 
both to individuals and society as a whole, as it can lead to people making decisions based on 
incorrect information. Moreover, the increasing access to digital information has made it easier 
for people to spread disinformation and misinformation in non-digital spaces. For example, 
people may share false or misleading information on social media, which can be spread offline 
through word-of-mouth, print, or broadcast media. In addition, the proliferation of digital echo 
chambers has made it more difficult for people to be exposed to different viewpoints, leading 
to a greater susceptibility to disinformation and misinformation (Kabir et al., 2024). The 
increasing reliance on digital information has made it more difficult for people to distinguish 
between credible and non-credible sources of information (Shin et al., 2018). This can lead to 
people being more likely to believe and share disinformation and misinformation. 

Hence, it is increasingly important for those in the agriculture industry to address and tackle 
misinformation (Chowdhury et al., 2023; Chowdhury & Gow, 2024). For example, extension 
scholars and agents have recently begun investigating misinformation in their practice (Dilleen 
et al., 2023; Klerkx, 2020; Leal et al., 2020). One proposed solution to this problem is to create 
networks that facilitate accurate information exchange within agriculture value chains and build 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349


Chowdhury et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349   83 
 

trust-based networks, as Stroud (2019) and Rijswijk et al. (2023) suggested. The strategies for 
combating misinformation specific to agriculture, particularly at the interface of AAS, remain 
somewhat limited. Nevertheless, there are opportunities for agri-food actors to learn from 
other fields that have well-established literature and approaches for addressing misinformation 
within social contexts, such as public health and political science (Chowdhury et al., 2023). It is 
essential to take a more comprehensive approach to address the issue of misinformation and 
disinformation production and dissemination.  

Numerous studies have been conducted on the use of technical and computational solutions to 
tackle the problem of misinformation (Aimeur et al., 2023). On the other hands, researchers 
and practitioners recognize the cultural, political, economic, and social aspects contributing to 
this issue (Wasserman & Madrid, 2022). While fact-checking algorithms and social media filters 
based on Artificial Intelligence (AI) can be helpful, they often fail to address the underlying 
social, economic, and political factors that give rise to misinformation (Aimeur et al., 2023). 
There are various organizations that verify the credibility of information, such as fact-checking 
organizations like Snopes and PolitiFact and news organizations like Associated Press and 
Reuters. These organizations have teams of researchers who fact-check information and 
publish articles and reports on the accuracy of information. However, it is important to note 
that no single authority, strategy, or technique can definitively decide whether information is 
misinformation. This is because the phenomenon is socio-technical in nature, and contextual 
issues can often complicate the process of determining the accuracy of information. 

 Participatory and community-based approaches (PCAs) provide a more comprehensive and 
long-term strategy for addressing this complex problem (Aimeur et al., 2023; Wasserman & 
Madrid, 2022). PCAs prioritize the involvement of communities in identifying, understanding, 
and addressing misinformation. By actively involving members of the community, we can build 
trust, which allows them to take ownership of the problem and create solutions that are 
tailored to their needs. PCAs can help enhance critical thinking and media literacy skills among 
citizens, which could encourage communities to evaluate information (Cheng & Chen, 2021). 
This empowers individuals to make informed decisions based on the information they 
encounter online. Moreover, PCAs can effectively address the root causes of misinformation. 
Misinformation often stems from underlying social, economic, or political issues often 
overlooked by top-down approaches. By working with communities to understand these root 
causes, PCAs can facilitate the development of strategies that address them more sustainably 
and effectively. Various participatory and educational AAS methods, such as Farmers Fields 
School (FFS), consider the cultural and societal dynamics of agricultural information and 
knowledge sharing (van de Fliert et al., 2007). This approach aligns with the holistic perspective 
needed to address the complex issue of agri-food (mis)information production and 
dissemination. This paper aims to draw upon established fields with proven strategies for 
combating misinformation to provide insights and a foundation for the AAS to facilitate 
agricultural development.  

The study proposed several PCAs for combating misinformation in the agri-food context. The 
specific objectives are to (a) scope social strategies employed in fields with advanced literature 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349


Chowdhury et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349   84 
 

and practice on misinformation to deal with the phenomenon and (b) propose tailored and 
applicable participatory strategies that can be employed to combat agri-food misinformation.  

Methods 
 
This paper is part of an ongoing study by the authors (Chowdhury et al., 2023) on combatting 
misinformation. This study adopted a scoping review (Grant & Booth, 2009) based on literature 
re-creation, a research approach that uses existing knowledge to draw insights on a particular 
topic (Murray & Begler, 2009). A scoping review is used when the nature and evidence of a 
particular topic are unclear. This type of review is designed to provide an overview of the 
existing evidence and help researchers better understand the nature and extent of what has 
been studied thus far. By doing so, a scoping review can be a valuable tool for ongoing research 
in a variety of fields.  

In our ongoing study (Chowdhury et al., 2023), we adopted a multi-stage review to use 
literature from other fields and pull together conceptual advancements in the field of 
misinformation research thus far.  We started the research using the keywords such as (“social 
media” OR “online media”) AND (“misinformation” OR “disinformation” OR “malinformation”), 
(“social media” OR “online media”) AND (“misinformation”), (“social media OR online media”) 
AND (“disinformation”), (“social media” OR “online media”) AND (“malinformation”) to search 
on the Web of Science.  Using key terms such as (“online” AND “misinformation”), (“social 
media” AND “misinformation”), (“online fake news” AND “dealing with misinformation”) 
returned 303 papers (including peer review, reports, and conference proceedings) from Google 
Scholar. The search was in two stages, first in January 2020 and another in August 2020. A total 
of 1074 was downloaded, with 458 and 588 documents retrieved in the first and second search, 
respectively. Of these, 711 and 303 were from Web of Science and Google (scholar). Through a 
title screening, 520 documents were downloaded into the screening stage. 

The abstracts of the 520 documents were screened, resulting in the exclusion of 317 as not 
eligible for full-text screening. The abstract, introduction, and conclusions of the remaining 203 
articles were screened based on two criteria: 1) Does the paper address misinformation? 2) 
Does the paper address online (social) misinformation? This assessment resulted in the further 
exclusion of 142 articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria. Hence, 61 articles were 
included in the full text of the analysis. However, we identified an additional 8 articles from 
reference tracings and recommendations, which were added to the full-text screening (Figure 
1). 

 

 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349


Chowdhury et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349   85 
 

Figure 1  
 
Scoping Review procedure  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Note. Source for figure was Chowdhury, A., Kabir, K. H., Abdulai, A.R., & Alam, M. F. (2023). 
Systematic review of misinformation in social and online media for the development of an 
analytical framework for agri-food sector. Sustainability, 15(6). 
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064753 
 
Hence, 69 papers (Peer Review = 41; Reports = 10; Conference proceedings = 18) were included 
for full-text analysis to produce this paper. We analyzed the paper based on their broad 
conceptualization and discussion of online misinformation and specific strategies outlined to 
combat online misinformation. We draw lessons from those strategies and other relevant 

Records identified from*: 

Web of science (March 20-n 
= 598; August 2020-n=173; 
Total=771) 

Google and Google Scholar 
(March 2020-n = 170; August 
2020-n=133; Total=303) 

Total (n=1074) 

 

Records removed before 
screening: 

N=554 

Records downloaded 

(n = 520) 

Records excluded 

(n = 317) 

Articles included for screening 

(n = 203) 
Articles excluded for eligibility 

(n = 142) 

Reports assessed as eligible 

(n = 61) 

New Articles added n=8 

 

Criteria to include 

Does the paper have a conceptual framework? 

Does the paper conceptualize any aspects of 
online misinformation? 

 

Studies included in review 

(n = 69) 

Peer Review=41 

Reports=10 

Conference proceedings=18 

 

Id
en

tif
ic

at
io

n 
Sc

re
en

in
g 

In
cl

ud
ed

 

Criteria to include for eligibility 

Does paper address misinformation? 

Does the paper address online (social) 
misinformation? 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064753


Chowdhury et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349   86 
 

resources related to participatory approaches in agricultural advisory services and propose four 
PCAs that fit the specific practice context of AAS in combating agri-food misinformation. 

Findings 
 
Approach for combating misinformation used in health and political context 
Misinformation has become a widespread problem in various sectors, including health and 
politics. Experts are employing different techniques to address this issue. Social media 
platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and WhatsApp have made it easier to spread ill 
information, making it essential to develop innovative approaches to combat misinformation 
(Lewandowsky et al., 2017). These strategies should be directed towards vulnerable groups at 
the community level. This article outlines some community-based innovative approaches that 
have been implemented to address misinformation in the fields of health and politics. 

Educating community and utilizing the community library to improve information search 
literacy     
Educating the community about recognizing and combatting misinformation has been deployed 
as a strategy in the health and political fields in the fight against misinformation. The approach 
has the potential to help build resilience against misinformation. Workshops, conferences, 
webinars, and specialized training in information tools can be effective ways to achieve this. 
Understanding the source and reasons behind misinformation is key to building resilience 
against it (European Commission, 2018). Empowering different groups in the community, such 
as children, youth, women, and religious groups, can improve media literacy and help people 
spot misinformation (Suwana, 2021). Misinformation can influence election results, undermine 
democracy, and impact decisions made by parents regarding their children’s health (Einstein & 
Glick, 2015; Jolley & Douglas, 2014; Lewandowsky et al., 2017). In the political field, as 
highlighted by Jolley and Douglas (2013) in their findings on an experimental study, exposure to 
misinformation decreases people’s involvement in politics. 

Recognizing misinformation is key to preventing its harmful effects. According to Lewandowsky 
et al. (2017), people can identify misinformation by understanding its underlying motives and 
recognizing discrepancies between the facts and what is being presented.  Public health officials 
used this approach to tackle health-related misinformation such as vaccine misinformation, 
COVID-19, and other pandemic misinformation, termed an infodemic by the World Health 
Organization (Eysenbach, 2020). To combat misinformation in the health sector, officials use 
community education initiatives such as collaborative learning to educate the public. A classical 
example of this initiative is the “Ask Me Anything” (AMA) program, which invites experts to 
engage in two-way dialogues with the public on social media platforms, especially Reddit (Hara 
et al., 2019). These programs aim to address medical misinformation and promote accurate 
information in the public health sector.  

Information literacy (De Paor & Haravi, 2020) is a valuable skill that helps individuals become 
knowledgeable citizens who can contribute to society. It involves knowing how to find and use 
information effectively. The library has been used to promote information literacy, particularly 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349


Chowdhury et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349   87 
 

among those who may not have access, such as the elderly and marginalized (Jaeger et al., 
2021; Young et al., 2021). Librarians have the opportunity to assist library patrons in improving 
their search skills beyond just working at the front desk (Batchelor, 2017; Tripodi et al., 2023). 
Many individuals, including students, may not know how to properly search for and verify 
information they find while browsing. Most people do a vertical reading—scrolling up and 
down a website—and cannot click on buttons to see behind what they are reading (Breakstone 
et al., 2021; Brodsky et al., 2021). Unfortunately, propagandists take advantage of this 
weakness and spread false information online to gain political points (Tripodi, 2022). 

Libraries have used approaches such as providing research-backed tools and educational 
training to help users recognize reliable sources and verify information (Koulolias et al., 2018; 
Tripodi, 2018; Tripodi et al., 2023).  For instance, since misinformation is likely to spread when 
politicians are given a chance to increase propaganda, this approach has been successful in 
addressing misinformation in the political space. Thus, the electorate or community members 
often turn to libraries to verify political claims and seek accurate information.  Also, in public 
health, approaches such as commissioning articles to review controversial health topics are key 
in combating medical misinformation online (Armstrong & Naylor, 2019; Trethewey, 2020). By 
improving information literacy, libraries can play a crucial role in fighting misinformation, as 
demonstrated in the 2016 US presidential election when librarians and information specialists 
stepped up to the forefront of the information war (De Paor & Haravi, 2020). 

Integrate information literacy into the educational curriculum 
Promoting information literacy education is essential, particularly within the formal educational 
curriculum. Information literacy encompasses knowing how and where to find and apply 
information daily (CILIP, 2018). Countries like Finland and Sweden have successfully integrated 
media and information literacy into their educational systems (Lord & Katya, 2021). Universities 
in the UK offer critical thinking programs that enhance media literacy skills (Kristin et al., 2021). 
Non-government organizations (NGOs), such as IREX, provide media literacy training to adults, 
significantly impacting the fight against misinformation (Craft et al., 2017; Guess et al., 2020). 
Another notable example is India’s initiative to train citizens in media literacy to combat 
smartphone-driven misinformation (Chaturvedi, 2019).  

In the health sector, a similar approach has been employed by the World Health Organization 
(WHO) since 2000 to promote public health literacy. A typical example of this initiative is digital 
health literacy, which has been introduced to help the public access, recognize, and interpret 
health information. This allows the public to make informed decisions concerning their health 
(Naeem & Boulos, 2021). 

Establishing a community-owned information centre 
In health and politics, community-owned information centers have reduced misinformation by 
broadcasting information to the community for free. These centers are managed by 
experienced local journalists and trusted community members who understand cultural and 
religious dynamics. Similar to the EU Situation Room, these centers share health and political 
information with the community for free (European Commission, 2018). To ensure the accuracy 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349


Chowdhury et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349   88 
 

of the information disseminated, the centers rely on experts, committees, fact-checking 
institutions, and health and political civil society groups to verify the information before 
broadcasting it to the public. Ghana’s Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan (EPRP) 
during the COVID-19 pandemic is an example of this approach. The EPRP mobilizes national 
resources and implements local and internet-based risk and behavioural change 
communication strategies (Tabong & Segtub, 2021). The government and health experts give 
weekly and periodic national addresses to inform citizens about pandemic plans and strategies. 
Local radio stations and community information centers translate these messages into various 
ethnic languages for better understanding. 

Engage local community leaders and youth and resume their role in information-sharing 
Community engagement in health and political misinformation involves community members, 
groups, and organizations in decision-making, planning, design, and delivery of health or 
political services (Barker et al., 2020; Sacks et al., 2017). The fifth WHO virtual conference on 
health misinformation management highlighted the importance of community-level leaders 
and influencers in identifying vulnerability to misinformation (WHO, 2022a). These leaders 
possess a better understanding of the community’s information needs, making them essential 
in the fight against health and political misinformation (Lewandowsky et al., 2017). For 
instance, during the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, community and religious leaders played vital 
roles in combating misinformation (Gilmore et al., 2020; Gillespie et al., 2016). However, the 
digital age has transformed the role of traditional community leaders, making it challenging to 
verify information (Domgaard & Park, 2022). 

Health professionals now partner with community leaders to counter disinformation. An 
example is the Puerto Rico’s COVID-19 vaccination misinformation tracking project (Mercy 
Corps, 2022). In that initiative, the project team spread community-specific vaccination 
messages through social media for community leaders and health promoters to share these 
messages. Feedback was collected from community leaders and health promoters weekly, and 
questions were answered via WhatsApp and other appropriate channels. Also, pastors, imams, 
and community leaders addressed misinformation through discussions with their congregations 
(Office of the Surgeon General, 2021). Another community engagement initiative used in the 
public health sector is the Arthur Ashe Institute for Urban Health’s COVID-19 campaign. The 
Arthur Ashe Institute engaged barbers and hairdressers to educate customers about the virus 
during their visits (Korin et al., 2022).   

Young people have the power to combat misinformation by sharing accurate information with 
their peers and on social media. Media literacy and critical thinking programs empower them to 
evaluate online information (Walton & Hepworth, 2011). Furthermore, the youth are potential  
important fact-checkers in community politics and health, which the elderly and marginalized 
groups can leverage in their information searching. Thus, teaching young people about media 
and information promotes open-mindedness and acceptance of diverse perspectives. Without 
this education, individuals may believe misinformation, as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic 
when some dismissed health experts’ advice and relied on unproven treatments, such as warm 
weather and hydroxychloroquine (Bump, 2022). 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349


Chowdhury et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349   89 
 

Using Infographics in Communication 
According to Walter et al. (2020), social media offers tools for educating the public about 
misinformation, such as audio-visual interventions and educational materials like infographics. 
Infographics are becoming increasingly popular in health and political contexts to promote 
digital news literacy (Tully et al., 2020). Infographics simplify complex information for wider 
populations, including marginalized groups, children, and the elderly (Comello et al., 2016; 
Domgaard & Park, 2021; Lewandowsky et al., 2017). Infographics are also used in community 
libraries to detect and verify political misinformation. For example, an infographic created by 
the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) was translated into 
various languages and circulated globally as a checklist for identifying misinformation (Eva & 
Shea, 2018). Additionally, the Portuguese health ministry created a health information platform 
on Instagram and Facebook with over one million followers, where they shared simple COVID-
19 infographics (WHO, 2022b).  

Participatory and community-based approaches to combat agri-food misinformation 
It is evident that participatory and community-based strategies have played a critical role in 
mitigating misinformation in the fields of health and politics across the globe. However, the use 
of these strategies in addressing agriculture misinformation is still a grey area. Misinformation 
is pervasive in every aspect of society, including the agri-food sector. Researchers and 
academics are employing various strategies to tackle the problem, but a participatory and 
community-based approach could potentially yield more positive results in the agri-food 
system. This approach has been successful in health and politics and can be adapted to the agri-
food system by aligning with existing participatory and community-based approaches like FFS, 
Community Seed Banks, Participatory Guarantee Systems, and Common Interest Groups. These 
approaches can improve social learning and networking among farmers and help them address 
complex issues like insect-pest management, locally adapted crop varieties, and climate change 
(Karim & Thiel, 2017; Porcuna et al., 2020; Ton et al., 2015; van de Fliert, 2007).  

Misinformation combating techniques can be integrated into these well-established 
approaches, while adopting methods from the health and political space to enable agri-food 
community members to counter misinformation effectively. We proposed the following PCAs to 
empower agri-food communities and value their local experience and knowledge, leading to 
solutions that work for them and include them in life-changing activities (Figure 2). The 
approaches may be used in any combination, and these should not be considered as linear or 
sequential approaches to combat misinformation.  

 

 

 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349


Chowdhury et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349   90 
 

Figure 2 
 
 Participatory approaches for combatting agri-food misinformation 

 
 
 
Incorporate media literacy education into Farmer Field Schools (FFS) 
FFS can help combat misinformation in the agri-food system, similar to efforts in health and 
politics to integrate information literacy into formal education. FFS is a community-based 
approach that has received recognition and is widely adopted in the agri-food sector to solve 
challenges such as insect and pest control, farm maintenance, climate variation consequences, 
input, credit, and marketing and storage of agricultural produce. FFS is an extension service that 
works in a bottom-up approach, treating farmers as co-equals and sharing experiences instead 
of instructing them (Sarapura et al., 2018). It was introduced in the 1980s in Asia by FAO to 
address challenges in rice production and uses adult education principles to educate farmers at 
the community or farm level. FFS has been successful in various situations, including 
communication, farm enterprise development and marketing, and nutrition, and with different 
groups like illiterate, women, adults, and youth. The approach also promotes the integration of 
local and indigenous knowledge with the latest scientific ideas and technology to boost the 
agri-food sector (FAO et al., 2021). Recently, the approach has been tested in the digital sphere 
to support individual and collective learning for cocoa production and certification in Sierra 
Leone (Witteveen et al., 2017).  

The use of both traditional and social media has been beneficial to the food value chain, as 
farmers can access information through various platforms such as the Internet, radio, 
television, and mobile phones (Ceccarelli et al., 2022). However, the spread of misinformation 
through social and online media (Gibson et al., 2022; Rampold et al., 2023) and the risks of 
eroding trust in digitally mediated relationships (Rijswijk et al., 2023) have caused harm and 
offset some of the benefits gained by the digitalization of the agricultural sector. New studies 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349


Chowdhury et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349   91 
 

have revealed that social media platforms can be useful for sharing agricultural and food-
related knowledge. Unfortunately, the public, including farmers, cannot always verify or 
authenticate information found on social media, leading to an increase in misinformation (De 
Paor & Haravi, 2020; Schwarzenegger, 2020; Tandoc et al., 2018). 

Providing media literacy education to farmers at the community level, such as through FFS, 
would go a long way in combating misinformation. By being media literate, farmers can better 
discern the information consumed. However, incorporating media literacy education into FFS 
requires identifying relevant media channels, creating a curriculum, employing technology, and 
supporting farmers afterwards, just as IREX has provided media literacy training to adults and 
digital health literacy by WHO, as earlier reviewed.  

A similar approach has been experimented with in Tanzania in a project study in 2014 by Shao 
and Edwards, where farmers were taught how to use mobile app systems to verify the 
authenticity of agro-inputs. Introducing information literacy into the FFS approach will be 
crucial in fighting misinformation in the agri-food sector. Farmers would be taught how to 
search and access information to boost their capacity, just as it has been done in other agri-
food areas, such as pest management. Facilitators of FFS, such as extension workers, can assist 
participants in identifying the sources of information they use and consume. The role of 
extension workers is evolving to adapt to the digital world. They now serve as informants, 
consultants, advisors, facilitators, mediators, and promoters. Additionally, they will take on new 
roles as content creators, influencers, gatekeepers, big data analysts, creators of artificial 
intelligence, and developers of gamification strategies (Sugihono et al., 2022). They can teach 
farmers how to determine the accuracy and reliability of the information, recognize media 
biases, and critically analyze media techniques used to persuade and influence audiences. 
Individuals can avoid accepting information without proper verification by understanding 
technical aspects, such as algorithms and bots behind the spread of information on social media 
platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp. By incorporating media literacy strategies in 
group-based approaches like FFS, participants can gain valuable critical thinking skills that 
enable them to make informed decisions and navigate complex media landscapes. Moreover, 
they can utilize the power of media to promote their interests and communicate effectively 
with others, such as farmers marketing their products or sharing their experiences and 
knowledge through radio and television interviews. By teaching farmers critical thinking skills to 
assess information sources, identify media biases, and understand digital channels, they are 
better equipped to combat misinformation, as illustrated in Figure 2. 

Collaborate with other organizations to set up a community agricultural information hub 
The public health sector, in particular, has leveraged community resources (leaders, youth) to 
promote accurate information sharing, as indicated in the review above. In the same way, the 
agri-food sector taps into these resources to combat misinformation related to agri-food by 
working together with community members. Misinformation often arises from government 
policies, new technologies, and other developments outside the farming community, 
particularly regarding topics such as organic products and genetically modified organisms 
(GMOs). Experts from various fields, such as researchers, academics, producers, policy analysts, 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349


Chowdhury et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349   92 
 

and NGOs, must provide their expertise to tackle these issues and identify misinformation. This 
can follow similar approaches as those employed in the health sector to combat the infodemic 
(e.g. Puerto Rico’s COVID-19 vaccination misinformation tracking project). NGOs, for instance, 
have strong connections with communities, making them ideal partners in fighting 
disinformation. An example of this approach in the agri-food sector is the establishment of a 
partnership involving the government, private organizations, and NGOs in Bolivia (Sarapura et 
al., 2018). As suggested by WREN Media (2010), facilitators or farmer organizations can 
collaborate with local traditional media companies or journalists to learn about agriculture 
during interactive sessions. By complementing each other, they can improve the fact-checking 
and trustworthiness of agricultural information and reduce the spread of misinformation in the 
industry. 

Farmers need easy access to accurate and reliable agricultural information. To address this 
need, a community agricultural information hub can be established. An information hub is a 
single point of reference providing members with various issues (FAO, 2010). The hub aims to 
raise awareness of quality information sources and prevent the spread of misinformation in the 
agri-food sector. The hub can take the form of a newsstand in the center of the community or a 
section in the community library dedicated to agricultural-related information. It can be 
managed by a team of agricultural extension officers, information experts, and other trusted 
community members. Farmers and farmer groups are encouraged to share new information, 
experiences, and knowledge with the hub and seek support from the team. The agricultural hub 
is a reliable source of accurate information in the agri-food sector. It aims to address 
contentious issues that may lead to misinformation. The hub collaborates with agricultural 
extension officers, information experts, and other trusted community members. They work 
together to fact-check information and gather reliable information from credible sources, even 
if it requires connecting to national-level resources (as shown in Figure 2). This approach is 
similar to the “rumor tracker or fact-checking” used in Puerto Rico to counter COVID-19 
misinformation and the EPRP in Ghana during the COVID-19 pandemic in strengthening 
farmers’ capacity to access and share information; the hub reduces their vulnerability to 
misinformation.  

A similar approach has been used in Egypt under the Rural and Agricultural Development 
Communication Network (RADCON), which was launched in 2004 as a build-up on the Virtual 
Extension and Research Communication Network (VERCON) pilot project (FAO, 2010). VERCON 
is a pilot project designed to help strengthen farmers’ communication capacity. It was started in 
2000 by Egypt’s Ministry of Agriculture and Land Resources (MALR) and the UN Food and 
Agriculture Organization. Another example, however, that works differently but has a similar 
goal is the Access Agriculture panorama. With Access Agricultural, agricultural training videos 
translated into international and local languages targeting audiences in the Global South are 
produced and distributed through social media platforms and emails upon request (Access 
Agriculture, 2023). 

 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349


Chowdhury et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349   93 
 

Technology stewardship 
A relatively new approach, called “technology stewardship,” was tested to enhance the 
capacity of extension workers to lead the adoption processes of low-cost ICTs in the global 
south (Gow et al., 2020). The term technology stewardship comes from the Communities of 
Practice literature, and it refers to a method of training and supporting groups of people known 
as technology stewards who work within their communities to promote and sustain innovative 
practices using accessible, low-cost digital technologies (Jayathilake et al., 2015; Wenger et al., 
2009). The concept of a technology steward involves identifying individuals responsible for 
selecting, deploying, and managing technology tools within a community or organization. The 
role of a technology steward is an intermediary, which can be a part-time voluntary, self-
appointed, or organizationally assigned position that is filled in response to an urgent need in 
the community (Gow et al., 2020).   

Researchers are exploring adapting technology stewardship that involves utilizing technology to 
support fact-based decision-making for those involved in the agri-food industry. Tech stewards 
can make it simpler for people to access and understand data about food production, safety, 
and quality that is already publicly available. This can help prevent the spread of false or 
misleading information through various online and offline channels, ultimately improving public 
trust in the food system. By reducing the dissemination of misinformation on social media, 
technology stewards can play a vital role in ensuring the accuracy of information about food.  

In the agri-food industry, extension workers as technology stewards can play a crucial role—as 
that played by librarians in the health and political space—in identifying and utilizing effective 
technological tools to combat misinformation. They can collaborate with industry experts to 
determine the most prevalent forms of misinformation and create plans to counteract them. By 
using available resources, they can identify and implement social media monitoring software, 
fact-checking tools, and content management systems, which that can be utilized to combat 
misinformation. They ensure famers are educated on the responsible use of these tools. As 
stewards, they monitor the movement of information to and from these systems so that 
external information can be quickly detected and verified (Figure 2). Therefore, ensuring these 
stewards have the necessary resources and training is crucial for successful technology 
stewardship in the agri-food sector. This includes providing access to cutting-edge technology 
and equipping them with the skills to identify and correct misinformation. Collaboration and 
information sharing among technology stewards, agri-food experts, and other stakeholders are 
also important to develop and implement practical solutions. Incorporating technology 
stewardship into efforts to counteract misinformation can build a community that better 
addresses this issue in the agri-food context. 

Platform approach 
The platform approach has become a popular solution for many socio-technical problems in the 
agriculture sector. One such approach is called the innovation platform, which is considered a 
social space for multiple actors to interact and share their ideas, knowledge, and opinions to 
come up with new solutions (Schut et al., 2018). The core idea is to stimulate and facilitate 
partnerships and collaborations for development solutions. Platform-based initiatives like 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349


Chowdhury et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349   94 
 

https://covid19misinfo.org/ have become increasingly important in combating misinformation. 
These initiatives can reach a large audience and be customized to address different types of 
misinformation. However, they are not a silver bullet and must be used in conjunction with 
other strategies, such as fact-checking and media literacy education. Furthermore, it is 
necessary to consider management and maintenance costs for sustaining the initiative. 
Misinformation is a complex social and technical issue that requires interdisciplinary and 
transdisciplinary collaborations to find solutions that consider many factors (Kabir et al., 2024; 
Aimeur et al., 2023). This problem cannot be solved by an individual alone, and we need the 
collaboration of various stakeholders, including scientists and practitioners, who are interested 
in this issue and willing to share their knowledge, expertise, and resources.  Researchers at the 
University of Guelph have taken the initiative (https://www.misinforesearch.com/) to provide 
tools and resources to study and address agri-food misinformation. They share fact-checks and 
other credible information with the public to build awareness, network, and collaborate with 
multiple actors, mobilize knowledge and partnerships for solutions to the problem. The 
platform initiative includes several elements: curating relevant literature in a database, tracking 
myths and misinformation, showcasing global scholars and practitioners of misinformation, and 
facilitating curated conversations through webinars and podcasts. Platform-based initiatives are 
increasingly being used to promote critical thinking and media literacy skills, which are essential 
tools for combating the spread of misinformation. It is crucial to evaluate these initiatives 
carefully to ensure their credibility and effectiveness. Moreover, these initiatives should be 
transparent about their methods and goals to build trust among their audience. 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations  
 
The agricultural industry faces a major threat from misinformation, and there are no specific 
measures to deal with this problem. To address this issue, this scoping study recommends using 
four proven PCAs that have successfully addressed various agricultural development challenges. 
We proposed these PCAs to integrate ideas and experiences from other fields, such as health 
and politics, to build trust and social capital and empower communities in agriculture. 

FFSs are excellent examples of PCAs that agricultural extension professionals can use. FFSs are 
designed as learning-by-doing programs where farmers come together to share knowledge and 
learn from each other. However, the application of FFSs to combat misinformation has not yet 
been fully explored. In the context of misinformation, we propose that the approach can help 
farmers share their experiences, identify and verify information, and develop critical thinking 
skills. FFSs can be used to raise awareness about misinformation and its potential 
consequences. We recommend incorporating media literacy education within FFSs to assist 
farmers and other stakeholders in honing the necessary skills to critically identify and evaluate 
information. This includes understanding the various types of misinformation, identifying the 
sources of misinformation, and assessing the credibility of information. 

In addition to FFS, we have proposed three other PCAs for addressing misinformation in 
agriculture. Government agencies, extension services, or non-profit organizations can establish 
local agricultural information hubs to provide reliable and up-to-date information on 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349


Chowdhury et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349   95 
 

agricultural practices, technologies, and markets. Technology stewardship is a concept that 
involves the responsible and ethical use of technology to support the dissemination of accurate 
information and promote sustainable agriculture practices. This includes leveraging technology 
to create and share educational materials, connect farmers with experts, and monitor and track 
the spread of misinformation. Creating awareness of issues and sharing accurate information 
with farmers and stakeholders is critical. Platform-based initiatives can help achieve this by 
mobilizing stakeholder partnerships, connecting farmers with experts, and providing guidance 
and support. Additionally, these initiatives can help identify and flag misinformation and 
educate farmers and other stakeholders on identifying and avoiding it. 

The suggested approaches provide potential solutions to tackle misinformation in agriculture. 
However, their effectiveness needs to be further investigated, particularly in the context of the 
digitalization of agriculture. The insights from the study are expected to spark further 
exploration and advancement in this area, with significant implications for agricultural advisory 
services. In future research, some of the following specific questions should be considered to 
combat agri-food misinformation: 
- How can Farmer Field Schools (FFS) be utilized to combat misinformation? 
- What are the most effective ways to educate farmers and other stakeholders on media 

literacy? 
- How can local agricultural information hubs be used to promote the dissemination of 

accurate information and combat misinformation? 
- How can technology be responsibly and ethically used to combat misinformation in 

agriculture? 
- How can platform-based initiatives be utilized to combat misinformation in agriculture?’ 

 
Acknowledgements 

 
Social Science and Humanities Council of Canada (SSHRC) insight grant has been acknowledged 
for funding the initiative.  

Author contribution statement  
A.Chowdhury - conceptualization, writing – review & editing, supervision, methodology, 
funding acquisition; K. H. Kabir - conceptualization, methodology, writing – original draft, 
writing – review & editing, visualization; E. K. Asafo-Agyei - writing – original draft, A.-R. 
Abdulai - writing – original draft. 
 

References 
 
Access Agriculture. (2023). Welcome to access agriculture. https://www.accessagriculture.org/ 
 
Aimeur, E., Amri, S., & Brassard, G. (2023). Fake news, disinformation and misinformation in 

social media: A review. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 13(1), 30. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-023-01028-5  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349
https://www.accessagriculture.org/
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-023-01028-5


Chowdhury et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349   96 
 

Allcott, H., Gentzkow, M., & Yu, C. (2019). Trends in the diffusion of misinformation on social 
media. Research & Politics, 6(2). https://doi.org/10/ggff7j  

 
American Library Association. (2006, July 24). Presidential committee on information literacy: 

Final report. http://www.ala.org/acrl/publications/whitepapers/presidential   
 
Anderson, J., & Rainie, L. (2017, October 19). The future of truth and misinformation. Pew 

Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2017/10/19/the-future-of-
truth-and-misinformation-online  

 
Armstrong, P. W., & Naylor, C. D. (2019). Counteracting health misinformation: A role for 

medical journals. Jama, 321(19), 1863-1864. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.5168    
 
Baines, D., & Elliott, R. J. R. (2020). Defining misinformation, disinformation and 

malinformation: An urgent need for clarity during the COVID-19 infodemic. Discussion 
Papers, 20(06). 
https://econpapers.repec.org/scripts/redir.pf?u=https%3A%2F%2Frepec.cal.bham.ac.uk
%2Fpdf%2F20-06.pdf;h=repec:bir:birmec:20-06  

 
Barker, K. M., Ling, E. J., Fallah, M., VanDeBogert, B., Kodl, Y., Macauley, R. J., Vinswanath, K., & 

Kruk, M. E. (2020). Community engagement for health system resilience: evidence from 
Liberia’s Ebola epidemic. Health Policy and Planning, 35(4), 416-423. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czz174 

 
Batchelor, O. (2017). Getting out the truth: The role of libraries in the fight against fake news. 

Reference Services Review, 45(2), 143-148. https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-03-2017-0006.  
 
Berriche, M., & Altay, S. (2020). Internet users engage more with phatic posts than with health 

misinformation on Facebook. Palgrave Communications, 6(1), 71. 
https://doi.org/10/gg87kc  

 
Breakstone, J., Smith, M., Connors, P., Ortega, T., Kerr, D., & Wineburg, S. (2021, February 23). 

Lateral reading: College students learn to critically evaluate internet sources in an online 
course. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, 2(1), 1-17. 
https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/lateral-reading-college-students-learn-to-
critically-evaluate-internet-sources-in-an-online-course/  

 
Brodsky, J. E., Brooks, P. J., Scimeca, D., Galati, P., Todorova, R., & Caulfield, M. (2021). 

Associations between online instruction in lateral reading strategies and fact-checking 
COVID-19 news among college students. AERA Open, 7. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211038937   

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349
https://doi.org/10/ggff7j
http://www.ala.org/acrl/publications/whitepapers/presidential
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2017/10/19/the-future-of-truth-and-misinformation-online
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2017/10/19/the-future-of-truth-and-misinformation-online
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.5168
https://econpapers.repec.org/scripts/redir.pf?u=https%3A%2F%2Frepec.cal.bham.ac.uk%2Fpdf%2F20-06.pdf;h=repec:bir:birmec:20-06
https://econpapers.repec.org/scripts/redir.pf?u=https%3A%2F%2Frepec.cal.bham.ac.uk%2Fpdf%2F20-06.pdf;h=repec:bir:birmec:20-06
https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czz174
https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-03-2017-0006
https://doi.org/10/gg87kc
https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/lateral-reading-college-students-learn-to-critically-evaluate-internet-sources-in-an-online-course/
https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/lateral-reading-college-students-learn-to-critically-evaluate-internet-sources-in-an-online-course/
https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211038937


Chowdhury et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349   97 
 

Bump P. (2022). Ivermectin is the signature example of politics trumping health. The 
Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/31/ivermectin-is-
signature-example-politics-trumping-health/ 

 
Ceccarelli, T., Kannan, S., Cecchi, F., & Janssen, S. (2022). Contributions of information and 

communication technologies to food systems transformation. International Fund for 
Agricultural Development. 
https://www.ifad.org/documents/38714170/45740452/RS82-formatted-web-
v2.pdf/8541afe3-a417-7ecb-2937-b03edb47075c?t=1655298422472  

 
Chaturvedi, A. (2019, March 19). WhatsApp and NASSCOM collaborate to teach about fake 

news. India Today. https://www.indiatoday.in/education-
today/news/story/whatsappand-nasscom-collaborate-to-teach-about-fake-news-
1481882-2019-03-19 

 
Cheng, Y., & Chen, Z. F. (2021). The influence of presumed fake news influence: Examining 

public support for corporate corrective response, media literacy interventions, and 
governmental regulation. Mass Communication and Society, 23(5), 705-729. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2020.1750656  

 
Chowdhury, A., & Gow, G. (Eds.). (2024). Digital communication for agricultural and rural 

development: Participatory practices in a post-covid age. Taylors & Francis (forth 
coming). 

 
Chowdhury, A., Kabir, K. H., Abdulai, A.R., & Alam, M. F. (2023). Systematic review of 

misinformation in social and online media for the development of an analytical 
framework for agri-food sector. Sustainability, 15(6). 
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064753  

 
CILIP. (2018, October 10). What is information literacy? CILIP. 

https://www.cilip.org.uk/news/421972/What-is-information-
literacy.htm#:~:text=%E2%80%9CInformation%20literacy%20is%20the%20ability,inform
ation%20we%20find%20and%20use 

 
Comello, M. L. G., & Farman, L. (2016). Identity as a moderator and mediator of communication 

effects: Evidence and implications for message design. The Journal of Psychology, 
150(7), 822-836. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2016.1196160 

 
Craft, S., Ashley, S., & Maksl, A. (2017). News media literacy and conspiracy theory 

endorsement. Communication Public, 2(4), 388–401. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/2057047317725539 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/31/ivermectin-is-signature-example-politics-trumping-health/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/31/ivermectin-is-signature-example-politics-trumping-health/
https://www.ifad.org/documents/38714170/45740452/RS82-formatted-web-v2.pdf/8541afe3-a417-7ecb-2937-b03edb47075c?t=1655298422472
https://www.ifad.org/documents/38714170/45740452/RS82-formatted-web-v2.pdf/8541afe3-a417-7ecb-2937-b03edb47075c?t=1655298422472
https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/news/story/whatsappand-nasscom-collaborate-to-teach-about-fake-news-1481882-2019-03-19
https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/news/story/whatsappand-nasscom-collaborate-to-teach-about-fake-news-1481882-2019-03-19
https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/news/story/whatsappand-nasscom-collaborate-to-teach-about-fake-news-1481882-2019-03-19
https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2020.1750656
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064753
https://www.cilip.org.uk/news/421972/What-is-information-literacy.htm#:~:text=%E2%80%9CInformation%20literacy%20is%20the%20ability,information%20we%20find%20and%20use
https://www.cilip.org.uk/news/421972/What-is-information-literacy.htm#:~:text=%E2%80%9CInformation%20literacy%20is%20the%20ability,information%20we%20find%20and%20use
https://www.cilip.org.uk/news/421972/What-is-information-literacy.htm#:~:text=%E2%80%9CInformation%20literacy%20is%20the%20ability,information%20we%20find%20and%20use
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2016.1196160
https://doi.org/10.1177/2057047317725539


Chowdhury et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349   98 
 

De Paor, S., & Heravi, B. (2020). Information literacy and fake news: How the field of 
librarianship can help combat the epidemic of fake news. The Journal of Academic 
Librarianship, 46(5), 102-218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102218  

 
Dilleen, G., Claffey, E., Foley, A., & Doolin, K. (2023). Investigating knowledge dissemination and 

social media use in the farming network to build trust in smart farming technology 
adoption. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 38(8). 
https://doi.org/10.1108/jbim-01-2022-0060 

 
Domgaard, S., & Park, M. (2021). Combating misinformation: The effects of infographics in 

verifying false vaccine news. Health Education Journal, 80(8), 974-986. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/00178969211038750 

 
Einstein, K. L., & Glick, D. M. (2015). Do I think BLS data are BS? The consequences of conspiracy 

theories. Political Behavior, 37, 679-701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-014-9287-z  
 
European Commission. (2018). Action plan on disinformation: Commission contribution to the 

European Council. https://commission.europa.eu/publications/action-plan-
disinformation-commission-contribution-european-council-13-14-december-
2018_en#details   

 
Eva, N., & Shea, E. (2018). Marketing libraries in an era of “Fake News.” Reference & User 

Services Quarterly, 57(3), 168–171. https://www.jstor.org/stable/90019879  
 
Eysenbach, G. (2020). How to fight an infodemic: the four pillars of infodemic management. 

Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(6), e21820. https://doi.org/10.2196/21820  
 
FAO, ECA, & AUC. (2021). Africa – regional overview of food security and nutrition. FAO. 

https://doi.org/10.4060/cb7496en  
 
FAO. (2010). Rural and Agricultural Development Communication Network (RADCON): The 

application of information and communication technologies in agricultural and rural 
development in Egypt. FAO. https://www.fao.org/3/i1930e/i1930e00.pdf  

 
Gibson, J., Greig, J., Rampold, S., Nelson, H., & Stripling, C. (2022). Can you cite that? Describing 

Tennessee consumers’ use of GMO information channels and sources. Advancements in 
Agricultural Development, 3(2), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i2.181 

 
Gillespie, A. M., Obregon, R., El Asawi, R., Richey, C., Manoncourt, E., Joshi, K., Naqvi, S., Pouye, 

A., Safi, N., Chitnis, K., & Quereshi, S. (2016). Social mobilization and community 
engagement central to the Ebola response in West Africa: Lessons for future public 
health emergencies. Global Health Science Practice, 4(4), 626–646. 
https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-16-00226 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102218
https://doi.org/10.1108/jbim-01-2022-0060
https://doi.org/10.1177/00178969211038750
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-014-9287-z
https://commission.europa.eu/publications/action-plan-disinformation-commission-contribution-european-council-13-14-december-2018_en#details
https://commission.europa.eu/publications/action-plan-disinformation-commission-contribution-european-council-13-14-december-2018_en#details
https://commission.europa.eu/publications/action-plan-disinformation-commission-contribution-european-council-13-14-december-2018_en#details
https://www.jstor.org/stable/90019879
https://doi.org/10.2196/21820
https://doi.org/10.4060/cb7496en
https://www.fao.org/3/i1930e/i1930e00.pdf
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i2.181
https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-16-00226


Chowdhury et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349   99 
 

Gilmore, B., Ndejjo, R., Tchetchia, A., De Claro, V., Mago, E., Lopes, C., & Bhattacharyya, S. 
(2020). Community engagement for COVID-19 prevention and control: a rapid evidence 
synthesis. BMJ Global Health, 5(10), e003188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2020-
003188  

 
Gow, G., Chowdhury, A., Ramjattan, J., & Ganpat, W. (2020). Fostering effective use of ICT in 

agricultural extension: participant responses to an inaugural technology stewardship 
training program in Trinidad. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 26(4), 
335-350. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224x.2020.1718720  

 
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009), A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and 

associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x  

 
Guess, A. M., Lerner, M., Lyons, B., Montgomery, J. M., Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., & Sircar, N. (2020). 

A digital media literacy intervention increases discernment between mainstream and 
false news in the United States and India. Proceedings of the National Academy of 
Sciences, 117(27), 15536-15545. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1920498117   

 
Hara, N., Abbazio, J., & Perkins, K. (2019). An emerging form of public engagement with science: 

Ask me anything (AMA) sessions on Reddit r/science. PLoS ONE, 14(5), e0216789. 
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216789 

 
Jaeger, P. T., & Taylor, N. G. (2021). Arsenals of lifelong information literacy: Educating users to 

navigate political and current events information in world of ever-evolving 
misinformation. The Library Quarterly, 91(1), 19-31. https://doi.org/10.1086/711632  

 
Jayathilake, H. A. C. K., Mudalige, J. U., Gow, G. A., Waidyanatha, N., & Perera, L. D. R. D. (2015). 

Use of low cost information communication technologies for knowledge mobilization in 
agricultural communities in Sri Lanka. KDU Library http://ir.kdu.ac.lk/handle/345/1037   

 
Jolley, D., & Douglas, K. M. (2014). The social consequences of conspiracism: Exposure to 

conspiracy theories decreases intentions to engage in politics and to reduce one’s 
carbon footprint. British Journal of Psychology, 105(1), 35-56. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12018 

 
Kabir, K. H., Chowdhury, A., & Uduak, E. (2024). Data-driven digital participation in agri-food 

context: Why should C4D and CfSC scholars and practitioners pay attention to 
information disorder? In A. Chowdhury & G. Gow (Eds.), Digital communication for 
agricultural and rural development: Participatory practices in a post-covid age. Taylor & 
Francis (forthcoming). 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003188
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003188
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224x.2020.1718720
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1920498117
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216789
https://doi.org/10.1086/711632
http://ir.kdu.ac.lk/handle/345/1037
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12018


Chowdhury et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349   100 
 

Karim, M. R., & Thiel, A. (2017). Role of community based local institution for climate change 
adaptation in the Teesta riverine area of Bangladesh. Climate Risk Management, 17, 92-
103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2017.06.002 

 
Klerkx, L. (2020). Advisory services and transformation, plurality and disruption of agriculture 

and food systems: Towards a new research agenda for agricultural education and 
extension studies. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 26(2), 131–140. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2020.1738046 

 
Korin, M. R., Araya, F., Idris, M. Y., Brown, H., & Claudio, L. (2022). Community-based 

organizations as effective partners in the battle against misinformation. Frontiers in 
Public Health, 10, 853736. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.853736 

 
Koulolias, V., Jonathan, G. M., Fernandez, M., & Sotirchos, D. (2018). Combating 

misinformation: An ecosystem in co-creation. OECD Publishing. 
 
Leal, A., Rumble, J. N., Lamm, A. J., & Gay, K. D. (2020). Discussing Extension agents’ role in 

moderating contentious issue conversations. Journal of Human Sciences and Extension, 
8(2), 1. https://doi.org/10.54718/NYSF5815 

 
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., & Cook, J. (2017). Beyond misinformation: understanding and 

coping with the “post-truth” era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 
6(4), 353–369. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008  

 
Lord, K. M., & Vogt, K. (2021). Strengthen media literacy to win the fight against 

misinformation. Stanford Social Innovation Review. https://doi.org/10.48558/PY1B-
3G51 

 
McGrath, M. (2013, August 9). 'Golden rice' GM trial vandalised in the Philippines. BBC News. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-23632042   
 
Mercy Corps. (2022). Rumour tracker programme: A community-based approach to address 

information gaps and misinformation on COVID-19. https://europe.mercycorps.org/en-
gb/where-we-work/united-states   

 
Murray, N., & Begler. D. (2009). Writing dissertations and theses. Pearson Education Limited. 
 
Naeem, B. S., & Boulos, K. M. N. (2021). COVID-19 misinformation online and health literacy: A 

brief overview. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 
18(15), 8091. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18158091 

 
Office of the Surgeon General. (2021). Confronting health misinformation: The US surgeon 

general’s advisory on building a healthy information environment. 
https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/surgeon-general-misinformation-advisory.pdf   

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2017.06.002
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2020.1738046
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.853736
https://doi.org/10.54718/NYSF5815
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008
https://doi.org/10.48558/PY1B-3G51
https://doi.org/10.48558/PY1B-3G51
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-23632042
https://europe.mercycorps.org/en-gb/where-we-work/united-states
https://europe.mercycorps.org/en-gb/where-we-work/united-states
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18158091
https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/surgeon-general-misinformation-advisory.pdf


Chowdhury et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349   101 
 

Pfeiffer, L. J., Knobloch, N. A., Tucker, M. A., & Hovey, M. (2022). Issues-360TM: An analysis of 
transformational learning in a controversial issues engagement initiative. The Journal of 
Agricultural Education and Extension, 28(4), 439–458. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2021.1942090  

 
Porcuna-Ferrer, A., Fiala, V., Freyer, B., van Etten, J., Vernooy, R., & Probst, L. (2020). Do 

community seed banks contribute to the social-ecological resilience of communities? A 
case-study from western Guatemala. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 
18(3), 232-249.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2020.1747199  

 
Purugganan, M. (2013, October 1). Debunking golden rice myths: A geneticist’s perspective. Rice 

Today. https://ricetoday.irri.org/debunking-golden-rice-myths-a-geneticists-
perspective/ 

 
Rampold, S., Greig, J., Gibson, J., & Nelson, H. (2023). GMO or GM No? Segmenting a consumer 

audience to examine their perceptions of genetically modified products. Advancements 
in Agricultural Development, 4(1), 48-61. https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.269 

 
Rijswijk, K., de Vries, J. R., Klerkx, L., & Turner, J. A. (2023). The enabling and constraining 

connections between trust and digitalisation in incumbent value chains. Technological 
Forecasting and Social Change, 186(A), 122175. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122175 

 
Sacks, E., Swanson, R. C., Schensul, J. J., Gleave, A., Shelley, K. D., Were, M. K., Chowdhury, M., 

LeBan, H., & Perry, H. B. (2017). Community involvement in health systems 
strengthening to improve global health outcomes: a review of guidelines and potential 
roles. Community Health Equity Research & Policy, 37(3-4), 139-149. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0272684X17738089 

 
Sarapura, S., Hambly Odame, H., Chuluunbaatar, D., & Cofini, F. (Eds.). (2018). Institutionalizing 

farmer field school approach: Experiences from Latin America. FAO. 
https://www.fao.org/3/i8588en/I8588EN.pdf 

 
Schut, M., Kamanda, J., Gramzow, A., Dubois, T., Stoian, D., Andersson, J. A., Dror, I., Sartas, M., 

Mur, R., Kassam, S., Brouwer, H., Devaux, A., Velasco, C., Flor, R. J., Gummert, M., 
Buizer, D., McDougall, C., Davis, K., Tui, S. H.-K., & Lundy, M. (2018). Innovation 
Platforms in Agricultural Research for Development. Experimental Agriculture, 55(4), 1-
22. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0014479718000200  

 
Schwarzenegger, C. (2020). Personal epistemologies of the media: Selective criticality, 

pragmatic trust, and competence–confidence in navigating media repertoires in the 
digital age. New Media & Society, 22(2), 361-377. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819856919 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2021.1942090
https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2020.1747199
https://ricetoday.irri.org/debunking-golden-rice-myths-a-geneticists-perspective/
https://ricetoday.irri.org/debunking-golden-rice-myths-a-geneticists-perspective/
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.269
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122175
https://doi.org/10.1177/0272684X17738089
https://www.fao.org/3/i8588en/I8588EN.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0014479718000200
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819856919


Chowdhury et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349   102 
 

Shao, D., & Edward, S. (2014). Combating fake agro-inputs products in Tanzania using mobile 
phones. International Journal of Computer Applications, 97(17). 
http://dx.doi.org/10.5120/17099-7681  

 
Shin, J., Jian, L., Driscoll, K., & Bar, F. (2018). The diffusion of misinformation on social media: 

Temporal pattern, message, and source. Computers in Human Behavior, 83, 278-287. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.02.008  

 
Stroud, J. L. (2019). Tackling misinformation in agriculture. BioRxiv. 

https://doi.org/10.1101/2019.12.27.889279   
 
Sugihono, C., Juniarti, H. A., & Nugroho, N. C. (2022). Digital transformation in the agriculture 

sector: Exploring the shifting role of extension workers. STI Policy and Management 
Journal, 7(2), 139-159. https://doi.org/10.14203/stipm.2022.350 

 
Suwana, F. (2021). Content, changers, community and collaboration: Expanding digital media 

literacy initiatives. Media Practice and Education, 22(2), 153-170. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/25741136.2021.1888192  

 
Suwana, F. (2021). Content, changers, community and collaboration: Expanding digital media 

literacy initiatives. Media Practice and Education, 22(2), 153-170. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/25741136.2021.1888192  

 
Tabong, P. T. N., & Segtub, M. (2021). Misconceptions, misinformation, and politics of COVID-19 

on social media: A multi-level analysis in Ghana. Frontiers in Communication, 6, 613794. 
https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.613794  

 
Tandoc Jr, E. C., Lim, Z. W., & Ling, R. (2018). Defining “fake news” A typology of scholarly 

definitions. Digital Journalism, 6(2), 137-153. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1360143   

 
Ton, G., Klerkx, L., de Grip, K., & Rau, M.-L. (2015). Innovation grants to smallholder farmers: 

Revisiting the key assumptions in the impact pathways. Food Policy, 51, 9-23. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.11.002 

 
Trethewey, S. P. (2020). Strategies to combat medical misinformation on social media. 

Postgraduate Medical Journal, 96(1131), 4-6. https://doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-
2019-137201 

 
Tripodi, F. (2018, May 18). Searching for alternative facts: Analyzing scriptural inference in 

conservative news practices. Data & Society. https://datasociety.net/library/searching-
for-alternative-facts/ 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349
http://dx.doi.org/10.5120/17099-7681
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.02.008
https://doi.org/10.1101/2019.12.27.889279
https://doi.org/10.14203/stipm.2022.350
https://doi.org/10.1080/25741136.2021.1888192
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/25741136.2021.1888192
https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.613794
https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1360143
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.11.002
https://doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2019-137201
https://doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2019-137201
https://datasociety.net/library/searching-for-alternative-facts/
https://datasociety.net/library/searching-for-alternative-facts/


Chowdhury et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349   103 
 

Tripodi, F. B. (2022). ReOpen demands as public health threat: a sociotechnical framework for 
understanding the stickiness of misinformation. Computational and Mathematical 
Organization Theory, 28(4), 321–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-021-09339-8  

 
Tripodi, F. B., Stevenson, J. A., Slama, R., & Reich, J. (2023). Libraries combating disinformation: 

From the front line to the long game. The Library Quarterly, 93(1), 48-71. 
https://doi.org/10.1086/722551 

 
Tully, M., Bode, L., & Vraga, E. K. (2020). Mobilizing users: Does exposure to misinformation and 

its correction affect users’ responses to a health misinformation post?. Social Media+ 
Society, 6(4), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120978377 

 
van de Fliert, E., Dung, N. T., Henriksen, O., & Dalsgaard, J. P. T. (2007). From collectives to 

collective decision-making and action: Farmer field schools in Vietnam. The Journal of 
Agricultural Education and Extension, 13(3), 245-256. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/13892240701427706 

 
Walter, N., Cohen, J., Holbert, R. L., & Morag, Y. (2020). Fact-checking: A meta-analysis of what 

works and for whom. Political Communication, 37(3), 350-375. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1668894 

 
Walton, G., & Hepworth, M. (2011). A longitudinal study of changes in learners’ cognitive states 

during and following an information literacy teaching intervention. Journal of 
Documentation, 67(3), 449-479. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00220411111124541  

 
Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary 

framework for research and policy making. Council of Europe. 
https://rm.coe.int/information-disorder-toward-an-interdisciplinary-framework-for-
researc/168076277c  

 
Wasserman, H., & Madrid-Morales, D. (Eds.). (2022). Disinformation in the Global South. Willey 

Blackwell.  
 
Wenger, E., White, N., & Smith, J. D. (2009). Digital habitats: Stewarding technology for 

communities. CPsquare. 
 
Witteveen, L., Lie, R., Goris, M., & Ingram, V. (2017). Design and development of a digital farmer 

field school. Experiences with a digital learning environment for cocoa production and 
certification in Sierra Leone. Telematics and Informatics, 34(8), 1673–1684. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.07.013   

 
World Health Organization. (2022a, September 14). WHO policy brief: COVID-19 infodemic 

management. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-Policy_Brief-
Infodemic-2022.1 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-021-09339-8
https://doi.org/10.1086/722551
https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120978377
https://doi.org/10.1080/13892240701427706
https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1668894
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00220411111124541
https://rm.coe.int/information-disorder-toward-an-interdisciplinary-framework-for-researc/168076277c
https://rm.coe.int/information-disorder-toward-an-interdisciplinary-framework-for-researc/168076277c
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.07.013
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-Policy_Brief-Infodemic-2022.1
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-Policy_Brief-Infodemic-2022.1


Chowdhury et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349   104 
 

World Health Organization. (2022b). Fifth virtual WHO infodemic management conference, 2, 4, 
9 and 11 November 2021: meeting report: steps towards measuring the burden of 
infodemics. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/353410 

 
WREN Media. (2010, February 10). Role of media in agricultural and rural development [Paper 

presentation]. International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA) workshop on Last Mile 
Delivery, New Dehli. 
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08afd40f0b649740008cc/The_role_o
f_the_media_in_agricultural_development.pdf  

 
Young, J. C., Boyd, B., Yefimova, K., Wedlake, S., Coward, C., & Hapel, R. (2021). The role of 

libraries in misinformation programming: A research agenda. Journal of Librarianship 
and Information Science, 53(4), 539-550. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000620966650  

 
 
© 2024 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349
https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/353410
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08afd40f0b649740008cc/The_role_of_the_media_in_agricultural_development.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08afd40f0b649740008cc/The_role_of_the_media_in_agricultural_development.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000620966650

