































   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 6, Issue 2, 2025 
  agdevresearch.org 

 

1. Benita Komunjeru, Doctoral Student, Louisiana State University, 225A J.C. Miller Hall, 110 LSU Union Square, Baton Rouge, 

LA, 70803; bkomun2@lsu.edu,  https://orcid.org/0009-0002-4799-8675 
2. Whitney L. Figland-Cook, Assistant Professor, East Texas A&M University, P.O. Box 3011, Commerce, TX, 75429, 

whitney.figland@tamuc.edu,  https://orcid.org/0009-0003-8669-2692 
3. Jacob Englin, Doctoral Candidate, Louisiana State University, 225A J.C. Miller Hall, 110 LSU Union Square, Baton Rouge, LA, 

70803, jengl13@lsu.edu,  https://orcid.org/0009-0008-8816-534X 
4. Richie Roberts, Professor and Department Head, New Mexico State University, MSC 3501, P.O. Box 30003, Las Cruces, New 

Mexico, 88003-8003; roberts3@nmsu.edu,   https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2993-4945 
 

14 

 

Advocating for Agricultural Education: A Mixed Methods 
Examination on the Role of Opinion Leadership on Teachers’ 

Advocacy Intentions 
 

B. Komunjeru1, W. L. Figland-Cook2, J. Englin3, R. Roberts4 
 

 
Article History 
Received: January 21, 2025 
Accepted: April 7, 2025 
Published: April 8, 2025 
 
 
Keywords 
mixed methods research;  
SDG 10: Reduced inequalities;  
teacher leadership   

Abstract 
The purpose of this mixed methods study was to describe the role of 
opinion leadership on Louisiana teachers’ intentions to advocate for 
agricultural education. As a result, we found that the quantitative and 
qualitative data strands were largely complementary. We concluded that 
the agricultural education teachers in Louisiana reported only a marginal 
level of opinion leadership. Regarding their intentions to advocate for 
agricultural education, most teachers indicated they would be likelier to 
engage in low-stakes advocacy, such as joining their professional 
organization, meeting with decision-makers, or attending FFA Day at the 
Capital rather than participating in advocacy considered more 
professionally risky. The teachers also recognized that they exhibited a 
deficiency in advocacy knowledge and skills. Going forward, we 
recommend that future research examine the approaches that teachers 
use to champion various issues and causes that may affect their 
programs. We also call for greater emphasis on helping teachers learn 
how to tell agricultural education’s story in ways that motivate decision-
makers to become allies for the profession. Finally, we call for greater 
professional development experiences designed to help teachers 
advocate for agricultural education.  

mailto:bkomun2@lsu.edu
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Forcid.org%2F0009-0002-4799-8675&data=05%7C02%7Croberts3%40nmsu.edu%7C1e3a0b0577004e5e8c2808dd373868ac%7Ca3ec87a89fb84158ba8ff11bace1ebaa%7C1%7C0%7C638727437595384112%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hLZ71S1VkmSgG4wgqhTtXkfDyo4ZAfF1ByPOMGWyWy4%3D&reserved=0
mailto:whitney.figland@tamuc.edu
https://orcid.org/0009-0003-8669-2692
mailto:jengl13@lsu.edu
https://orcid.org/0009-0008-8816-534X
mailto:roberts3@nmsu.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2993-4945


Komunjeru et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.581   15 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
Teacher advocacy has emerged as a popular buzzword in education (Bradley-Levine, 2018; 
Velasco et al., 2023). Velasco et al. (2023) defined the term as an action taken by a teacher to 
influence the process by which decisions are made in education. As such, teacher advocacy 
often involves issues that have cultural, economic, and social implications that influences lives. 
For example, teachers can advocate for change regarding issues that negatively influence 
students and school systems, such as inadequate resources, misinformation, and poverty 
(Bradley-Levine, 2018). Despite this, teachers often find themselves grappling with balancing 
local community and cultural expectations as well as overcoming negative assumptions and 
stereotypes about advocacy (Velasco et al., 2023). 
 
In agricultural education, Hock and Myers (2018) explained that teacher advocacy has taken on 
various forms. For instance, teachers can address problems such as the shortage of qualified 
individuals to fill jobs in industry, lack of support for agriscience programs, misinformation 
about scientific practices that lead to new agricultural products and practices, and other 
relevant issues. To achieve such, teachers need to mobilize others – alumni, parents, and 
influential community members – willing to contribute their influence to ensure that a cause 
receives the attention needed (Doerfert & Lawson, 2018). On this point, Blackburn et al. (2017) 
noted that a critical component of effective advocacy was ensuring that others found value and 
supported a teacher’s vision. Often, this can be achieved by telling the story of agricultural 
education in ways that resonate and create a sense of urgency for those who hold decision-
making power (Casten, 2018).  
 
On this point, Lamm et al. (2015) explained that individuals viewed as knowledgeable, well-
established, and trustworthy in a social system should be “considered opinion leaders within 
their networks of influence” (p. 147). Therefore, opinion leaders in agricultural education would 
be considered vital in influencing advocacy efforts for agricultural education. By taking 
responsibility for enacting positive change at the individual and system levels, teachers can 
serve as a source of good for students, schools, and communities (Catapano, 2006). As such, 
understanding how opinion leaders understand advocacy, insight could be gained into the 
factors influencing their decision-making regarding their intentions to advocate for the 
discipline. With this knowledge, we could identify ways to motivate opinion leaders to 
champion issues important to agricultural education (LeJeune & Roberts, 2020). Despite this, 
little empirical data has been advanced that could be used to guide such efforts.  
 

Conceptual Framework 
 
For this investigation, Lazarsfeld et al. (1948) notion of opinion leadership served as the lens we 
used to analyze the phenomenon. Through this lens, knowledge is viewed as being 
disseminated through a two-phase process: (a) opinion leaders receive and process 
information, and (b) the opinion leaders communicate their views, i.e., complexity, relative 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.581


Komunjeru et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.581   16 
 

advantage, and utility, of such information to their followers, which leads to either the 
acceptance or rejection (Lazarsfeld et al., 1948; see Figure 1).  
 
Figure 1  
Lazarsfeld et al. (1948) The Role of Opinion Leadership 
 

 
 
 
Lazarsfeld et al. (1948) noted that opinion leaders could become influential in a social system 
through a variety of ways, including (a) appointment, (b) nomination, (c) recruitment, and (d) 
self-selection. Despite the ambiguous path to opinion leadership, Valente and Davis (1999) 
maintained that in every social system, individuals emerge who serve as role models to others: 
“[t]hese role models act as opinion leaders within their communities and can be important 
determinants of rapid and sustained behavior change” (p. 57). As such, followers often view 
opinion leaders as more competent than themselves because they can effectively communicate 
why an issue, or cause, should be considered important in their context (Valente & Davis, 
1999). Further, Rogers (2003) noted that opinion leaders were often considered more 
innovative, optimistic, and of higher status in a given social system. Therefore, although opinion 
leaders are often different, i.e., heterophily, they remain similar enough to their followers to 
gain buy-in and support, i.e., homophily (Rogers, 2003).  
 
In education, teachers hold unique and influential power over the dynamics of teaching and 
learning within their schools. Spillane et al. (2003) reported that teachers primarily relied on 
their fellow educators rather than school administrators for advice about teaching. Therefore, 
teachers’ inclination to seek support from their peers often positions other teachers as opinion 
leaders in educational contexts (Hatch et al., 2005). Consequently, teachers who can advocate 
for the best interest of their students and communities have been shown to successfully 
influence their colleagues to adopt various instructional practices (Marshall & Anderson, 2009). 
In the current study, we sought to understand better the role of opinion leadership in 
influencing agricultural education teachers’ intentions to advocate for agricultural education. 
Although opinion leadership has traditionally focused on the how the acceptance or rejection of 
information from opinion leaders such was not the focus on this study. Instead, we positioned 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.581


Komunjeru et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.581   17 
 

this investigation to understand the level of opinion leadership exhibited by teachers and how 
such influenced their intentions to advocate for agricultural education.   
 

Purpose and Objectives 
 
The purpose of this study was to describe the role of opinion leadership on Louisiana teachers’ 
intentions to advocate for agricultural education. Four objectives guided the investigation: 
1. Describe the level of opinion leadership possessed by Louisiana agricultural education 

teachers.  
2. Describe the intentions of Louisiana teachers to advocate for agricultural education.  
3. Describe relationships among Louisiana agricultural teachers’ level of opinion leadership 

and intentions to advocate for agricultural education. 
4. Narrate Louisiana teachers’ perspectives on advocating for agricultural education. 
 

Methodology 
 
We used a convergent mixed methods design to integrate quantitative and qualitative data to 
enhance the quality of the results in the investigation (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). 
Researchers frequently utilize convergent designs to bolster findings when quantitative or 
qualitative data alone may lack sufficient strength (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). We assigned 
equal priority, i.e., QUAN + QUAL, to each strand of data (Morse, 1991). To achieve the purpose 
of this study, we facilitated a census (N = 219) of Louisiana agricultural education teachers. This 
was achieved using the Louisiana Agriculture Teachers’ Association (LATA) membership 
directory as the investigation’s participant frame. We also used Dillman et al.’s (2014) tailored 
design approach to facilitate the collection of data using a web-based instrument created 
through Qualtrics online software.  
 
To begin data collection, we sent a pre-notice message followed by timed reminders to all 
individuals who met the inclusion criteria, informing them about the study (Dillman et al., 
2014). In total, 219 invitations were sent to SBAE teachers in Louisiana beginning in July 2022. 
After multiple reminders, 141 responses (64.3% total response rate) were recorded. However, 
after reviewing the data, we noted that 33 (23.4%) responses were incomplete; therefore, they 
were excluded from our analysis. As a result, we determined that 108 (49.3%) responses were 
usable. To address non-response bias in this investigation, we compared early and late 
respondents (Lindner et al., 2001). Previous research has demonstrated that late respondents 
often share similarities with non-respondents (Lindner et al., 2001). In this study, individuals 
who completed the questionnaire within one week were considered early responders; 
meanwhile, we deemed all other individuals as late respondents. In a t-test comparison 
between the early and late respondent groups, we found no statistically significant differences 
(p > .05). Therefore, we did not consider non-response bias as a major factor influencing the 
results in the quantitative strand of data.  
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.581


Komunjeru et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.581   18 
 

The instrument used to collect data in this investigation included four sections with a 
combination of previously established and research-developed measures. To establish face and 
content validity, a panel of experts that consisted of three agricultural education faculty 
members at Louisiana State University, the Louisiana FFA Executive Secretary, and one 
practicing agricultural education teacher who was not included in the population under 
investigation. We also pilot-tested the instrument with 28 agricultural education teachers from 
Louisiana who were not included in the study. As a result of the pilot test, reliability for each 
section of the quantitative instrument had a Cronbach’s alpha of .80 or greater, which was 
considered acceptable (Nunnely, 1978).  
 
The first section of the instrument used Childers’ (1986) opinion leadership scale to measure 
the agricultural education teachers’ perceived level of opinion leadership. On this measure, the 
participants were asked to rate their level of agreement on six items regarding their perceived 
influence on issues affecting agricultural education. Although we slightly adapted the 
instrument to fit the context of this study, its structure was indistinguishable from Childers 
(1986). Therefore, each item used a five-point bipolar response structure. For example, we 
presented each item using pairs of dissimilar statements in which a 1 (one) designated a 
negative sentiment, whereas a 5 (five) reflected a positive sentiment (Childers, 1986). After 
collecting data, we averaged the six items to create the participants’ overall opinion leadership 
score.  In the second section of the instrument, we used a researcher-developed scale to 
measure participants’ intentions to advocate for agricultural education. The scale asked 
participants to indicate their willingness to advocate for agricultural education on 13 items 
using bi-polar responses, i.e., 1 = Yes; 2 = No. Then, we averaged the 13 items to calculate an 
overall intention score. We used the third section of the instrument to collect narrative 
responses from the participants using the following prompt: “Describe some of your most 
memorable experiences as well as challenges advocating for agricultural education.” We 
created a 400-word minimum forced response in Qualtrics for all participants in the qualitative 
portion. The final section of the instrument asked the participants to provide their personal and 
professional characteristics. After completing data collection, we compiled our quantitative 
items into an SPSS file and cleaned the data while removing any personal identification of the 
participants. To address research question one, we analyzed data using measures of central 
tendency, including frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations. These measures 
were utilized to describe the population’s opinion leadership and advocacy intentions. After 
describing these factors, we performed a correlational analysis to examine the relationships 
between the selected variables.  
 
In the qualitative strand, we employed an interpretive qualitative approach (Merriam & Tisdell, 
2015). To achieve this, we required each participant in the study to provide a narrative 
response. To analyze the qualitative data, we used the qualitative analysis software NVivo. We 
also used Lincoln’s and Guba’s (1985) four criteria for qualitative quality – credibility, 
confirmability, transferability, and dependability – to guide our ethical decision-making in the 
study. The initial data analysis was executed using the constant comparative method, involving 
three types of coding: (a) open, (b) axial, and (c) selective (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). Open coding 
entailed categorizing data units into distinct categories. To facilitate the first phase of analysis, 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.581


Komunjeru et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.581   19 
 

each member of the research team analyzed each source of qualitative data line-by-line, which 
resulted in 438 open codes (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). The second qualitative analytic approach, 
axial coding, involved examining relationships among categories to develop evidentiary support 
(Saldaña, 2021). We facilitated this process by meeting as a research team after the open 
coding phase and negotiating ways to reduce the open codes into categories. This axial coding 
process resulted in development of 14 distinct categories. In our final phase of qualitative 
analysis, we employed selective coding to construct a narrative of the data, which facilitated 
the emergence of themes by incorporating multiple perspectives (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). 
Through comparisons and contrasts, the qualitative findings were operationalized by weaving 
participants’ perspectives into detailed descriptions. 
 

Findings 
 
Objective #1 
The first objective sought to describe the agricultural education teachers’ level of opinion 
leadership. When probed about the frequency of individuals they communicated with about 
issues affecting agricultural education in the past six months, most (f = 27; 25%) indicated they 
had told a number of people. Meanwhile, participants reported that they only marginally 
communicated with their colleagues about issues affecting agricultural education (f = 34; 
35.2%). Regarding the likelihood of being asked about new information concerning agricultural 
education, most indicated they were not very likely to be asked (f = 30; 31.5%). Further, most 
participants indicated that their colleagues (f = 30; 27.8%) informed them about new 
developments in agricultural education rather than them informing their colleagues. For the 
item, “When you talk to your friends and neighbors about issues affecting agriculture 
education,” the teachers suggested that they provided some new information (f = 45; 41.7%). 
Finally, most of the participants indicated that they were often not used as a source of advice (f 
= 51, 47.2%) in discussions with friends and colleagues about issues affecting agricultural 
education. It should also be noted that participants’ overall opinion leadership score was a 
mean of 2.94 with a standard deviation of 1.01. Table 1 outlines the level of opinion leadership 
reported by the agricultural education teachers in Louisiana. 
 
  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.581


Komunjeru et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.581   20 
 

Table 1  
 
Louisiana Agricultural Education Teachers’ Level of Opinion Leadership 
Statements 1 2 3 4 5 
During the past six months, how 

many people have you told about 
issues affecting agriculture 
educationa 

12.1% 25.0% 19.4% 18.5% 25.0% 

In general, how often do you talk 
about to your colleagues about 
issues affecting agricultural 
educationb 

8.3% 35.2% 16.7% 16.7% 23.1% 

Compared to your circle of friends, 
how likely are you to be asked 
about new information concerning 
agricultural educationc  

23.1% 31.5% 18.5% 13.9% 13.0% 

In a discussion of issues that affect 
agricultural education, which of 
the following happens mostd 

16.7% 27.8% 27.8% 18.5% 9.3% 

When you talk to your friends and 
neighbors about issues affecting   
agricultural education do youe 

9.3% 33.3% 2.8% 41.7% 13.0% 

Overall, in all your discussions with 
friends and colleagues about 
issues  affecting agricultural 
education you aref 

9.3% 47.2% 4.6% 32.4% 6.5% 

 Note. a1 = No one to 5 = A number of people; b1= Never to 5 = Often; c1= Not likely to 5 = Very 
likely; d1 = Your colleagues tell you about new developments to 5= You tell your colleagues 
about new developments most of the time; e1= Give little information to 5 = Give a great deal of 
information; f 1= Not used as a source as advice to 5 = Often used as a source of advice.  
 
Objective #2 
Thirteen items were used to measure the agricultural education teachers’ intentions to 
advocate for agricultural education. Using a bi-polar scale (1= Yes; 2 = No), most indicated that 
they would advocate by joining their professional organization (f = 103; 95.4%), meeting with 
decision-makers at the district/area level (f = 98; 90.7%), and attending FFA Day at the Capital (f 
= 93; 86.1%). Meanwhile, the majority of teachers were unwilling to run for an elected position 
(f = 83; 76.9%), attend a rally or demonstration (f = 71; 65.7%), or create an informational flyer 
or video (f =55; 50.9%) to advocate for agricultural education. As a result, the overall intention 
score for participants in this investigation was a mean of 1.34 with a standard deviation of 0.24. 
Table 2 provides an overview of teachers’ intentions to advocate for agricultural education.  
 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.581


Komunjeru et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.581   21 
 

Table 2  
 
The Intentions of Louisiana Teachers to Advocate for Agricultural Education 
Statement  Yes No 
Join my professional organization (LATA). 95.4% 4.6% 
Meetings with decision makers at the district/area level. 90.7% 9.3% 
Attend FFA Day at the Capital. 86.1% 13.9% 
Informal meetings with decision makers. 86.1% 13.9% 
Formal meetings with decision makers. 77.8% 22.2% 
Make a telephone call or text to decision makers. 77.8% 22.2% 
Writing a letter or email to decision makers. 73.1% 26.9% 
Writing a post on social media (i.e., Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram, etc.). 61.1% 38.9% 
Donate money to an issue or cause that affects agricultural education. 58.3% 41.7% 
Write a newspaper article addressing a relevant issue. 55.6% 44.4% 
Create an informational flyer or video. 49.1% 50.9% 
Attend a rally or demonstration. 34.3% 65.7% 
Run for an elected position. 23.1% 76.9% 

 
Objective #3  
For the third objective, we used correlational analysis to examine the relationship between the 
variables of interest. As a result, we found a statistically significant (p < .01) and moderate 
negative relationship (r = -.480) between the agricultural education teachers’ level of opinion 
leadership and their intentions to advocate for agricultural education. This finding suggested 
that as the teachers’ opinion leadership increased, their intentions to advocate for agricultural 
education decreased.  
 
Objective #4 
Using a qualitative approach, the final objective explored the experiences and challenges faced 
by Louisiana teachers in advocating for agricultural education. As a result, three themes 
emerged from our analysis: (a) low-stakes advocacy, (b) advocating to and through students, 
and (c) a deficiency in advocacy knowledge and skills. The themes tell the story of the actions, 
aspirations, and deterrents of teachers as they have strived to promote agricultural education. 
 
Theme #1: Low Stakes Advocacy  
In the first theme, low-stakes advocacy, we compared the narrative responses of individuals 
who self-identified as having greater opinion leadership in the quantitative strand with those 
who did not perceive they exhibited a high level of opinion leadership. An emergent finding 
from our analysis was that individuals who exhibited higher opinion leadership scores often 
described engaging in low-stakes advocacy rather than professionally risker advocacy 
behaviors. As such, low-stakes advocacy represented actions that those individuals perceived 
might have limited potential negative repercussions, i.e., behaviors the teachers viewed as safe. 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.581


Komunjeru et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.581   22 
 

Examples of low-stakes advocacy included joining my professional organization and attending 
FFA Day at the Capital.   
 
The individuals who reported having higher opinion leadership scores also articulated other 
forms of low-stakes advocacy, such as building relationships, networking, and subtly influencing 
decision-makers largely within their local context (Lazarsfeld et al., 1948). As Participant #40 
explained: “When advocating, sometimes it’s the quiet actions that speak the loudest.” 
Similarly, Participant #61 explained: “Advocacy in agricultural education is not always about 
grand gestures and public demonstrations. Often, it’s the little conversations you have that 
make the biggest impact.” The individuals who did not report exhibiting a high level of opinion 
leadership in the quantitative strand, however, indicated that they largely “did not” engage in 
advocacy for agricultural education (Participant #1). Or they preferred more private advocacy 
efforts such as “voting for individuals who support agricultural education” (Participant #101) or 
“speaking with family and friends” about the importance of agricultural education (Participant 
#91). Therefore, these individuals reported being largely disengaged from advocacy for 
agricultural education.  
 
Theme #2: Advocating to and through Students  
In the second theme, advocating to and through students, 72 participants reported that at the 
heart of their advocacy was empowering youth through agricultural education. Therefore, the 
teachers viewed their primary responsibility as educating the next generation about agriculture 
and inspiring them to become advocates themselves (Lazarsfeld et al., 1948). On this point, 
Participant #9 pondered: “…so what’s our most potent advocacy tool? Obviously, it’s our 
students.” Echoing this sentiment, Participant #100 shared: “When students become 
passionate advocates for agriculture, it’s like a ripple effect – their voices spread far and wide.” 
As a result of such work, the agricultural education teachers reported that their students often 
took action. Case in point, Participant #26 explained that after his agricultural education 
program consistently lost resources after an administration change, his students took note and 
“created a petition” to bring about change. “The petition worked; within a few days, my new 
superintendent asked to meet with me personally, and he apologized. We did not have any 
problems after that,” explained Participant #26. Meanwhile, Participant #60 recalled how her 
students “were inspiring as they canvased the community during a bond issue to get a new 
agricultural education building.” She continued: “The students and parents came together and 
were passing out educational materials and talking to people at all different kinds of 
community events; I didn’t even really have to do much, and the bond passed!” 
 
Theme #3: A Deficiency in Advocacy Knowledge and Skills  
In the final theme, a deficit in advocacy knowledge and skills, over 60 participants reported that 
they perceived they lacked the necessary tools to be effective advocates for agricultural 
education. Perhaps this finding provides insight into why individuals who had a higher opinion 
leadership score identified in this investigation only reported engaging in low-stakes advocacy 
behaviors (Lazarsfeld et al., 1948). As such, the teachers expressed a desire for professional 
development and other educational opportunities that would equip them with the necessary 
skills. As an illustration, Participant #81 revealed: “I want to advocate for agricultural education 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.581


Komunjeru et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.581   23 
 

better, but I need the tools to do it effectively. With some more training, I think I could be a 
better voice for the agricultural industry and the teaching profession.”  
 
In particular, the agricultural education teachers suggested they needed help navigating the 
complexities of “policy and using various forms of media,” according to Participant #27. 
Another suggestion offered by Participant #5 was for state leaders to create “monthly 
information and fact sheets” that teachers could use as talking points when advocating for 
agricultural education. She continued: “We do not know what’s going on most of the time. By 
having up-to-date talking points, we can sell our programs better.” On the other hand, 
Participant #98 revealed: “As a younger ag teacher, I do not really know how to even begin 
forming relationships with our legislature. Just having some tips on how to begin building those 
relationships would make a big difference.” Finally, 37 teachers reported needing more 
knowledge and skills regarding communicating agricultural education’s story better. 
Specifically, they desired new professional development opportunities that focused on the use 
of social media, writing for newspapers and print media, photography, and film editing. 
Consequently, the agricultural education teachers in this investigation desired to continue to 
nurture their advocacy abilities by pursuing additional support and resources. By helping 
teachers learn to amplify their voices and providing the public with insights into their 
experiences through additional training, perhaps a brighter future for agricultural education 
could be cultivated.  
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 
 
This investigation aimed to describe the role of opinion leadership on Louisiana teachers’ 
intentions to advocate for agricultural education. As a result of this investigation, we concluded 
that the quantitative and qualitative data strands were largely complementary. We also 
conclude that the agricultural education teachers in Louisiana reported only a marginal level of 
opinion leadership. Perhaps this was because Childers’ (1986) opinion leadership scale required 
the teachers to self-report their perceived level of opinion leadership. As such, we recommend 
exploring alternative ways to measure this phenomenon that allow researchers to consider 
whether others in an agricultural education teachers’ social system view them as opinion 
leaders (Lazarsfeld et al., 1948). Perhaps such data could deepen our understanding of the role 
of opinion leaders in shaping the advocacy behaviors of agricultural education teachers.  
 
Regarding their intentions to advocate for agricultural education, most teachers indicated they 
would be likelier to engage in low-stakes advocacy (Velasco et al., 2023), such as joining their 
professional organization, meeting with decision-makers, or attending FFA Day at the Capital 
rather than participating in advocacy efforts considered more professionally risky. This notion 
was corroborated through quantitative and qualitative data. Of note, the finding also appeared 
to support the work of Lamm et al. (2014), who found that opinion leaders in ANR were largely 
unwilling to take risks. Moving forward, we recommend that future research explore ways to 
encourage agricultural education teachers to engage in advocacy efforts that require more 
active engagement and buy-in from their followers to better champion issues affecting 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.581


Komunjeru et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.581   24 
 

agricultural education. We also recommend that teacher educators consider including 
curricular content on practical approaches to advocate for agricultural education in their 
preservice coursework. These opportunities could help future agricultural education teachers 
gain confidence in communicating agricultural education’s story in powerful, far-reaching ways.  
 
Because of the statistically significant and moderate negative relationship discovered between 
Louisiana agricultural education teachers’ level of opinion leadership and their intentions, we 
concluded that agricultural education teachers in this investigation did not appear to overly 
engage in advocacy efforts for agricultural education. Future research should seek to 
understand why teachers do not appear inclined to engage in advocacy. With this knowledge, 
perhaps changes can be made to ensure that opinion leaders in agricultural education become 
better prepared to influence change regarding institutional policy and practice, public attitudes 
and behaviors, political processes, and power imbalances for marginalized groups.  
 
A key finding that emerged in the qualitative strand was how the agricultural education 
teachers advocated to and through their students. As such, we conclude that although many of 
the advocacy behaviors reported by agricultural education teachers were low-stakes in nature, 
they inspired more high-stakes advocacy behavior from their students. Such a finding does not 
appear to have been previously addressed in the literature on agricultural education. 
Therefore, we recommend follow-up studies to investigate the varied and complex ways that 
agricultural education teachers can inspire their students to take action and champion issues in 
agricultural education and the agricultural industry more broadly. We also conclude that the 
agricultural education teachers in this investigation recognized they exhibited a deficiency in 
advocacy knowledge and skills. As such, the teachers desired more insight into how to 
effectively advocate for agriculture education better through professional development. This 
finding was surprising, considering the vast number of needs assessments conducted in 
agricultural education across various states that have not reported such a need (Roberts et al., 
2020). We recommend that researchers and practitioners who conduct needs assessments in 
the future consider adding items related to advocating for agricultural education.  
 
Although Lazarsfeld’s (1948) notion of opinion leadership served as a productive lens, perhaps 
the findings of this investigation could serve as a foundation to create a new model that 
examines the role of opinion leadership on teachers’ advocacy behaviors for agricultural 
education. With such knowledge, perhaps researchers could better elucidate how opinion 
leaders can successfully champion issues affecting agricultural education across local, state, 
national levels. Finally, we recommend that state agricultural education leaders and teacher 
educators create professional development opportunities focused on improving agricultural 
education teachers’ ability to advocate for their profession (Solomonson & Roberts, 2022). 
 
  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.581


Komunjeru et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.581   25 
 

Acknowledgments 
 
This manuscript is based on data published in poster and paper proceedings of the 2024 and 
2022 American Association of Agricultural Education conferences. 

Komunjeru, B., Figland Cook, W. L., Roberts, R., Stair, K. S. (2024). Advocating for 
agricultural education: A mixed methods examination on the role of opinion 
leadership on teachers’ advocacy intentions. Proceedings of the American 
Association for Agricultural Education (AAAE) 2024 Conference, Manhatten, 
Kansas, USA.  

Komunjeru, B., Figland Cook, W. L., Roberts, R., & Stair, K. S. (2022, February 3-5). The 
opinion leadership paradox: Examining the role of opinion leadership on 
teachers’ intentions to advocate for agricultural education [Poster Abstract]. 
Proceedings of the American Association for Agricultural Education (AAAE) 2022 
Southern Region Conference, Oklahoma City, OK, USA. 

 
Author Contributions: B. Komunjeru – conceptualization, data collection, formal analysis, 
writing; W. L. Figland-Cook – conceptualization, data collection, data analysis, writing; J. Englin 

– formal analysis and editing; R. Roberts – supervision, conceptualization, review and edits, 
writing. 
 

References 
 
Blackburn, R., Blackburn, B. R., & Williamson, R. (2017). Advocacy from A to Z. Routledge. 
 
Bradley-Levine, J. (2018). Advocacy as a practice of critical teacher leadership. International 

Journal of Teacher Leadership, 9(1), 47–62. 
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1182705.pdf 

 
Casten, J. (2018). The art of building skills for advocacy. The Agricultural Education Magazine, 

91(2), 5–6. https://www.naae.org/naae/document-
server/?cfp=/naae/assets/file/public/magazine/volume91/2018%2009%20--
%20sept%20oct.pdf 

 
Catapano, S. (2006). Teaching in urban schools: Mentoring pre-service teachers to apply 

advocacy strategies. Mentoring & Tutoring, 14(1), 81–96. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/13611260500432756 

 
Childers, T. L. (1986). Assessment of the psychometric properties of an opinion leadership scale. 

Journal of Marketing Research, 23(2), 184–188. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378602300211 

 
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for 

developing grounded theory (4th ed.). Sage. 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.581
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1182705.pdf
https://www.naae.org/naae/document-server/?cfp=/naae/assets/file/public/magazine/volume91/2018%2009%20--%20sept%20oct.pdf
https://www.naae.org/naae/document-server/?cfp=/naae/assets/file/public/magazine/volume91/2018%2009%20--%20sept%20oct.pdf
https://www.naae.org/naae/document-server/?cfp=/naae/assets/file/public/magazine/volume91/2018%2009%20--%20sept%20oct.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1080/13611260500432756
https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378602300211


Komunjeru et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.581   26 
 

 
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 

Sage (3rd ed.). Sage.  
 
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode 

surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons. 
 
Doerfert, D., & Lawson, C. (2018). Building your advocacy army. The Agricultural Education 

Magazine, 91(2), 9–11. https://www.naae.org/naae/document-
server/?cfp=/naae/assets/file/public/magazine/volume91/2018%2009%20--
%20sept%20oct.pdf 

 
Hatch, T., White, M. E., & Faigenbaum, D. (2005). Expertise, credibility, and influence: How 

teachers can influence policy, advance research, and improve performance. Teachers 
College Record, 107(5), 1004–1035. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2005.00502.x 

 
Hock, G., & Meyers, C. (2018). On the road to change: Moving from literacy to advocacy. The 

Agricultural Education Magazine, 91(2), 4–5. https://www.naae.org/naae/document-
server/?cfp=/naae/assets/file/public/magazine/volume91/2018%2009%20--
%20sept%20oct.pdf 

 
Lamm, K. W., Lamm, A. J., & Carter, J. S. (2014). Opinion leadership development: Context and 

audience characteristics count. Journal of Agricultural Education, 55(2), 91–105. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2014.02091 

 
Lamm, K. W., Lamm, A. J., & Carter, J. S. (2015). Bridging water issue knowledge gaps between 

the general public and opinion leaders. Journal of Agricultural Education, 56(3), 146–
161. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2015.03146 

 
Lazarsfeld, P., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1948). The people’s choice (2nd ed.). Columbia 

University Press. 
 
LeJeune, C. A., & Roberts, R. (2020). Reflections on reform: A historical narrative of the 

relocation of the Louisiana FFA Office. Journal of Agricultural Education, 61(3), 276–293. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.03276 

 
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.  
 
Lindner, J. R, Murphy, T. H, & Briers, G. E. (2001). Handling nonresponse in social science 

research. Journal of Agricultural Education, 42(4), 43-53. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae/2001.04043 

 
Marshall, C., & Anderson, A. L. (2009). Is it possible to be an activist educator? In C. Marshall & 

A. L. Anderson (Eds.), Activist educators: Breaking past limits (pp. 1–30). Routledge. 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.581
https://www.naae.org/naae/document-server/?cfp=/naae/assets/file/public/magazine/volume91/2018%2009%20--%20sept%20oct.pdf
https://www.naae.org/naae/document-server/?cfp=/naae/assets/file/public/magazine/volume91/2018%2009%20--%20sept%20oct.pdf
https://www.naae.org/naae/document-server/?cfp=/naae/assets/file/public/magazine/volume91/2018%2009%20--%20sept%20oct.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2005.00502.x
https://www.naae.org/naae/document-server/?cfp=/naae/assets/file/public/magazine/volume91/2018%2009%20--%20sept%20oct.pdf
https://www.naae.org/naae/document-server/?cfp=/naae/assets/file/public/magazine/volume91/2018%2009%20--%20sept%20oct.pdf
https://www.naae.org/naae/document-server/?cfp=/naae/assets/file/public/magazine/volume91/2018%2009%20--%20sept%20oct.pdf
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2014.02091
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2015.03146
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.03276
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae/2001.04043


Komunjeru et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.581   27 
 

 
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and 

implementation. John Wiley & Sons. 
 
Morse, J. M. (1991). Principles of mixed methods. Sage. 
 
Nunnely, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. McGraw Hill Book Company.  
 
Roberts, R., Wittie, B. M., Stair, K. S., Blackburn, J. J., & Smith, H. E. (2020). The dimensions of 

professional development needs for secondary agricultural education teachers across 
career stages: A multiple case study comparison. Journal of Agricultural 
Education, 61(3), 128-143. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.03128 

 
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press. 
 
Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage 
 
Solomonson, J. K., & Roberts, R. (2022). Organizing and administering school-based agricultural 

education systems and the FFA. In A. C. Thoron & R. K Barrick (Eds.)., Preparing 
agriculture and agriscience educators for the classroom (pp. 17-34). IGI Global. 

 
Spillane, J. P., Hallett, T., & Diamond, J. B. (2003). Forms of capital and the construction of 

leadership: Instructional leadership in urban elementary schools. Sociology of Education, 
76(1), 1–17. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3090258 

 
Valente, T. W., & Davis, R. L. (1999). Accelerating the diffusion of innovations using opinion 

leaders. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 566(1), 55–
67. https://doi.org/10.1177/000271629956600105 

 
Velasco, R. C. L., Hite, R. L., Milbourne, J. D., & Gottlieb, J. J. (2023). Stand out and speak up: 

Exploring empowerment perspectives among advocacy activities of STEM teachers in 
the US. Teacher Development, 27(4), 1–17. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2023.2207095 

 
 
© 2025 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.v6i2.581
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.03128
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3090258
https://doi.org/10.1177/000271629956600105
https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2023.2207095

