Next Article in Journal
CFD Modeling of UV/H2O2 Process in Internal Airlift Circulating Photoreactor
Next Article in Special Issue
WaterCoG: Evidence on How the Use of Tools, Knowledge, and Process Design Can Improve Water Co-Governance
Previous Article in Journal
Spatial and Temporal Variability of Posidonia oceanica Monitoring Indicators, Valencian Community, Spain

Knowledge Co-Production with Agricultural Trade Associations

Nelson Institute Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1710 University Ave., Madison, WI 53726, USA
Department of Land, Air, and Water Resources, University of California-Davis, One Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616, USA
Department of Curriculum & Instruction, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 225 N Mills St, Madison, WI 53715, USA
Department of Community & Environmental Sociology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1450 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706, USA
Department of Plants, Soils, & Climate, Utah State University, 4820 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84321, USA
Anthropocene Science Section, Carnegie Museum of Natural History, 4400 Forbes Ave, Pittsburgh, PA 152131, USA
Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1575 Linden Dr., Madison, WI 53706, USA
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2020, 12(11), 3236;
Received: 31 July 2020 / Revised: 1 November 2020 / Accepted: 17 November 2020 / Published: 18 November 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Social Learning for Sustainable Water Resource Management)
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. View Full-Text
Keywords: extension; farmer; social learning; knowledge co-production; science communication; science literacy; knowledge exchange extension; farmer; social learning; knowledge co-production; science communication; science literacy; knowledge exchange
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Nocco, M.A.; Weeth Feinstein, N.; Stock, M.N.; McGill, B.M.; Kucharik, C.J. Knowledge Co-Production with Agricultural Trade Associations. Water 2020, 12, 3236.

AMA Style

Nocco MA, Weeth Feinstein N, Stock MN, McGill BM, Kucharik CJ. Knowledge Co-Production with Agricultural Trade Associations. Water. 2020; 12(11):3236.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nocco, Mallika A., Noah Weeth Feinstein, Melanie N. Stock, Bonnie M. McGill, and Christopher J. Kucharik. 2020. "Knowledge Co-Production with Agricultural Trade Associations" Water 12, no. 11: 3236.

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

Back to TopTop