Margot Emery
Doctoral Student, Communications - Information Sciences
Publications Editor
The University of Tennessee

Abstract

Success in Internet publishing and communications has less to do with mastery of HTML and listserv management than on utilizing a set of skills agricultural communicators already have in abundance: understanding of audience, what content that audience wants, and how best to deliver it to them. Yet a study conducted in spring 1997 found these issues unresolved in much of the Internet activity by State Agricultural Experiment Stations, resulting in missed opportunities for accountability and problems for users seeking quality research information. Whether the focus is on disseminating agricultural research or enhancing extension operations, effective use of the Internet demands careful thought about audience, measurement, and how the network differs from other mediums. By applying such considerations to their work, agricultural communicators can enhance the quality of their online activity and establish dynamic electronic channels of communication with both traditional constituents and diverse new audiences. In addition, new opportunities exist to expand access to agricultural information through participation in emerging global data centers for agricultural news, information, and interactive communication.

Introduction

It used to be that one of the Internet questions most frequently asked of agricultural communicators was "Are you on the Internet yet?" Today the answer is often an enthusiastic "Yes!" The good news is that most agricultural extension and research center communicators are eagerly delving into cyberspace, firing off email and posting information on listservs, mail lists, and to web sites. And reflective of the communicators' growing expertise, web sites representing agricultural units show increasing sophistication, with many rivaling commercial sites in terms of the quality of graphics, expanding content, and inclusion of such sought-after features as search engines and downloadable data. So far, so good.

But somehow in the tumult of testing out the new medium of cyberspace, two important questions are not being asked or, arguably, not asked enough: "What are you doing on the Internet, and why?" A 1997 study of web sites representing agricultural communication units found that the fundamental issues embodied in the questions above who is the audience, what do they need or want, and what form do they need it in? are getting lost in the excitement and challenge of HTML editors, graphics programs, server options, and other dynamics of instant Internet communication. Too often, a rush to "get something up there" appears to be driving Internet usage rather than a careful consideration of goals, objectives, and audience. Just as frequently, thought appears not to be given to how differences of the Internet demand differently structured information than that of traditional paper-based publications.

This paper aims to encourage agricultural communicators to take a creative time out for evaluation and analysis. With web sites representing agricultural units now typically in their second to third generation of development, it is time to pause and consider experiment and extension Internet activity in context with some of the larger and broader issues that shape communication in cyberspace. This paper seeks to facilitate that consideration by examining some of the challenges confronting web publishers. Through a list of ideas and guidelines distilled from good Internet practice, the paper offers agricultural communicators a set of tools to use in evaluation and planning of their Internet operations. Finally, the article explores some of the competing ideological aims that have challenged agricultural communicators, examining them in light of the Internet's capabilities in the belief that the new medium is uniquely poised to help bridge some of the competing ideas and transform them into powerful new forms of agricultural communication.

Who's Out There, and What Do They Want?

Operating a web site or moderating an Internet-based mailing list can be something of a guessing game. Identifying audience and providing them with content they want in a format they prefer is a challenge encountered by every web publisher. Evidence of this can be found in the innumerable books available on web publishing and equally innumerable discussions of web publishing issues on the Internet.

A study by this author found the issues to be challenging agricultural communicators, as well. In April 1997, I set out to examine how web sites representing state agricultural experiment stations and experiment centers were faring with regard to audience dimensions and other aspects of Internet usage for professional communication. Starting with an initial sample of 25 web sites representing experiment operations, the study used an approach of triangulation to explore the subject matter from three directions. In the first phase, a survey was emailed to the webmaster or other designated email point of contact for each site, with responses evaluated both for their speed of reply and the answers participants provided to a set of questions about their web site, its purpose, evaluation, and perceived effectiveness. The second phase consisted of a content analysis of each web site, and the final phase was a test of the effectiveness of locating research information from each station using three popular search engines.

Problems emerged immediately. Of the 25 stations surveyed, nine did not reply, one had an invalid email address, and one responded days beyond the cutoff point a situation that indicated low attentiveness to communication from site visitors. From these results, the study sample became the 12 stations that did respond to the survey.

In their survey responses, the maintainers and site administrators said the top challenges of their Internet activity were in identifying audience, measuring effectiveness, and justifying effort. The chief purpose or role of the sites was overwhelmingly said to be to provide general information about the station to a broad audience (selected by 10 respondents), followed by an aim to share detailed information with research affiliates and research users. The target audience for the sites was primarily the general public, specified by seven respondents, although researchers, legislators, and prospective students also figured prominently. Two stations simply noted the audience for their sites was either unknown or generally defined to be anyone outside the station.

Evaluation of web site performance and justification of the effort to establish and maintain the sites also was said to be problematic. Although half the stations in the sample indicated they were monitoring statistics of site usage, no one attached much value to the figures, noting problems of determining precisely what is being counted. Half the sample, including some who monitored statistics, said no formal evaluations of their sites were being conducted. Instead one third of the sample said effectiveness was judged subjectively by the station director and other administrators or through anecdotal responses such as email from site visitors.

To borrow from the information science theorist S.D. Neill (1992), these webmasters found themselves dealing with dilemmas of the unknown: specifically, an undetermined audience, vague measures of effectiveness, information overload (the challenge of managing information in an information society), and most broadly dilemmas of method: of determining what is and is not appropriate for their sites in content, investment of effort, and return on the value.

The ambiguity encountered by the webmasters may strike a wry note in seasoned agricultural communicators since issues of audience and evaluation have long been problematic for the field. Questions associated with the two dimensions are prominent in debate over whether agricultural communication should focus on marketing or service, whether its identity is accurate as a rural-focused organization or one that serves broader needs, and whether agricultural communications should be high tech or high touch (Whiting 1996).

The issues have ramifications at the applied level, as well. In literature associated with training and development needs for agricultural communicators, Lionberger & Gwin 1991, Agunda 1989, and Richardson 1989 are among the practitioners who have called for greater attention and sensitivity to the needs of end-users. Their call has been repeated more recently by MacKenzie 1997, Rohan, Randall, Shulman, Tsai & Watt 1996, Knecht 1996, Beck & Cilley 1994, and Browning & Anderson 1989 in literature about the need to master and integrate electronic forms of information dissemination into agricultural communications efforts.

Cutting Through the Confusion

The key to reducing ambiguity associated with Internet operations that support agricultural communication lies in realizing, as Carl Carter, APR, puts it, that the Internet is not a "computer thing" but a "communications thing." In dialogue on the online forum PR Issues, Carter (1997) advises practitioners that this means "we still have to identify various publics to be reached and set objectives for each, rather than just throwing everything out there." Writing on the public relations value of web sites for universities, Crockett (1997) argues the most important aspects of web publishing lie in articulating a concept and a mission, developing the content, and presenting information in an attractive, easy-to-read format. (Yet) Anyone who's put together a broadcast spot, edited an alumni magazine, or developed a series of pitch letters has these skills. (p. 16-17).

When asked by this author to identify criteria for judging the public relations value of web sites, members of the listserv PRFORUM supported Crockett's statement, saying the factors for judging effectiveness are the same for any public relations venture: identifying organizational goals, objectives, and the target audience, and serving audience needs in personalized, interactive ways (J.S. Punk, personal communication April 28, 1997, L. Pollard, personal communication April 27, 1997).

Most web sites, and particularly those representing non-profit organizations, evolve over time. Many of the sites representing agricultural communication units are now in their second or third permutation, if not beyond it. Such an evolutionary path of development can lead to a broad, unfocused web sites that grow in many directions as needs and opportunities occur. Now that most sites have been in operation for more than a year, it is time to stop and rethink what is being done. The following 10 points are intended to get readers thinking critically of their web sites and Internet operations and to encourage them to ask questions about the process.

A Checklist for Internet Operations

• Audience: Who's Your Target? Consider the many stakeholders of your operation and define the target groups of your web site, listing them by priority. Then look at your site and see if the content is organized to serve their needs. Users click through a site in paths. Are the "click paths" that serve your constituents clear and easy to navigate? Place yourself in their position and use the site. Consider asking a stakeholder to visit your site and allow you to watch the process.

• Define User Needs and Organize Content Accordingly. What do users want from your site? And, turning the question another way, what do you want users to take away from your site in terms of information and impressions? Ask these questions about each target audience, then look at the site and see if the content is there to achieve those aims and that it is organized clearly enough that messages don't get lost in other text, images, and indirect paths through linked documents. Just as with a printed publication, a web site should directly and clearly convey messages that you want to send.

• Be Interactive. Many organizations use the World Wide Web passively, treating it like a bulletin board on which to tack information. But as a communicator, you're smarter than that. The beauty of the web and the Internet in general are their interactivity. Use that power. Encourage visitors to your site to tell you their thoughts and ask questions. Make the invitation for comment obvious by playing it up big right there on the index page and echo the call for comments elsewhere at the site. Make sure each page has a designated maintainer and a way to communicate with that person using a "mailto" link. Provide an email directory of your staff. And because many use the web as a reference source, provide regular telephone and mail addresses, as well.

• Provide Leadership. Many web sites began as student projects or were launched by support staff members willing to help out where needed. Such support can be invaluable in maintaining and growing web operations. But as a communications pro, you have insight and perspective into user needs that needs to be invested in the effort. Provide vision and direction to the effort, help your maintainers integrate Internet operations with the unit's other communications programs, and join these staff members to form a web team.

• Target Messages, Not Access. Web content should be accessible to as broad an audience as possible. To this end, avoid optimizing your site for performance on specific browsers. You want users of Netscape, Internet Explorer, and text-only browsers such as lynx all to have a positive experience. To ensure they do, look at the site yourself using different computers and browsers. If a text-only interface such as lynx shows missing content and messages of <inline>, <link>, <image>, and <ISMAP>, without content choices, then there's need for work, specifically the thoughtful use of ALT tags. Also keep in mind that many users still do not have a direct connection to the Internet. Modem speeds and quality of telecommunication lines, particularly in rural areas, vary. Bandwidth intensive pages are slow to load and can create problems for users. Aim for lean pages with graphics that are small in file size and load quickly. Also keep a listening ear tuned to positive and negative evaluations of web trends. Frames caught on quickly, but many find them unwieldy to use, and a number of top web designers have dropped them entirely. Aim for usability and design with your audience in mind: Are they music-video crazed teens or is your audience older and more traditional? The answers should have bearing on site design, content, and structure.

• Put Away That Shovel! The web is not a printed brochure or magazine, and people don't read it like a book. For that reason, your content needs to be organized differently than it is for printed pieces. Studies have found that few people like to scroll, so keep page lengths shorter than traditional paper equivalents. Also there is need to help users find their way through complex documents or sites. One of the best approaches is with indexes that allow users to understand at a glance what is available and then follow the path that best fits their needs. For large sites, search engines. Even though PageMaker and other programs can now export print-based projects as HTML, resist the temptation of "shovelware." Instead, organize information in ways that mirror user behavior. How do you use the web? Your patterns of use and those of your target audiences hold important clues about how to organize web material.

• Justify, Justify, Justify. Java scripts, animated gifs and customized background tiles can be fun to play with, but when they get in the way of information access and meeting user needs, they impair the effectiveness of your communication. Consider every image and bit of information at your site, as well as how the material is structured. Each image should have a purpose and reason for being there. Otherwise, lose it. The same goes for information. In this regard, the similarity to good editing of print publication is striking.

• Keep Content Fresh. Use your site dynamically to encourage users to make return visits. Post alerts of breaking or upcoming events on the site's main page. Share information about current projects or initiatives. Keep news archives up to date. And watch for little things, such as images of outdoor scenes that are out of sync with the season or email links that are no longer current with your staff or server addresses. It is also good practice to refrain from promoting content that is not ready. Keep it, and the pervasive "under construction" icons, unlinked from your pages until the material is ready. Otherwise, promises of what is coming can confuse what is actually there. Such messages are not found on corporate and other top-performing web sites.

• Think Beyond the Web: Cross Promote. The Internet is more than the World Wide Web, and its other functions can be powerful tools to reach your audiences. Many users may prefer to receive news of your operations directly by email and, for you, listservs and electronic mailing lists can be a great way to ensure they receive important messages. Both types of mailing lists can be organized from the general topic area (agricultural extension) to the very specific (no-till farming methods). And they can be used in tandem with your web site. For instance, sending out email that alerts people that a popular annual bulletin of seed trial results is available at your site will get the word out quickly and may help reduce demand for paper copies. Explore the possibilities and be sure to promote your web site and Internet operations in your paper correspondence, printed publications, and interpersonal interactions. Of course you can also cross promote on the Internet, which some of the savviest relationship marketers routinely do. If your site adds a subsection devoted to research on fruit trees, find listservs and Usenet News groups related to the subject and alert members to your new content. Routinely registering your site and its significant content areas with search engines is also smart practice.

• Evaluate Creatively. Sure, there's no single tool for evaluation, but is that really a problem? Piece together your own evaluation program, tailoring it to your specific needs. Use site statistics to track the number of different machines that visit your site and to understand which areas of your site are experiencing the heaviest usage a useful indicator of the content visitors find most interesting. Keep a log of email received from users, recording both number and purpose of communication. Note the growth and use of listservs and mailing lists and the frequency and substance of comments from colleagues or constituents about your web site.Other resources are at your disposal, as well. For example, focus groups composed of individuals representing your target audiences can be an excellent source of evaluation and ideas.

  This set of points is intended to get readers thinking creatively about their operations. While most of the items focus on the process of Internet communications, that is, the nuts and bolts of day-to-day operations, the issues they touch upon are part of a larger picture of how agricultural experiment and extension operations communicate with their publics. For that reason a consideration of the broader issues in context with the Internet's capabilities is worthwhile.

Questions regarding communication are central to many of the dilemmas on Whiting's list, including the ongoing debate about whether agricultural programs should market themselves to build greater awareness among citizens of their services or whether they should concentrate on serving existing stakeholders. Communication also appears in debate over whether interactions with stakeholders should be one way in nature or interactive and whether communicators should continue working one-on-one with people in small group workshops and meetings and through educational print-based material or whether they should shift to tools of mass communication. Issues of communication also surface in the dilemma of agricultural units' image and competitiveness; about whether the units should be proactive or reactive in assessing the needs of the public and addressing them through education and research; and in the "local versus global" debate about the focus of experiment and extension operations.

Historically, the viewpoints held by communicators and their administrations on these dilemmas translated into clear directions for the day-to-day operations of experiment and extension operation communications. The situation led units at some universities to focus on brochures, posters and interpersonal networking while operations elsewhere moved into video and teleconferencing, and still others plunged into wide-ranging international programs.

Through the Internet, many of the competing views that have traditionally divided the work of agricultural communicators can now be served simultaneously in ways that demand little if any additional work by communications staffs. Building interactivity into web and Internet operations is the key, and it is an approach supported strongly by a leading model of organizational communication in the field of public relations: a classification system proposed by Dozier, Grunig & Grunig (1995) for organization-based communications and public relations activities.

The system developed from a three-nation study of communication practices conducted for the International Association of Business Communicators, in which the researchers found the most persuasive communication practices to consist of a two-way flow of communication that (a) invites stakeholders to express their opinions, evaluations and ideas of the services the organization provided and (b) then evaluates the organization's actions and programs in light of the comments received. The approach enables communicators to manage conflict and promote mutual understanding and shared goals by collecting information from audiences and integrating their viewpoints into organizational decision making. It is this model of all the models of interaction identified that Dozier, Grunig & Grunig note enables "communication and public relations (to) make valuable contributions to society as a whole" (p. 13).

Although the Internet was just beginning to diffuse into business operations at the time of the study, its ability to support such two-way flow of communication is clear, and functions of interactivity can easily be adopted into Internet operations representing agricultural extension and experiment units. Ways to do this include soliciting comments from site visitors and posting those comments along with your responses to the web site. Other approaches include evaluating web site performance through site statistics that identify popular areas of content, and using listservs to communicate electronically with various stakeholders. The result of such practices is a heightened flow of communications between organizations and their intended audiences that can sweep away a great deal of the ambiguity associated with Internet operations while offering communicators an evaluative tool to refine the performance of all of their operations regardless of medium.

Interactivity facilitated by the Internet is also central to a growing trend of establishing electronic centers aimed at sharing agricultural research and information across state and national borders. These "cybercenters" offer individual experiment and extension units an opportunity to link information representing their operations into wide-ranging resource centers aimed at being a first source of reference for online agricultural information. The organizations that maintain the central sites handle the time-intensive work of organizing information and furnishing search engines and other tools to access it. The only demand on individual units is to contact site maintainers and help them link to online material they want to include at the clearinghouse.

In the past year, two such efforts have gotten underway. One, called "E-Answers," is operated by the Agricultural Communicators in Education, or ACE, and resides at www.e-answers.org. E-Answers functions as an information retrieval service representing land-grant institutions in the U.S. and abroad. Users can consult the site for pointers organized by subject and location to agricultural information at specific institutions.

A second effort with similar aims but broader scope is being developed by the World Bank in cooperation with National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) and the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Under the World Bank's leadership, the organizations are launching an Electronic Global Forum on Agricultural Research, called EGFAR for short. The initiative aims to establish a global center that would enable participants to explore the needs and opportunities for agricultural research, its scope for collaboration, and practical measures to strengthen partnerships. In addition, the center would aim to:

• function as a one-stop information source for questions on agricultural research for development
  
• enable anyone interested to participate in substantive discussions on agricultural research
  
• help strengthen networking and partnerships among the actors in the global agricultural research community, and
  
• contribute to priority setting and decision-making on agricultural research by providing periodic overviews of major discussions that occur within the system of electronic forums (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 1997).
  

EGFAR, which is still in development and not yet open to online audiences, resembles a shopping mall in conceptualization, with each shop "belonging" to an international constituency group within the global agricultural community. Initial groups would include regional forums of national agricultural research systems, non-governmental organizations, farmers' organizations, private sector, advanced research institutions, universities, and CGIAR. Each shop would consist of two rooms: the first, a traditional library where constituents place and access digital information relevant to the forum and where individuals browsing the holdings could submit requests about information they are seeking; the second, a room of "conference tables," with each devoted to a topic of interest to the constituency group. Visitors would sign in, agree to follow a standard protocol for participation, and then take part in the ongoing discussion.

The effort demonstrates the range of services and global sweep that is possible to achieve with Internet operations. It also is a worthwhile example to consider in envisioning how to use the network for local, state, and regional agricultural communication, as well. The potential is there; the challenge can be in realizing it and finding meaningful ways to use it for experiment and station communications. Again, the solution may be found by returning to consideration of audience needs and interests.

Summary

The Internet was created to bring people and information together. As such, it exists as a powerful tool for agricultural communications, and it is clear experiment and extension operations have been quick to recognize the opportunity. Through attention to audience dynamics, care in evaluation, and strategic use of the full abilities of the Internet, agricultural communicators can heighten the effectiveness of their online efforts and, in the process, enhance their interactions both with traditional constituents and new audiences. Such interactivity has the potential to bring rich rewards with benefits that spill over to non-Internet areas of activity. The Internet already is proving itself to be an important tool. Using their innate skills, communicators have the ability to refine that tool and use it to their benefit and the benefit of everyone who depends on access to agricultural information and research.

References

Agunda, R. (1989). Communicating with the audience in mind. ACE Quarterly, 72 (2). 17-23.

Beck H. & Cilley, M.L. (1994). Change and the agricultural communicator: Electronic dissemination of extension information. Journal of Applied Communications, 78 (1), 1-10.

Browning, N. & Anderson, L.J. (1989). Staff training needs for dealing with developing communication technologies. ACE Quarterly, 72 (1). 17-22.

Carter, C. (1997, March 2). Re: Creating web sites that meet PR objectives. Message in online forum. [On-line]. Available: http://www.prforum.com/prforum/cgi-bin/bbs_forum.cgi?forum=prissues&read=000138000128.msg&session=3364e79816e6d0bf&use_last_read=on&last_read=0. [Accessed April 3, 1997].

Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research. (1997, May). Electronic Global Forum on Agricultural Research. Draft concept note.

Crockett, D.J. (1997, March). Wanted: Computer geek quick! CASE Currents, 23 (3), 14-20.

Dozier, D.M., Grunig, L.A. & Grunig, J.E. (1995). Manager's Guide to Excellence in Public Relations and Communications Management. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Knecht, T.W. (1996). Improving the effectiveness of educational programs on the World Wide Web. Proceedings of the 1996 SAAS Convention, Agricultural-Communications Section. [On-line]. Available: http://www.ca.uky.edu/agcollege/agcom/saas96.pdf. [Accessed November 25, 1997]. 27-31.

Lionberger, H.L. & Gwin, P.H. (1991). Technology Transfer: From Researchers ... To Users. University of Missouri: University of Missouri Press.

MacKenzie, D.R. (1997). National center for technology deployment. Proposal submitted to Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service. College Park: University of Maryland.

Neill, S.D. (1992). Dilemmas in the Study of Information: Exploring the Boundaries of Information Science. New York: Greenwood.

Richardson, J.G. (1989). Extension information delivery methods: Detecting trends among users. ACE Quarterly, 72 (1), 23-27.

Rohan, P., Randall, R., Shulman, D, Tsai, J. & Watt, A. (1996). A marketing plan framework for the Northeastern Regional Association of State Agricultural Experiment Station Directors. Dartmouth, NJ: Tuck Student Consultants.

Whiting, L.R. (1996). Challenges that face colleges of agriculture. Journal of Dairy Science, 79 (10). 1754-1759.

To Southern Association of Agricultural Scientists-Agricultural Communications Section Home Page