Knowledge Co-Production with Agricultural Trade Associations

Mallika A Nocco,Melanie N Stock,Bonnie M Mcgill,Noah Weeth Feinstein,Christopher J Kucharik

doi:10.3390/w12113236

Abstract

Scientists and agricultural trade associations may further conservation outcomes by engaging with one another to uncover opportunities and engage in social learning via knowledge co-production. We observed, documented, and critically reviewed knowledge exchanges among scientists and agricultural stakeholders working on a multidecadal water conflict in Wisconsin. Differences in knowledge exchange and production were related to meeting spaces, organization, time management, and formality of interactions. We found that repetitive, semiformal meetings organized and led by growers facilitated knowledge exchange, co-production, and social learning. However, scientists often appeared uncomfortable in grower-controlled spaces. We suggest that this discomfort results from the widespread adoption of the deficit model of scientific literacy and objectivity as default paradigms, despite decades of research suggesting that scientists cannot view themselves as objective disseminators of knowledge. For example, we found that both scientists and growers produced knowledge for political advocacy but observed less transparency from scientists, who often claimed objectivity in politicized settings. We offer practical methods and recommendations for designing social learning processes as well as highlight the need to better prepare environmental and extension scientists for engaging in agribusiness spaces.

Highlights

In the US, 80% of freshwater in lakes, streams, wetlands, and aquifers comes from precipitation [1].51% of US land area or 469 million hectares is in agricultural land use, which includes both cropland and grazing land [2]
Our study contributes to the practice-informed literature and offers insights into the methodology and design of social learning processes for scientists partnering with agricultural trade associations embedded in community water conflicts
We observed social learning processes in meetings brokered by the agricultural trade association

Summary

Introduction

In the US, 80% of freshwater in lakes, streams, wetlands, and aquifers comes from precipitation [1].51% of US land area or 469 million hectares is in agricultural land use, which includes both cropland and grazing land [2]. By interacting with and partitioning precipitation and irrigation into runoff, recharge, discharge, and evapotranspiration, agricultural land use can degrade surrounding and embedded freshwater ecosystems by diverting and polluting ground and surface waters. Water 2020, 12, 3236 degradation associated with agriculture is often watershed specific; it depends on the connectivity of surface and groundwater, other prevalent land uses, soil properties, crop types, and agronomic management practices [3]. Partnerships between agricultural stakeholders and scientists are challenging but may be uniquely poised to address freshwater degradation at the watershed scale. As scientists who regularly partner with agricultural stakeholders, we are motivated to better understand how scientists can alleviate or exacerbate community water conflicts through knowledge production and exchange via social learning

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion