Dr. Randy Weckman
Associate Professor

Dr. Deborah Witham
Associate Professor
University of Kentucky

Dr. Ricky Telg
Assistant Professor
University of Florida

Background

Introduction

The first agricultural communications programs were developed primarily to help disseminate information discovered and created at the experiment stations of land-grant universities (Duley, Jensen & O'Brien, 1984). Iowa State College was the first to offer a Bachelor of Science degree in Agricultural Journalism in 1920. By 1928, there were a total of seven colleges offering courses in agricultural journalism. During the 1960s, agricultural journalism programs had another era of significant growth (Duley, Jensen & O'Brien, 1984). By 1975, most programs were called "agricultural communications" rather than "agricultural journalism" to define themselves (Evans, 1975). As of 1991, there were more than 30 agricultural communications programs at colleges and universities across the United States (Doerfert & Cepica, 1991).

Several studies have been conducted within the past decade pertaining to undergraduate agricultural communi cations programs at U.S. universities. Reisner (1990) found that 26 institutions nationwide taught agricultural communications classes and that the curriculum at these institutions varied widely. Sprecker and Rudd (1998) found that practitioners emphasized a need for students to build firm communication skills in an array of areas, particularly the ability to write. Bailey-Evans (1994) suggested a model curriculum be developed that new or developing agricultural communications programs could use as a guide to meet the needs of the industry and future professionals. She recommended this model be based on disciplines and competencies identified in her research, which surveyed leaders in agricultural communications (Bailey-Evans, 1994). Terry et al. (1994) recommended that future research identify a core curriculum as the basis of agricultural communications degree programs.

Reisner's (1990) study examined undergraduate program structure and curricular requirements in a gricultural communications programs and found that the programs' most predominant characteristic was variety. Specifically, Reisner (1990) stated that agricultural communications curricula were lacking because "agricultural communication students are not required to take courses specifically designed to teach cross-cultural global perspectives, agricultural systems analysis, values and ethics in agriculture, public policy, or leadership" (p. 15). Terry et al. (1994) noted that it would be impossible to complete each instructional objective contained in the research in a typical four-year bachelor's degree program. Therefore, agricultural communications curricula should be flexible with opportunities for students to specialize in specific areas of agriculture and communications in their upper division course work (Terry et al., 1994).

Because of this variability in programs, ag communications faculty may be facing some of the same academic issues shared by c olleagues in other nascent fields, such as women's studies, popular culture, film studies or, closer to home, natural resources conservation management. What is the current status of this emerging field, especially since it is housed in long-established colleges of agriculture? How is it faring in terms of support (funding, space, personnel)? Finally, what directions are these programs taking?

The purposes of this study are to examine current undergraduate agricultural communications programs in the southern United States and to identify their baseline characteristics. Specific objectives are to: 1) compile a list of colleges/universities with agricultural communications programs; 2) identify their current major programmatic areas as perceived by agricultural communications faculty; and 3) identify future trends for agricultural communications undergraduate programs as perceived by agricultural communications faculty.

Method

Methods
This research surveyed all undergraduate agricultural communications programs in the 13-state southern region. A 43-question survey was sent via electronic mail to the primary advisers for chapters of Agricultural Communicators of Tomorrow as well as land-grant agricultural communications professionals who teach agricultural communications courses or had expressed interest to the National ACT faculty adviser in starting an agricultural communications program at their universities. A total of 13 surveys were distributed. All nine agricultural communications programs responded; four others had no current program. The surveys were returned to the researchers via e-mail, and answers were tabulated.

Results

Findings
We started our survey with a pretty easy question. In which college does your program reside? All nine programs responding indicated that their program was affiliated with the college of agriculture. Even though several had names somewhat different from that, all colleges mentioned had agriculture in the title. Similarly, all the degree programs were called either agricultural communications or agricultural journalism.

About the department that houses their program: the predominant response (4) was part of another academic department; two each were either aligned with an affiliated program or unit or were in a stand alone program; one was part of an agricultural communications service unit. Just over two-thirds were part of an ag education or extension education department. One program was simply part of the college of agriculture. (This last one appears to be a topical major offered by the college, in that no agricultural communications courses are t aught.)

The number of students majoring in agricultural communications varied widely, from 9 students to 115 students. (One respondent didn't reply to the question.) The mean number of students for departments was 32 students.

Eight of the nine respondents indicated that their enrollment had increased during the past five years, with one indicating that enrollment remained steady. Further, six respondents indicated that their enrollment would grow in the next five years; three indicated that they anticipated that enrollment would remain steady. No respondent believed their program's enrollment was likely to decrease.

How many students graduated from agricultural communications programs last year? The range was fairly substantial with from none graduated from the new program, according to the respondent, to 40 students. The mean was 11.5, with most programs falling within the 8 to 12 range.

What has happened to the students who graduate d last year? We asked to see how many of the agricultural communications graduates from last year were now employed within the field. Of the total of 92 students graduated by all agricultural communications programs last year, 41 are now employed in agricultural communications work; 19 had accepted jobs in some other aspect of agriculture. Slightly less, 16, had applied or been accepted into graduate school. And 14 of the 92 found employment outside both agriculture and communications. (The number of graduates according to respondents when summed came to 92; when respondents were asked to account for them, they reported 90. We can probably live with this discrepancy.)

We asked our respondents how they would characterize their program's preparation of students. We gave them four choices: program focuses primarily on teaching professional skills; program primarily teaches broad-based critical thinking skills; an equal combination of both professional and critical thin king skills; and other. The respondents fell nearly equally into the professional skills category (5) and into the both professional skills and critical thinking skills category (4).

When we asked how many agricultural courses are taught within each program, we had a variety of responses from none to ten, with the mean just under five. In response to the companion question "How many different instructors teach these courses?," we had a more narrow range of responses from 1 to 4, with the predominant response as 2. The mean was just under 2.

We also asked in the survey how many full-time equivalent faculty members teach in the agricultural communications program. Responses ranged from .5 faculty members to 2.6, with most programs having one or two faculty members teaching. Clearly, then, all programs depend on a small number of faculty members and it wasn't unusual to have faculty members' teaching appointments fractionalized. The question we migh t ask from these responses is, how well can these faculty members teach courses when the demands for teaching are high but the FTE's allocated for teaching are so low?

In terms of academic preparation and faculty standings, perhaps a listing of faculty members is more telling than collapsing data. Thirteen faculty members were listed as teaching agricultural communications. Of those, two are full professors, with doctorates in education; four are associate professors with Ph.D.'s; four are assistant professors with Ph.D.'s and three are called instructors with master's degrees. It is startling, perhaps, to see how many associate professors and below are teaching agricultural communications. The two who are full professors seem to have been trained in vocational education and their appointments may reflect the status of agricultural communications programs in jointly-titled departments.

Respondents were asked how well their programs prepare graduates in thre e areas: applied professional skills, critical thinking skills, and for graduate or professional school. The applied professional skills area received the highest ranking, with six schools indicating they prepared students "very well" and two more indicating they prepared students "well." Given the kinds of courses that the programs require, this is not surprising. The programs place a heavy emphasis on such courses as beginning reporting, beginning broadcasting, and public relations, all of which fall into the professional skills area. Six schools said they prepared students "well" in critical thinking skills, and one program prepares students "very well" in this area. This finding is unexpected, however, since the programs require few courses which teach critical thinking, such as communications theory or media law. Finally, seven schools also said they prepared students either "very well" or "well" for graduate or professional school. Since nearly one out of five ag communications graduates lands in advanced programs, the faculty are aware of their responsibilities in this area.

When asked to describe the support (collectively defined as funding, space, personnel) their program receives relative to other academic programs in their college, seven respondents indicated that their program was in the bottom 50 percent; five of those seven were in the bottom 25 percent. That only one program of all of those surveyed considers itself to be in the top half of programs at its institution, relative to other programs, is very telling. The need for accreditation (discussed below), the need for support of all kinds, and the "lack of understanding about what ag communications is as a field" (cited as a national challenge), are all related to the perceived low standing of agricultural communications programs in colleges of agriculture.

To improve their programs, responde nts would like to see increased support across the board; each of the seven identified areas in the survey were checked off, and additional choices were identified in the blank "other" area. Overwhelmingly, ag communications programs need more faculty and increased program enrichment funds. Like Aretha Franklin, they also need R-E-S-P-E-C-T, as well as technology support and more funding for travel and professional development. The need for more scholarship dollars also was noted, which might help with another need: more students.

Although ag communications programs' support was rated low relative to other programs in their colleges, the faculty were largely unsure of their relative salaries. Most don't know where they stand in relation to how much animal scientists or agricultural economists are paid at their institutions; or perhaps, given their low program status, they prefer not to know about the relative size of their paychecks.

Given the em erging qualities of ag communications programs, we asked respondents about accreditation of programs. Two-thirds of the respondents agree that a national agricultural communications accreditation process would benefit their program. They believe that accreditation would do the following: "provide leverage with the administration" in garnering much-needed support; "bolster the image" of ag communications vis-a`-vis journalism and communications programs on campus; "improve the identity" of ag communications within the college; "provide respect and esteem" to the field through the establishment of standards.

Issues cited in open-ended questions at the end of the survey ^Ö what are the biggest challenges facing your program? the challenges facing ag communications programs nationally? and where do you see your program five years from now ^Ö were interesting. Comments such as "lack of understanding about what ag communications i s," "the image problem,"and "poor attitudes of journalism faculty and students toward ag communications" could be addressed by national accreditation. Challenges that programs face individually ^Ö administration turf battles, understaffing, student recruitment, wearing too many hats as faculty members ^Ö might also be ameliorated by national standards in such areas as appropriate funding levels for curriculum and professional development and faculty : student ratios, for example.

Since a majority of agricultural communications programs in the southern states see themselves as increasing in size over the next five years, faculty find themselves challenged by all of the issues related to that growth. From simple concerns, such as identifying good textbooks and making contacts for internships and job placement, to complex issues such as increased funding for technology and maintaining critical thinking skills, ag communications faculty will face p erhaps their most challenging decade since the inception of the field.

Conclusions

Conclusions
This study has suggested that the undergraduate ag communications programs throughout the southern United States are growing and are expected to continue to grow for at least the next five years. Faculty members are frustrated by the perceived low status of their programs as well as actual low levels of support (funding, space, personnel), recognition, and respect. They also indicate that a national accreditation process might help them increase funding, improve the image of the field, and a provide stronger identity in colleges of agriculture. Because this survey studied only the southern states, a national survey is necessary to ascertain whether a consensus of ag communications faculty supports accreditation. Should such a survey indicate national support for an accreditation process, then additional research focusing solely on standards needs to be conducted.


References

Bailey-Evans, F. (1994). Enhancing the agricultural communicatio ns curriculum: A national Delphi study. Unpublished master's thesis, Texas Tech University, Lubbock.

Doerfert, D. & Cepica, M. (1991). The current status of agricultural communications/journalism programs in the United States. Center for Agricultural Technology Transfer (CATT), Texas Tech University, Lubbock.

Duley, C., Jensen, R. & O'Brien, J. (1984). A review of agricultural journalism programs in the United States universities. Unpublished master's thesis. University of Wisconsin-River Falls, River Falls.

Evans, J. (1975). In a fledgling discipline. University of Illinois-College of Agriculture, Urbana-Champaign, IL. Special Publication, 36.

Le Coq, J.P. (1941). The essence of the curriculum. Journal of Higher Education, 12(1), 21-25.

Reisner, A. (1990). An overview of agricultural communications programs and curricula. Journal of Applied Communications, 74(1), 8-17.

Sprecker, K. J. & Rudd, R.D. (1998). Opinions of prac titioners concerning curricular requirements of agricultural communication students at the University of Florida. Journal of Applied Communications, 82(1), 31-42.

Terry, Jr., H.R., Vaughn, P.R., Vernon, J.S., Lockaby, J., Bailey-Evans, F. & Rehrman, M. (1994). Enhancing the agricultural communications curriculum: A Vision for the future. Unpublished Manuscript. Center for Agricultural Technology Transfer (CATT), Texas Tech University, Lubbock.