































   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 5, Issue 3, 2024 
  agdevresearch.org 

 

1. Jacqueline V. Aenlle, Assistant Professor, Kansas State University, 301 Umberger Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506, 

jaenlle@ksu.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7366-4981 
2. Jamie L. Loizzo, Associate Professor, University of Florida, 121D Bryant Hall, PO Box 112060, Gainesville, FL 32611, 

jloizzo@ufl.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5575-2918 
3. Lisa K. Lundy, Professor, University of Florida, 121E Bryant Hall, PO Box 112060, Gainesville, FL 32611, lisalundy@ufl.edu, 

 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3498-7486 
4. Fevin M. Folta, Professor, University of Florida, 2550 Hull Road, PO Box 110690, Gainesville, Florida 32611, kfolta@ufl.edu, 

 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3836-2213 
5. James C. Bunch, Associate Professor, University of Florida, 307A Rolfs Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611, bunchj@ufl.edu,  

 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8729-2349 
39 

 

Scientists’ Side of the Microphone: An Examination of 
Agricultural and Natural Resources Podcast Guests’ 

Experiences 
 

J. V. Aenlle1, J. L. Loizzo2, L. K. Lundy3, F. M. Folta4, J. C. Bunch5 
 

 
Article History 
Received: November 1, 2023 
Accepted: March 25, 2024 
Published: April 29, 2024 
 
 
Keywords 
science communication; public 
engagement with science; mixed 
method 
  

Abstract 
While some food, agricultural, natural resources, and human science 
(FANRHS) experts participate in a variety of outreach opportunities, many 
face barriers to public interaction such as lack of incentive, knowledge, or 
confidence. This study examined scientists’ and Extensionists’ outreach 
experiences as guests on science podcasts. Results showed the guests 
had minimal formal science communication training yet were highly 
educated individuals and involved with informal education. Future 
research should examine how peer-modeling can be used to recruit more 
scientists to science communication opportunities and how institutions 
can improve training for outreach such as podcasts. 

mailto:jaenlle@ksu.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7366-4981
mailto:jloizzo@ufl.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5575-2918
mailto:lisalundy@ufl.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3498-7486
mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3836-2213
mailto:bunchj@ufl.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8729-2349


Aenlle et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i3.421   40 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
Prior research and literature describe public outreach as informing, connecting, or gathering 
feedback from a community on a certain issue, company, or organization (Christensen, 2007; 
Paisley, 2019; Riccardi et al., 2022). Scientists have often viewed outreach as a voluntary 
activity that exists outside of their career responsibilities (Andrews et al., 2005). However, 
Andrews et al. (2005) explained that some view Extension as an essential portion of every 
scientist’s job at a public land grant university in the United States, but a lack of incentives, 
time, training, administrative support, and hesitation to engage in heated discussions can be 
key barriers to scientist participation in outreach (Loizzo et al., 2019; Rose et al., 2020). With 
the public sometimes feeling distrustful of science researchers, many Americans have instead 
identified alternative information sources such as individuals who are willing to communicate 
about scientific issues and able to reach diverse audiences. These personas might include, but 
are not limited to, mass media personalities, community leaders, and other opinion leaders.  
 
Many online opinion leaders share content about food, agriculture, environmental sciences and 
natural resources (Baker et al., 2021; Long et al., 2011; Matous, 2023). But research has shown 
that subject matter experts within these areas might not be active in science communication on 
social media since they prefer the use of traditional websites or meetings (Lamm et al., 2016). 
Bik (2015) recommended that researchers participating in outreach should utilize a diverse set 
of media platforms to cross-promote content on digital media channels, such as Facebook, 
Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, or podcasts (Spencer et al., 2017). Scientists can continue to build 
trust with public audiences by sharing and discussing information to public audiences directly or 
mediated through mediums such as social media (Fiske & Dupree, 2014; Huber et al., 2019). 
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
A conceptual framework comprised of Self-Efficacy Theory (SET) and the inreach vs. outreach 
model guided the study. In this study, self-efficacy was applied to describe scientists’ positive 
motivations and confidence toward participating in science communication and outreach 
opportunities such as podcasts, and the inreach vs. outreach model provided a framework for 
how scientists can leverage online platforms to ‘sing from the rooftops’ for public engagement 
to move beyond communication in typical scientific echo chambers of peer-reviewed journals 
and conferences. 
 
Self-Efficacy Theory 
SET has been used in an array of social and phycological disciplines including but not limited to 
education, business, and health to assess individuals’ perceived ability and motivation for 
behavior change or information processing (Bandura, 1986; Schunk & Pajares, 2009). SET 
explains factors that can influence an individual’s likeliness of participating in a given behavior. 
Factors that affect participation in a desired behavior include past experience, perceived social 
norms, and confidence to perform the behavior (Bandura, 1989). If scientists have had positive 
science communication experiences or positive perceptions towards the practice, they may be 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i3.421


Aenlle et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i3.421   41 
 

more willing to participate in science outreach opportunities including, but not limited to, 
science podcasts. 
 
Inreach vs. Outreach 
The inreach vs. outreach conceptual model examines social media followership to identify 
whether scientist’s online presence is communicating to an internal or external audience (Côté 
& Darling, 2018). Inreach could be considered as promoting content to individuals already 
within a given network or in a similar field, such as peers and colleagues (echo chamber). 
Conversely, outreach entails reaching audiences (i.e., public audiences, scientists in different 
disciplines, policymakers, etc.) outside of an individual’s field and outside their immediate 
network (Côté & Darling, 2018). Côté and Darling (2018) developed this model when analyzing 
scientists’ Twitter usage for science communication. The researchers determined that accounts 
with one thousand or more followers successfully conducted outreach. Studies have used Côté 
and Darling’s model to examine the engagement of online audiences (e.g., via Twitter) with 
ocean science/ocean literacy and to determine the types of audiences being reached and 
engaging with content (Kopke et al., 2019). Additionally, this model has also been utilized to 
create new methods for identifying micro-influencers and examining their usefulness (Rakoczy 
et al., 2018). These approaches can be mimicked and the inreach versus outreach model can be 
used to assess the impact and reach of science communicators, podcast producers, and guest 
speakers within FANRHS. The goal of FANRHS podcast producers and science communicators 
sharing educational content should be potentially both inreach (i.e., to colleagues, etc.) and 
outreach to public audiences for increasing science literacy, science awareness, and knowledge. 
 

Purpose 
 
Podcast usage has become increasingly popular in recent years (Edison Research and Triton 
Digital, 2023) and has been proven as a useful tool for informal education, reaching new 
audiences, and communicating about agricultural information (Beattie et al., 2020; Chivers et 
al., 2023). The purpose of this study was to examine the experiences of food, agricultural, 
natural resource, and human science (FANRHS) subject matter experts who have served as 
guests on science podcasts. The following research questions (RQs) guided the study: 
• RQ1: What are FANRHS podcast guests’ demographics? 
• RQ2: How did podcast guests prepare for podcast interviews and outreach opportunities? 
• RQ3: What was the reaction of FANRHS podcast guests before, during, and after the 

podcast? 
 

Methods 
 
This research study was part of a larger study that examined FANRHS podcast production from 
the perspective of the podcast producers, guests, and podcast listeners. This portion of the 
project specifically focused on the experiences of guests on FANRHS podcasts and followed a 
mixed-method approach. Mixed methods research provides both a numerical, broad 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i3.421


Aenlle et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i3.421   42 
 

examination of a phenomenon, and a more in-depth look at the underlying factors contributing 
to it (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017). 
  
Recruitment and Instrumentation 
An earlier portion of the larger research project required researchers to purposively sample and 
contact over 70 FANRHS podcast producers. These producers were then asked to share a survey 
opportunity with their past podcast guests. The podcast guests’ survey consisted of three 
blocks of questions. Block one included questions about the podcasts that individuals were 
guest speakers on and included other experiences with science communication opportunities. 
Block two included a trust in science instrument (results reported in dissertation and a different 
publication). Block three collected similar demographic information as the producer survey (i.e., 
age, gender, education level, etc.). The podcast guest survey included a combination of multiple 
choice, free response, and Likert-type scales ranging from one (strongly disagree) to five 
(strongly agree). Descriptive statistics were used to answer the research questions. Eighteen 
participants completed the podcast guest survey in its entirety, and five volunteered to 
participate in follow-up interviews. 
 
The interviews with podcast guests included a section of questions on their experiences 
participating in FANRHS science communication and podcasts, and their views on trust in 
science. Questions within those sections focused on their motivation to participate in podcasts 
and other science communication efforts, their contributions to science awareness, and their 
perceptions of the scientific enterprise. Interview questions included: Have you had any science 
communication training? Why did you choose to participate in a FANRHS podcast? How does 
podcasting impact science education, communication, engagement, and/or trust? 
 
Reliability and Trustworthiness 
An online survey was chosen for the initial portion of this study due to the quick response time 
and possible reach (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). To increase the trustworthiness of the 
qualitative portion of this study, results were reported using rich, thick descriptions. Rich, thick 
descriptions are commonly used in qualitative research to increase the reliability and 
transferability of results by thoroughly describing experiences, research participants, the 
research context, and observations (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).  
 
Analysis 
Quantitative data were cleaned in Excel and then exported to Statistical Package for Social 
Sciences (SPSS) where descriptive statistics were calculated. Qualitative interviews were 
recorded via Zoom then uploaded to Sonix.ai for transcription. Transcriptions were checked for 
accuracy before coding began (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Data were analyzed by the primary 
researcher using the constant comparison method (Glaser, 1965), then another member of the 
research team reviewed and confirmed the codes identified. The constant comparison method 
involves simultaneously noting emerging codes while also comparing them to existing codes to 
determine areas of overlap or divergence (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Next the primary researcher 
did a second round of axial coding, where codes were then grouped into larger categories 
based on the research questions (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i3.421


Aenlle et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i3.421   43 
 

Limitations 
Given the specificity of the population and the use of chain referral sampling, the researcher 
was unable to obtain a large sample size of participants (18 survey responses and five interview 
participants). Therefore, generalizations should not be made outside of this population. 
Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic heavily impacted the study design. As a result of the 
pandemic, interviews were held via Zoom instead of in person, which could have impacted 
interpersonal interactions with the participants. 
 

Findings 
 
RQ 1: What Are the Demographics of FANRHS Podcast Guests? 
The gender demographics of survey respondents (n = 18) were split between female (50%), 
male (44.4%), and individuals who chose to provide their own gender identity (5.6%). Of the 
respondents, 12 (66.7%) identified as white, three (16.7%) as Hispanic/Latino, two (11.1%) as 
Asian, and one (5.6%) preferred not to answer (Table 1).  
 
  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i3.421


Aenlle et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i3.421   44 
 

Table 1 
 
Demographics of FANRHS podcast guests (n = 18) 
Variable      f % 
Gender   Male   8 44.4 
   Female   9 50.0 
   I would like to contribute my own 

personal gender identity   
1 5.6 

Race   White   12 66.7 
   Asian   2 11.1 
   Hispanic/Latino   3 16.7 
   Prefer not to answer   1 5.6 
Location California   1 5.6 
   Florida   9 50 
   Georgia   1 5.6 
   Illinois   1 5.6 
   North Carolina   1 5.6 
   Pennsylvania   1 5.6 
   Texas   1 5.6 
   Washington   1 5.6 
   Does not reside in the United 

States   
2 11.1 

  Age 25-31   7 38.9 
   32-38   5 27.8 
   39-45   4 22.2 
   46-51   1 5.6 
   52-58   1 5.6 
Level of Education   Four-year college degree   1 5.6 
   Some graduate school or 

advanced degree   
17 94.4 

Self-identify as part of the 
food, agriculture, or 
natural resource 
industry    

Yes   17 94.4 
No   

1 5.6 

Years in industry    0-5   8 44.4 
   6-10   1 5.6  

10+   8 44.4 
 
Most respondents (77.8%, f = 14) participated in various types of science communication 
efforts, including podcasting, for more than five years (Table 2). Nine of the respondents (50%) 
were in Texas, and 88.9% (f = 16) were between the ages of 18-45. Most podcast guests had 
completed either some graduate school or an advanced degree (94.4%, f = 17), or a four-year 
college degree (5.6%, f = 1) as their highest level of education (Table 1). Podcast guests had 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i3.421


Aenlle et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i3.421   45 
 

spoken on podcasts about agriculture (77%, f = 14), environmental science (38.9%, f = 7), food 
(27.8 %, f = 5), natural resources (27.8 %, f = 5), and human sciences (16.7%, f = 3). 
 
Table 2  
 
Time (Years and Hours/Week) Spent Participating in Science Communication (n = 18) 
Variable      F % 
Years spent participating in science 

communication efforts.   
2-3    3 16.7 
4-5   1 5.6 

   5+   14 77.8 
Hours per week spent participating in 

science communication.   
0-5   8 44.4 
6-10   6 33.3 

   11-20   2 11.1 
   21-40   2 11.1 
Is science communication time per week 

included in your job? 
Yes 13 72.7 
No 5 27.8 

 
RQ 2: How Did Podcast Guests Prepare for Podcast Interviews and Outreach Opportunities?  
The following section outlines responses participants shared during the qualitative interview 
portion of the study. A total of five survey respondents opted-in to follow-up semi-structured 
interviews. These guests were either university scientists, educators, or Extension professionals. 
Interview participants were a mixture of females and males, most of which resided in the 
southeastern United States. When guests discussed the ways in which they prepared for 
FANRHS podcast interviews, several themes emerged. Guests described strategies for preparing 
for individual interviews and how producers helped them prepare. 
 
FANRHS podcast guests prepared for interviews by researching the podcast, preparing key 
points, and understanding the tone of the podcast. 
All guests mentioned being invited for podcast interviews via an email invitation. Before a 
podcast interview, guests were sometimes invited to a pre-interview meeting either via phone 
or email. Three of the guests mentioned that one topic discussed during the pre-meeting was 
the objectives of the episode. Guest 2 explained: 

My questions are geared around allowing myself to prepare and make sure that they're 
getting what they want out of the podcast, but also making sure that I'm the right 
person to do the podcast because there's a lot of people at [my university]. And if it's 
not me, I am happy to recommend somebody else. 

 
Once guests have established that the podcast is a good fit for them, they then typically decide 
on talking points to include. When discussing important pieces of their preparation, Guest 1 
said: 

I laid out three key points or three key pillars that I wanted to come through, but not 
too much preparation because it wasn't a formula…It was more conversational, so it 
was more preparing: what are the key themes I need to have come through? And 
making sure I was able to do that. 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i3.421


Aenlle et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i3.421   46 
 

 
Lastly, guests typically liked to know about the tone of the podcasts and whether they would be 
more formal or more casual and conversational. Guest 3 reflected on two podcast interview 
experiences and explained that the first one was more casual which differed greatly from the 
second. Guest 3 said:  

The [second] one felt very formal, and I don't know if that was just the differences in 
those options, and the [second] one I didn't prepare. I mean, no, the [second] one I 
prepared a lot for, the [first] one I didn't prepare as much for.  

 
In summary, guests prepared for podcast interviews by gathering detailed information about 
the podcast in general, understanding the objectives and tone of the episode, and compiling a 
list of talking points. 
 
RQ 3: What was the Reaction of FANRHS Podcast Guests Before, During, and After the 
Podcast?  
FANRHS podcast guests expressed feelings of caution before a podcast experience. Later they 
described positive aspects of the experience and an appreciation for the final product of the 
podcast interviews. 
 
FANRHS podcast guests were sometimes cautious when preparing for an interview. 
Podcast guests typically also participated in other communication and outreach opportunities 
that they said were not always the best experience, which has made them cautious and 
encouraged them to ask more questions when approached with communication opportunities. 
Guest 3 described how their words could have been altered in interviews or written 
communication pieces in such a way that the information would be misrepresented: 

We all get nervous about what will happen once [the communication] leaves our hands. 
And so, we may go in with the best of intentions, we lay out all of the elements of what 
we know and how people should proceed. And the element that is shared on the 
podcast only focuses on our level of uncertainty or it pulls out those pieces. So, I think 
podcasting maybe is a little better than traditional media, where it's only a sound bite. 
For the most part, podcasts can include much longer conversations, more background, 
more details.  

 
Guest 2 shared similar concerns for their words and meanings being misconstrued:  

You know, I don't want to just put it right out there. I'm going to be cautious if my words 
can be twisted or if the end goal is X, and that's not in line with the science, or I'm 
worried that they're going to portray me in a way that is not going to. Sometimes people 
take things out of context on purpose.  

 
To mitigate these concerns, before agreeing to an interview, the guest will investigate the 
person or organization supporting the episode to better understand their background and 
objectives.  
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i3.421


Aenlle et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i3.421   47 
 

Well-produced podcasts should include an engaging host, timely content, have an 
appropriate length, and present their topic as a narrative 
Four of the podcast guests mentioned several characteristics that set well-produced podcasts 
apart from others. For example, when discussing the qualities of an engaging host of FANRHS 
podcasts, Guest 2 said: 

To be a good presenter, and they need to speak the science. And the person who's 
doing the podcast has to know the difference, you know, which is tough because they're 
not necessarily an expert in that area. I think it's on both ends. The guest is presenting 
their information, and it's the podcast person's role to make them look good. It's got to 
be timely, people have to be interested in the subject. So, sometimes it comes down to 
a catchy title. Just to get people to actually push the button and want to listen to the 
podcast. And then sometimes it's somebody that has a following, you know, like certain 
people will just command an audience.  

 
In addition, Guest 1 discussed the importance of the podcast content and format:  

I mean, I guess from my own perspective, you're telling a really engaging story that you 
are getting my attention, that beginning and pulling me in, and then willing to not 
constantly chop and change directions, but to spend time in the story, if that makes 
sense. Those tend to be my favorite podcasts. 

 
Similarly, Guest 2 also mentioned the impact of podcast length and speaker ability: 

I'm a short and sweet person, so, I'm not going to listen to an hour podcast. You can't 
make me do it, but if it's entertaining, and if it's well done, if it's accurate, and you have 
really good speakers because you have no visuals, so you have to have somebody who's 
not monotone and can carry out a conversation. I think it's another avenue and 
probably one that we're not tapping enough. 

 
Podcast guests believed that a well-made podcast includes an engaging host, a narrative 
format, and that they are concise.  
 
Podcast guests enjoyed listening to the final product 
Podcast guests appeared to be happy with the final products of the podcasts they were 
featured on. Some guests were even allowed to pre-listen and approve the podcast track, 
before it was published. Guest 1 said, “The first one I did, they did send a proof. It was great.” 
For other podcast experiences, Guest 1 did not get a proof of the episode before the track was 
released, but they did get a chance to verify that the content they shared was accurate. Guest 1 
explained that: 

I was a guest on their show. And when we got done, they said, ‘Hey, was there anything 
that you think you'd want to clarify on that?’ I said, ‘No, I think this went really well,’ so 
it may have been they would have sent it. I'm kind of a believer in so long as there's a 
level of trust in what we're putting together, I don't necessarily have to approve it. 

 
One recommendation for a podcast guest was to give more details and guidance before a 
podcast interview. Guest 3 said:  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i3.421


Aenlle et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i3.421   48 
 

I think that the final product of both of those experiences was good. I think on the front 
end, I just didn't quite know how to prepare for the first one. I prepared so many notes, 
like a ridiculous amount of notes, and in fact, when they edited, it became two 
episodes—so many, so many things. 

 
In conclusion, podcast guests enjoyed hearing the final product of their podcast interviews. In 
addition, they appreciated it when producers notified them when the episodes were published. 
 
Institutions can better support FANRHS science communicators by providing additional 
training and professional development opportunities 
Many podcast guests frequently participated in a variety of science outreach efforts, but they 
did not have any formal training in science communication. Guest 5 discussed their experiences 
learning about communication and said, “None of this is formal. None of our training in 
biomedical sciences taught us to be good communicators.”  
 
When asked about past training, Guest 4 said, “I will start by saying that historically, no, I didn't 
have any training on this. A lot of my training was like, like thrown in the fire, go communicate 
and then, we'll see how you do.” Outside of experiential learning experiences, many guests also 
learned about science communication from watching mentors or other skilled communicators. 
Guest 1 mentioned that they had the opportunity to work with experienced communicators at 
their institution and learned to respect the discipline and science of communication. Similarly, 
Guest 4 said: 

I, in my graduate degrees, worked for people who are very strong science 
communicators who interacted very frequently with industry members in taking hard 
scientific topics and really trying to communicate them to our stakeholders in the food 
industry. I was able to watch them, and then sort of emulate their style as I sort of came 
into my own degree.  

 
Though most had no previous training, they did show interest in future training opportunities. 
Guest 4 said: 

I think that I am not opposed to going and participating and learning more of how to 
communicate science better… We are busy people. So, I think for me, it's taking a whole 
day away to do something, probably not something I'm going to find the time to do. 
Finding a way to do it in an hour, two-hour segments, even asynchronously, that is 
something that I would absolutely be able to participate in.  

 
Guests discussed various ways in which institutions can better support science communication 
efforts. First, guests could use support in identifying potential podcasts on which to speak. 
Guest 3 said, “I think more broad training and professional development in how they would find 
the right podcasts for their work.” Guest 1 said that it would be helpful to learn better ways to 
interact with public audiences: “How do I speak to the different kind of audiences? And then, 
how do I get feedback back?” Several other guests felt that they could use some additional 
preparation for handling negative feedback on digital platforms. As Guest 4 explained: 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i3.421


Aenlle et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i3.421   49 
 

Part of the problem when you put yourself out there as a science communicator is you 
open yourself up to trolling and sort of negative people out there in the interwebs. 
Information on how to deal with that would be helpful.  

 
When discussing other opportunities for support, guests saw many opportunities for leadership 
at universities which could be utilized to support their outreach efforts. Guest 4 said: “I think 
support from administrators all the way from a department chair through the dean level, 
support for them to be able to be open and honest in their communication is probably 
something that is needed.” To summarize, producers described various ways academic 
professionals and universities could better support FANRHS podcasts, including serving as 
expert guests and joining practitioner communities to share their research and best practice 
recommendations. 
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 
 
This study examined FANRHS podcast guests’ demographics and experiences speaking on 
podcasts. Guests identified as white, Hispanic/Latino, and Asian and were balanced between 
males and females. Podcast guests were highly educated individuals, involved with formal or 
informal education, and had spoken on podcasts about agriculture and occasionally topics such 
as environmental science, food, natural resources, and human sciences. The pattern of experts 
who have already participated in science communication, choosing to continue to do so is 
congruent with the principles of self-efficacy.  
 
Guests had several years of experience in science communication and outreach. It appeared 
they opted in to participating in this study, and previously to serve as guest speakers on 
podcasts, in part because they had higher levels of self-efficacy than individuals with fewer 
years of speaking experience and sharing science information with public audiences (e.g., SET; 
Bandura, 2010). An opportunity exists to recruit and train experts who are less experienced in 
science communication. The training should include technical skill development to produce 
high-quality podcasts and leverage social platforms. But it should also include best practices 
and tips designed to use persuasive narratives to share information, instructions on how to 
connect content and interviews to explain the nature of science and the scientific worldview, 
and guidance on how to dialogue with listeners, especially about complex and heated issues. 
Future trainings can continue to incorporate workshops that advance science-based 
educational programs on science communication and science literacy (Schoerning, 2018). 
Organizations and institutions can support the creation of collaborative groups that 
demonstrate how to build science communication into research, navigate science 
communication barriers (i.e., feelings of exclusion), and share knowledge with broader public 
audiences outside of typical academic circles (Devonshire & Hathway, 2014; Rose et al., 2020). 
 
To increase science communicators' self-efficacy and recruit more experts and scientists to 
communicate, universities, academic organizations, or current communicators can better 
showcase experts already actively participating in science communication efforts. New science 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i3.421


Aenlle et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i3.421   50 
 

communicators can be recruited following peer modeling principles and by using social cues 
from other scientists to prompt their participation (Bandura, 1986; Schunk, 2020). Experts can 
both increase public trust in science (Fiske & Dupree, 2014; Huber et al., 2019) and satisfy the 
land-grant mission of making knowledge more accessible (Rasmussen, 1989) through these 
digital outreach opportunities. 
 
Several best practices for podcast guests arose through this study. Before recording an 
interview, guests should have a good sense of the objective and tone of the podcast and have 
an idea of what content they will share during the interview. Guests should share information 
within their area of expertise and avoid speaking on topics outside their area of expertise. It is 
beneficial for guests to also provide the producers with additional resources (i.e., papers, 
infographics, short videos, etc.) to strengthen the podcast’s credibility. Guests should speak to 
their particular area of expertise and nothing outside of it (Fiske & Dupree, 2014). And lastly, 
guests can use podcasts to promote their own research, organizations, programs, or platforms 
to new audiences (e.g., Inreach vs Outreach Model; Côté & Darling, 2018) and as a method for 
increasing informed decision-making about FANRHS topics. The future of science 
communication will include recruiting and training well-rounded science communicators to 
addressing wicked problems and misconceptions held by consumers. The results of this study 
can be used by communication specialists or program coordinators who wish to engage and 
train experts to contribute to their outreach programs. Future research should explore how 
institutions can better collaborate with scientists and support their outreach programs through 
training opportunities across disciplines in order to share knowledge and increase impact. 
Future research should also focus on gathering data from a larger sample of the population to 
be able to explore more generalizable findings and trends. 
 

Acknowledgements 
 
Author Contributions: J.V. Aenlle - Conceptualization, methodology, writing-original draft, 
investigation, formal analysis; J.L. Loizzo - methodology, writing- review & editing, supervision; 
L. K. Lundy - writing- review & editing; K.M. Folta - writing- review & editing; J.C. Bunch - 
writing- review & editing. 
 

References 
 
Andrews, E., Weaver, A., Hanley, D., Shamatha, J., & Melton, G. (2005). Scientists and public 

outreach: Participation, motivations, and impediments. Journal of Geoscience Education, 
53(3), 281-293. https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-53.3.281 

 
Baker, L., Chiarelli, C., Rampold, S., McLeod-Morin, A., & Lindsey, A. (2021). Communication in a 

pandemic: Concerns of agricultural and natural resources opinion leaders during early 
stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Advancements in Agricultural Development, 2(3), 72-
82. https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i3.147 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i3.421
https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-53.3.281
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i3.147


Aenlle et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i3.421   51 
 

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice 
Hall. 

 
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 

1175-1184. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.44.9.1175 
 
Beattie, P.N., Aenlle, J.V., & Loizzo, J.L. (2020). Homegrown podcasts: Implementation of 

podcasts for agricultural and natural resource education and engagement. Agricultural 
Education Magazine, 93(1), 25-26. 

Bik, H. M., Dove, A. D. M., Goldstein, M. C., Helm, R. R., MacPherson, R., Martini, K., Warneke, 
A., & McClain, C. (2015). Ten simple rules for effective online outreach. PloS 
Computational Biology, 11(4), https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003906 

 
Burns, T. W., O’Connor, D. J., & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003). Science communication: A 

contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12(2), 183–202. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625030122004 

 
Burt, R. S. (1999). The social capital of opinion leaders. ANNALS of the American Academy of 

Political and Social Science, 566(1), 37-54. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/000271629956600104 

 
Chivers, C., Bliss, K., De Boon, A., Lishman, L., Schillings, J., Smith, R., & Rose, D. C. (2023). 

Videos and podcasts for delivering agricultural extension: Achieving credibility, 
relevance, legitimacy and accessibility. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 
29(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224x.2021.1997771 

 
Christensen, L. L. (2007). The hands-on guide for science communicators: A step-by-step 

approach to public outreach. Springer Science & Business Media. 
 
Clark, A. (2020, June 8). Women are underrepresented in science coverage. Two UF scientists 

share insight on how to have your voice heard. University of Florida News. 
https://news.ufl.edu/2020/06/women-in-science-media/  

 
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research (4th ed.). Sage. 
 
Côté, I. M., & Darling, E. S. (2018). Scientists on Twitter: Preaching to the choir or singing from 

the rooftops? FACETS, 3(1), 682-694. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2018-0002  
 
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed 

methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. 
 
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed method research 

(3rd ed.). Sage Publications. 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i3.421
https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.44.9.1175
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003906
https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625030122004
https://doi.org/10.1177/000271629956600104
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224x.2021.1997771
https://news.ufl.edu/2020/06/women-in-science-media/
https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2018-0002


Aenlle et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i3.421   52 
 

 
Critchley, C. R. (2008). Public opinion and trust in scientists: The role of the research context, 

and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers. Public Understanding of 
Science, 17(3), 309–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506070162   

 
Dantas-Quieroz, M. V., Wentzel, L. C., & Quieroz, L. L. (2018). Science communication 

podcasting in Brazil: The potential and challenges depicted by two podcasts. Anais da 
Academia Brasileira de Ciências, 90(2), 1891-1901. https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-
3765201820170431 

 
Devonshire, I. M., & Hathway, G. J. (2014). Overcoming the barriers to greater public 

engagement. PloS Biology, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001761 
 
Edison Research and Triton Digital. (2023). The infinite dial. 

https://www.edisonresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/The-Infinite-Dial-
2023.pdf 

 
Fiske, S. T., & Dupree, C. (2014). Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated 

audiences about science topics.. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 
(Supplement 4), 13593-13597. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317505111 

 
Geertz, C. (2008). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. Routledge. 
 
Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 

12(4), 436–445. https://doi.org/10.2307/798843  
 
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative 

research. Aldine. 
 
Hu, S., Li, Z., Zhang, J., & Zhu, J. (2018). Engaging scientists in science communication: The effect 

of social proof and meaning. Journal of Cleaner Production, 170, 1044-
1051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.210 

 
Huber, B., Barnidge, M., Gil de Zúñiga, H., & Liu, J. (2019). Fostering public trust in science: The 

role of social media. Public Understanding of Science, 28(7), 759–
777. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519869097  

 
Jensen, P., Rouquier, J.B., Kreimer, P., & Croissant, Y. (2008). Scientists who engage with society 

perform better academically. Science and Public Policy, 35(7), 527–541. 
https://doi.org/10.3152/030234208X329130 

 
Lamm, K., Rumble, J., Carter, H., & Lamm, A. (2016). Agricultural opinion leader communication 

channel preferences: An empirical analysis of participants of agricultural and natural 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i3.421
https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506070162
https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765201820170431
https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765201820170431
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001761
https://www.edisonresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/The-Infinite-Dial-2023.pdf
https://www.edisonresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/The-Infinite-Dial-2023.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317505111
https://doi.org/10.2307/798843
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.210
https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519869097
https://doi.org/10.3152/030234208X329130


Aenlle et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i3.421   53 
 

resource leadership development programs. Journal of Agricultural Education, 57(1), 91-
105. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2016.01091 

 
Loizzo, J., Jones, C., & Steffen, A. (2019). A pilot qualitative case study of agricultural and natural 

resources scientists’ Twitter usage for engaging public audiences. Journal of Applied 
Communications, 103(4). https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.2276 

 
Long, J. M., Rutherford, T. A., & Wingenbach, G. J. (2011). Opinion leaders' influence on college 

students' perceptions of the national animal identification system. Texas Journal of 
Agriculture and Natural Resources, 24, 18-
27. https://txjanr.agintexas.org/index.php/txjanr/article/view/45 

 
Lubell, M., Niles, M. & Hoffman, M. (2014). Extension 3.0: Managing agricultural knowledge 

systems in the network age. Society & Natural Resources, 27(10), 1089-1103, 
https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2014.933496 

 
Matous, P. (2023). Male and stale? Questioning the role of “opinion leaders” in agricultural 

programs. Agriculture and Human Values, 40, 1205-
1220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-023-10415-9 

 
Miller, S., & Fahy, D. (2009). Can science communication workshops train scientists for reflexive 

public engagement? The ESConet experience. Science Communication, 31(1), 116–
126. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547009339048  

 
O'Connell, M. (2017). Turn up the volume: A down and dirty guide to Podcasting. Routledge. 
 
Paisley, K. (2019, March 5). Public outreach: What is it and why it matters. M. S. Consultants. 

https://www.msconsultants.com/public-outreach-what-is-it-and-why-it-matters/ 
 
Poliakoff, E., & Webb, T. L. (2007). What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in 

public engagement of science activities? Science Communication, 29(2) 242-263. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547007308009. 

 
Riccardi, P., Romano, V., & Pellegrino, F. (2022). Education and public outreach through vacuum 

science and technology. Vacuum, 196(110737).  
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vacuum.2021.110737 

 
Rose, K. M., Markowitz, E. M., & Brossard, D. (2020). Scientists’ incentives and attitudes toward 

public communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(3), 1274-
1276. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916740117 

 
Schoerning, E. (2018). A no-conflict approach to informal science education increases 

community science literacy and engagement. Journal of Science Communication, 17(3) 
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.17030205 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i3.421
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2016.01091
https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.2276
https://txjanr.agintexas.org/index.php/txjanr/article/view/45
https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2014.933496
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-023-10415-9
https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547009339048
https://www.msconsultants.com/public-outreach-what-is-it-and-why-it-matters/
https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547007308009
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vacuum.2021.110737
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916740117
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.17030205


Aenlle et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i3.421   54 
 

 
Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2009). Self-efficacy theory. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), 

Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 35-53). Routledge.  
 
Schunk, D. H. (2020). Learning theories: An educational perspective (8th ed.). Pearson. 

Spencer, C. J., Gunderson, K. L., Hoiland, C. W., Schleiffarth, W. K. (2017). Earth-science 
outreach using an integrated social media platform. The Geological Society of America 
Today, 27(8), 28-29. 
https://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/groundwork/G333GW/article.htm 

 
 
© 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.v5i3.421
https://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/groundwork/G333GW/article.htm

