Understanding scientists’ communication challenges at the intersection of climate and agriculture

(N = 339). The project advisory committee piloted the survey prior to distribution but their results were not included in this analysis. The advisory committee was comprised of faculty conducting research in climate and agriculture and/or with expertise in extension working with stakeholders, and directors of climate centers. The NIFA National Program Leader for Agroclimatology announced the survey via email on March 28, 2017. The initial invitation was sent March 30 to complete the questionnaire using the online survey platform Qualtrics; in total, three reminders were sent out only to those that had not responded prior to closing on June 2, 2017. Both surveys were reviewed and approved by the Purdue University Institutional Review Board. The protocol numbers are 1512016847 and 1702018843, respectively. Questions were developed to capture scientists’ perspectives on their: experience with cli- mate science and with the five agricultural stakeholders, education and communications train- ing, knowledge of stakeholders, terminology use with stakeholders, and stakeholder communication challenges. To identify the terms to measure, a literature analysis was con- ducted for recommended terms to use or avoid [61, 63, 64, 67, 73–76]. The five stakeholder groups explored were: agribusinesses, crop advisors, crop and/or livestock producers, general public, and policymakers. Using a bipolar 5-point scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” we assessed the scientists’ views on the current state of climate change and agroecosys-

tems science as well as their professional roles and responsibilities. We then gathered scientists’ views on climate science through a modified block of statements originally developed to assess producers’ views on climate change using a bipolar 5-point scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” [77]. Additionally, these statements were used to ascertain scientists’ perspec- tives on how five stakeholder groups would respond to the same questions. Respondents that worked with multiple stakeholders were asked to select the stakeholder that was their highest priority and then asked the series of questions regarding that stakeholder group. These respon- dents were then provided the opportunity to answer the same block of questions for additional stakeholders. In addition to climate change perspectives, we asked scientists to describe chal- lenges in communicating climate change issues to each stakeholder group. The entirety of the survey is included in the S1 File. Producer and crop advisor surveys To compare scientists’ perspective to stakeholders, data from two additional surveys were used. Both surveys were conducted during 2016 in the U.S. Midwest, which consists of 12 states. The producer survey was conducted from June to October (N = 2633) [77] and the crop advisor survey was conducted from November to December (N = 2719) [78]. In this study, crop advisors were defined as respondents whose primary occupation was an agricultural advi- sor, respondents that provide advice to corn producers, and/or respondents that educate or train other advisors. Analysis

Prior to analysis, the dataset was cleaned to confirm responses fit within the correct datatype and to correct any typographical errors in open responses. For open ended responses, one researcher developed the initial codebook by coding a portion of the responses into prevalent themes. Then, two additional researchers used the initial codebook to independently code each of the previously coded open responses. The research team then met to discuss and resolve coding discrepancies. Through these discussions, the codebook was finalized to the agreement of the research team [79]. One researcher then reconciled coding discrepancies identified through the codebook development process. All codes were ultimately agreed upon by all three researchers. PLOS ONE Understanding scientists’ communication challenges at the intersection of climate and agriculture PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269927 August 2, 2022 6 / 22