In preparation for a paper I’m thinking about writing I’ve been reading lately about media use and preferences among farmers and agricultural extension educators. The impetus for the paper was a recent survey of Michigan farmers my office administered and the widely accepted belief among many of the extension educators I work with that personal face-to-face communications are the keystone of their education practice. My plan was to argue that when we use online spaces in ways that do more than mimic printed documents, they hold the opportunity to perform in a many more similar to personal, face-to-face interactions than do brochures and mass media releases.

I hit a snag, though, when I found that face-to-face communications ranked very low in terms of media preference in several studies, including my own. Respondents in my survey demonstrated an overwhelming preference for receiving extension messages via printed matter rather than directly from educators or through the internet. Another survey of Michigan producers by Murari Suvedi here at MSU reflected this preference for printed material over personal contact or internet. So did a 2001 survey of ag landowners by Jennifer Howell and MSU Prof Geoffrey Habron.

What’s most interesting to me, though, are the results of a survey of Ohio Extension Educators and professionals in state agencies. Amanda Rodewald of The Ohio State University found that even this group rated face-to-face contact low in terms of preference for delivering extension methods. I had been surprised that producers weren’t jazzed about face-to-face communications, but I was startled to learn that in this study educators aren’t big proponents, either.

I don’t know how many conversations I’ve had with extension professionals in which they describe their practice as one of face-to-face cooperation with producers in the field. Anna brings the same enthusiasm she has for InsectaPod Cast to frequently workshops and field days, and I think we would agree those face-to-face instances are probably more effective than the podcast for the groups they target. I write a regular feature about the personal relationships between educators and producers and invariably the interviews focus on the importance of being “on-farm” to cooperatively work “one-on-one” with producers. In planning this paper, I’d assumed I’d be able to find support for these perceptions in the literature.

I’m wondering now why there’s this divergence in what people discuss as being the cornerstone of extension practice and what they actually want to see executed in the field. The limitations on time and finances that extension specialists face are prodigious, this could certainly play a role. It also gets to one of the great strengths of digital communications, though. By designing communications that meet the specific needs of our audiences, that work for the user rather than the other way around, we can reflect some of the potential qualities of face-to-face interactions. That was what I was going to write the paper about. Now I’ve got more reading to do.