Cultivating Collaboration: Incorporating Social Science for Innovative Approaches to Agriculture and Wildlife Research

Brooke McWherter, Natural Resource Social Scientist Assistant Research Professor Author

10/07/2024 Added

9 Plays

Description

Wicked challenges in natural resource management demand more than just traditional solutions – they require a collaborative, multi-disciplinary approach. This presentation will showcase how integrating social science with environmental and agricultural research enhances our ability to address these complex issues. Through current and ongoing projects, Dr. McWherter will discuss the development of collaborative research, share key social science findings, and outline her vision for future work at UNL.

Searchable Transcript

Search:

[00:00:00.720]The following presentation is part of the agronomy and horticulture seminar series
[00:00:05.760]at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Okay, good morning everyone. Thank you for attending to
[00:00:12.480]this seminar. Our speaker today is Brooke McWherter. Brooke is a research assistant professor,
[00:00:20.480]a natural resource social scientist here in the department of agriculture and, sorry,
[00:00:26.640]I'm going to be an articulater at UNL. So Brooke's main objective is to leverage social science
[00:00:33.280]theories and mixing methods to enhance decision making capacities in natural resource and
[00:00:38.240]agricultural management, both at the individual and organizational levels. Today Brooke will
[00:00:44.800]discuss the development of collaborative research, share key social science findings,
[00:00:50.240]and outline her vision for the future work here at UNL. So Brooke, the floor is yours.
[00:00:56.160]Okay, thank you everybody for having me. You know, when I was first invited to do this seminar,
[00:01:06.800]I was thinking about, well, which project do I want to talk about, right? We're all always engaged
[00:01:11.680]in research that we're so passionate about, it's hard to pick. And when I reflected over it,
[00:01:16.240]I decided I wanted to talk about something that I thought really more transcended past disciplines
[00:01:21.440]or any one research, which is the collaborative processes that we all engage in to make
[00:01:26.160]our research successful, right? And this is significant whether you're in research or if
[00:01:31.280]you're a student, whether you move on to industry or nonprofits, you're going to be engaged in
[00:01:35.120]collaborative work. That's just the status of the work we work in. And so when it comes to thinking
[00:01:41.200]about collaboration, I'm going to focus on specifically integrating social science into
[00:01:45.360]those collaborative processes. And I wanted to start with, well, what is a natural research social
[00:01:50.560]scientist other than a very mouthy title to give yourself when you introduce yourself? And so if
[00:01:55.920]I were to say, could you define a social scientist, just straight off, how many of you could do that
[00:02:00.240]if you raise your hand? Okay, kind of. All right, so I'm sure natural resource doesn't have any
[00:02:06.320]other clarity for you. So a social scientist is basically a scientist that studies people.
[00:02:12.240]We look at the interactions between people. And for a natural resource, we also look at
[00:02:17.200]interactions between people and the environment, as well as how people interact within the
[00:02:20.480]environment. So that could be, for example, if we look at hunting or farming, we might look
[00:02:25.680]at how is a farmer's relationship with their tenant, right? Or what is their relationship
[00:02:30.240]with their land and the management practices? Or what are their memories of that landscape
[00:02:34.960]with their grandfather? And that's how, when they look at their farm, they think of that
[00:02:38.000]family history and the memories that they have. And in addition to looking at individuals,
[00:02:42.080]we look at what drives their decision-making, what drives their behaviors, but we also look
[00:02:46.480]at the institution and organizations that influence those behaviors and decisions. So
[00:02:50.320]we can think about a farmer is not only going to go off their own internal motivations,
[00:02:55.440]right? They're also going to think about, well, what are the economics of my farm? What's that
[00:02:59.600]reality of my landscape? What's the topography? What's the soil? What's the hydrology look like?
[00:03:04.080]And so we kind of look at all of that to look at human behaviors and drivers.
[00:03:08.080]And so myself specifically as a natural resource social scientist, we look at those things within
[00:03:13.840]natural resource context. And that can be agriculture, water, forestry, agro-tourism
[00:03:20.000]is a big one in my field. And like many folks in my field, we don't start off thinking I'm going
[00:03:25.200]to be a natural resource social scientist because like many of you, I didn't know what that term was
[00:03:29.600]either. So I started off in wildlife biology myself. I was passionate about wildlife. I still
[00:03:34.960]am. I'll talk to you about animal facts any day. And I was passionate because I love wildlife. I
[00:03:40.960]was passionate about conservation like many of you are for agriculture or wildlife or
[00:03:44.480]whatever field you're in. And then I went into the Peace Corps and I realized, wow,
[00:03:49.360]in order for us to actually think about sustainable agriculture, to think about conservation,
[00:03:54.960]people are at the center of that. Their decisions are what informed what these landscapes look like.
[00:04:00.560]There's nowhere on this planet that has not been impacted by people. And so if we think about how
[00:04:06.400]can we as scientists make an impact, people need to be part of that process. And as myself,
[00:04:11.520]I was like, I want to be someone that can help bridge that. Think about how can we bring people
[00:04:15.120]into those wildlife conversations, at least at that time. And so I moved on to doing full
[00:04:19.840]natural resource, you know, social science work. And that's taken me all over the world. I've
[00:04:24.720]worked on flood adaptation with indigenous communities in Bolivia. I moved into more
[00:04:28.960]experimental design, running large scale field randomized control trials with my colleagues
[00:04:32.880]during my PhD. We'll talk a bit more about this one, the producer conflicts with black vultures.
[00:04:39.200]And then I was recently in Canada doing national training programs. So thinking about how can we
[00:04:44.400]think about evaluating training programs to promote adoption of beneficial management
[00:04:49.520]practices like rotational grazing. And then now here today, I'm with Andrea on the
[00:04:54.480]Thriving Cropscapes project. So today I'm going to talk about what is collaboration,
[00:05:00.240]give you some examples of collaborative research that I've been a part of, as well as some of the
[00:05:05.280]considerations from a social science perspective on how I felt that those collaborations went,
[00:05:09.360]and maybe instances where I wish I had brought in other expertise within social science myself in
[00:05:14.320]some of those cases. So what is collaboration? We talk about this a lot, but it's hard at parts.
[00:05:19.920]There's lots of different types of collaborations. We can talk about coordination versus
[00:05:24.240]collaboration, but it's hard at parts. Collaboration is that we are working together
[00:05:28.480]to achieve a shared vision or goal, and that is key. We need to have a shared vision or goal.
[00:05:33.440]So why collaborate at all, right? Some of us maybe came up in the time when we were very
[00:05:40.560]told to be very specific in our disciplines, that you're going to dive down deep,
[00:05:44.160]focus on yourself, but many of you have perhaps come up during a time when we're told that
[00:05:48.720]no, collaboration is what we need to do for the future, and that is because we are
[00:05:54.000]recognizing more and more that ecological agricultural research have challenges that
[00:05:58.000]go beyond an individual discipline or individual expertise.
[00:06:02.500]So your collaboration may look like you're collaborating with folks within your own discipline.
[00:06:06.620]Maybe there are different specialties that can really work well with each other, or that
[00:06:10.980]may look like different types of disciplines.
[00:06:14.660]We're also seeing pressures to collaborate that are not just internal in recognition
[00:06:18.080]of that, but that there's a search for more complete knowledge.
[00:06:21.620]For example, when we look at agricultural systems, look at a farm.
[00:06:23.760]No one discipline can ever capture the complexity that is a farm, right?
[00:06:29.040]You have to have a knowledge in hydrology, in agronomy, in crop science, in the farmer
[00:06:33.260]themselves, economics, all of that encapsulates a farming system.
[00:06:38.180]And so why not collaborate so that we can understand these systems more completely?
[00:06:43.300]And also that's related to responding to wicked or complex problems like climate change.
[00:06:47.160]But of course, we're also seeing external pressures.
[00:06:50.380]Funders are asking us to collaborate more.
[00:06:53.520]To move beyond our departments or our fields to find collaborators, whether that is in
[00:06:58.160]other disciplines or other sectors.
[00:07:00.620]And we're seeing pressures from the ground up with communities saying, hey, I'm not sure
[00:07:05.300]about what you're doing anymore.
[00:07:06.600]I want to be more involved.
[00:07:08.000]I want to know what's going on.
[00:07:09.300]I want to be part of that process.
[00:07:11.080]So we're seeing communities also push for more collaboration.
[00:07:16.400]So what is collaboration with who?
[00:07:18.180]Well, when we talk about collaboration, I feel like we often hear about it from this
[00:07:22.280]perspective.
[00:07:23.280]You go into interdisciplinary research, right?
[00:07:25.520]You're an agronomist, go work with a social scientist, you're a biologist, go work with
[00:07:29.160]a data scientist, or we're told, go find a partner in the industry sector, right?
[00:07:34.700]That's how you're going to be applied.
[00:07:35.700]You need to find a partner in the nonprofit or industry.
[00:07:39.460]But in my experience, the reality is you're never just doing pure discipline and pure
[00:07:43.700]cross.
[00:07:44.700]If you're doing any form of cross sectoral, you're doing both.
[00:07:47.280]We'll see if this works.
[00:07:49.120]There we go.
[00:07:50.600]So the reality is if I'm working with a nonprofit.
[00:07:53.040]My nonprofit partner probably has training in another discipline often.
[00:07:57.540]I work with nonprofit partners who have backgrounds in forestry, who have degrees in agronomy.
[00:08:02.280]And so even though they're not in agronomist necessarily, they're coming to this partnership
[00:08:06.980]with that knowledge and that training, and that's going to influence how they're interacting
[00:08:10.360]with me.
[00:08:11.360]And that's going to look so they're entering with anybody, right?
[00:08:14.640]So why collaborate then specifically with social scientists?
[00:08:19.280]And I think that's because, you know, natural research and agriculture are intimately linked
[00:08:22.800]with people.
[00:08:23.800]As I said, there's nowhere that you can go that can disaggregate human impacts and behaviors
[00:08:29.740]on our world.
[00:08:31.100]And so what social scientists do can help you understand behavior, decision making impacts
[00:08:36.540]of your programs.
[00:08:38.200]Are they actually leading to adoption?
[00:08:40.500]Are we having unintended consequences where we're actually impacting maybe like gender
[00:08:44.240]dynamics or equality?
[00:08:46.700]We're actually creating inequality through our program.
[00:08:50.860]And historically, there's sometimes been this belief.
[00:08:52.560]And some of the biophysical sciences that if I do the research and I provide the recommendations
[00:08:57.740]based on my research to somebody, that should be enough, right?
[00:09:01.780]I gave them the best science and my expertise.
[00:09:05.580]I gave them those recommendations.
[00:09:07.000]If they don't take that, that's their folly.
[00:09:08.920]That's their problem.
[00:09:10.320]And that has driven a lot of policy, being like, if we just give them the information,
[00:09:14.280]that should be enough.
[00:09:15.280]Because we're showing them it works.
[00:09:16.280]We're showing them the economics is there, the soil qualities, whatever it is.
[00:09:21.020]But we know the truth of that.
[00:09:22.320]It doesn't always work.
[00:09:24.220]We have some of the practices that many of you study, I've heard you talk about, where
[00:09:27.360]you say, this has been around for 30, 40 years, but it's not being adopted.
[00:09:31.440]Why?
[00:09:32.440]Because there are these other more complex social dynamics that are informing that.
[00:09:36.160]So by bringing in social scientists, we can actually be able to explore what is driving
[00:09:40.220]that behavior, look at how we can enhance adoption, how we can change behavior, or how
[00:09:44.480]we can better communicate while we are creating other fields.
[00:09:49.080]So to talk about a few examples that I've been a part of, I'm going to talk about
[00:09:52.080]three different types of collaborations. One is what I'm calling more
[00:09:56.400]disciplinary driven, which was led by a biologist during my PhD. One is what I'm
[00:10:01.500]called nonprofit motivated. This is when I worked with a nonprofit partner around
[00:10:04.740]program evaluation, so that has a strong practical intention for it. And then the
[00:10:10.240]more recent one I'm part of with Andrea, what I'll call co-developed, where we came
[00:10:13.560]together and we're actually co-developing that project. So the first one you can
[00:10:18.760]think about looks kind of like this. The biologist is
[00:10:21.840]his name is Patrick Zollner at Purdue. He's great. He was in contact with some
[00:10:26.160]folks at USD APHIS and they said look we got a real problem going on here with
[00:10:29.200]these black vultures. Now could any of you, have any of you heard of black
[00:10:32.300]vulture issues in agriculture? No? That's because we're so far west you don't have to
[00:10:36.960]worry about it. Wait, maybe we'll get this way. So he coordinated with some folks at
[00:10:42.600]the Animal Disease Lab and they decided to bring in a social scientist later and
[00:10:46.380]I'll talk about more why. So what was the issue? Well black vultures is what they look like.
[00:10:51.600]They're a little bit cuter, I think, than our turkey vultures. You might have
[00:10:55.920]different opinions. The grad student I worked with, Marion, is obsessed with them. And
[00:11:00.520]black vultures have historically been in the southeast. They are, unlike turkey
[00:11:06.720]vultures, they're actually opportunistic hunters, which means that they are not
[00:11:09.760]obligate scavengers. They don't always feed on carrion. They will sometimes hunt
[00:11:14.340]food. Unfortunately for us and farmers,
[00:11:17.460]sometimes that's calves. And we don't quite know the extent that this happens,
[00:11:21.360]we also don't know why vultures may decide to kill a calf, but their
[00:11:26.680]expansion into the Midwest and more especially Missouri, Indiana kind of area
[00:11:31.080]has led to a flurry of news articles about them. And it was creating a big
[00:11:37.800]hype at the time. I mean they were calling these sky wolves, they're saying
[00:11:40.920]farmers are finding their cows eaten alive, right? Very dramatic language. And
[00:11:45.780]in addition to this language, there is the "and they're protected"
[00:11:51.120]the government's not letting us do anything about this because they're part
[00:11:54.660]of the Migratory Bird Species Act. And so we have this dual issue of these birds
[00:11:59.220]that are being claimed as a really huge issue for agricultural producers in
[00:12:02.460]combination with government protections and there are calls that are saying you
[00:12:06.580]need to give us more permits so we can cull these birds. And Dr. Zollner was
[00:12:11.740]like, wait, there's a lot of talk and not a lot of science
[00:12:16.520]around these policy discussions. And he developed this project. It had
[00:12:20.880]three components. It had a livestock necropsy work, producer perceptions, and
[00:12:26.760]tracking and mitigation that were done by biologists in his lab. And he had a
[00:12:30.500]grad student that was going to run this perception survey who was predominantly
[00:12:33.480]trained as a biologist. And this also happened during COVID and he heard that
[00:12:37.920]I needed another chapter. And he reached out to me to say, well, why don't we
[00:12:43.140]combine these interests? We can provide some expertise to our social science
[00:12:46.500]surveys because, as we all know, survey fatigue is bad. We don't want
[00:12:50.640]to keep sending out bad surveys to our farmers, right? So you want to have
[00:12:53.400]someone that's trained in making them. And we worked together to create a
[00:12:57.820]survey that looked at what is the scope of perceived losses to vultures in
[00:13:01.780]Indiana, Kentucky. And then I suggested, and it was accepted, that we include
[00:13:06.460]drivers of tolerance. So tolerance is, what is the cost we're willing to accept
[00:13:11.400]to live with an animal? And we can think of that, for example, with deer. We accept
[00:13:15.920]a lot of costs associated with living with deer all the time, right? There's traffic,
[00:13:20.400]like cars hitting them. They eat our vegetables. They eat anything that's in our garden. They
[00:13:24.400]eat our grass. Whatever you want, they eat it. Because we value them as a species for
[00:13:29.020]hunting or other reasons. And part of that framework was a bit of a challenge as a discussion
[00:13:35.560]with the biologists, as I'll talk more. So we conducted surveys with producers. We got
[00:13:40.420]about 200 responses. And we ran descriptives and also a partially square structural equation
[00:13:45.380]model. I'm not going to go into too much depth of that, only to say the reason we did this.
[00:13:50.160]Is sometimes when we think about really more abstract concepts like emotions, we have to
[00:13:55.560]create scales, indices to do that. And those create error every time you're aggregating data
[00:14:00.260]upward. And so a partially square structural equation model allows us to compensate for that
[00:14:04.080]different error and able to look at drivers. This paper was accepted. It'll be coming out if anyone
[00:14:09.320]wants to read more about that. But what we found was 38 and 44% of cattle and mixed producers said
[00:14:15.480]that they, yes, they did have losses to vultures. But when we asked, well, how are you attributing
[00:14:19.920]loss, they, 77% or 72% said, I've saw them around the dead calf. Well, already you might be able to
[00:14:28.300]tell that that's a little problematic because they're scavengers. They're going to always be
[00:14:31.940]around the dead calf. So the structural equation model looked like this. I'm not going to go into
[00:14:36.780]as much detail as we can. It's not a full talk on this. But what I want to focus on is what we were
[00:14:41.720]looking at here is intangible costs, which is economic costs, which is often the main discussion we talk
[00:14:49.680]about drivers of wildlife conflict, right? The losses by killing cattle versus intangible costs,
[00:14:56.080]which are the fear and anxiety when they see vultures because they think they're a danger
[00:15:02.820]to their animals. And when I wanted to include this, it was actually quite a bit of a controversial
[00:15:08.420]thing in my team. They were like, I'm not sure about that. Like farmers don't really feel those
[00:15:13.820]kinds of emotions. And I was like, trust me. And they trusted me. And it was significant. It wasn't
[00:15:19.440]as significant as believing that vultures actually had some kind of environmental benefit to them,
[00:15:22.820]but it mattered. So another example I want to talk about is the NGO motivated. So this was
[00:15:31.660]done in Canada. This was working through my tax. I worked with two nonprofits, the Farmers for
[00:15:35.800]Climate Solutions and Canadian Forging Grassland, who are running a national blended learning
[00:15:40.140]program. And they wanted someone to evaluate it. And I will say in reality, while it looked like
[00:15:45.200]this, in reality, the NGO had all of these other people that I had to
[00:15:49.200]deal with. This collaboration was more than I thought when I got involved, because
[00:15:52.900]their program to be implemented through a blended learning was partnering with
[00:15:56.920]governments and freelance consultants and other mentors in order to
[00:16:01.140]roll out their program, because it was peer-based. And so this
[00:16:05.100]program was called, wow, this is being really glitchy for me, it was called Farm.
[00:16:08.860]It was considered a free farmer-to-farmer learning hub, and they
[00:16:13.000]focused on all these topics. They gave them an online learning platform and combined
[00:16:17.080]that with in-person mentorship.
[00:16:18.960]And the goal for my partners with the CFGA was this
[00:16:22.620]advanced grazing system, which was promoting multi-paddock rotational grazing.
[00:16:25.640]And so our research goals was to look at who was participating in the
[00:16:30.560]program, what were drivers of that, what do participants value, what do they think
[00:16:34.620]about mentors and their relationships, and what do those relationships look like,
[00:16:38.460]and evaluating it from a community perspective, because it was quite challenging to look at
[00:16:42.700]adoption outcomes with this program.
[00:16:48.720]Well, let's see, here we go. Okay, okay, well, that's being stupid, sorry.
[00:16:52.840]All right, so this is what our methods for this, it's a classic evaluation, we did a pre-post test,
[00:17:02.600]we did a randomized sample of non-participants to compare, and then we also did interviews with
[00:17:08.340]mentors, interviews, and staff. And in the comparison between participants and non-participants,
[00:17:13.440]what we identified was the main driver for participants, or one of the main drivers
[00:17:16.940]participants into this program.
[00:17:18.480]Was a knowledge deficit. So this is a case where people were actually saying, knowledge
[00:17:22.620]is a barrier to me, and this program, I hope, will address it. But one of the other interesting
[00:17:27.580]things that we were able to do, here's the numbers on that, was to look at their system,
[00:17:32.700]right? Farming systems. How do they think about those systems, and how does that play
[00:17:36.920]a role in their, in how they think about what they're prioritizing for their farm? And so
[00:17:41.500]we developed a 54 list, basically divided into these seven categories, asking what is
[00:17:48.240]you value in your farm? And I'll tell you right now, I wish that I had other expertise
[00:17:54.640]in developing this list, because I do think we, this needs to be enhanced. I had talked
[00:18:00.620]to other livestock producers, but even just talking to women, they're like, domestic care
[00:18:04.140]is not on this list, right? Which was a stupid choice. I were not, but I mean, I should have
[00:18:08.480]known better, right? Anyway, we ran exploratory factor analysis on this to identify that,
[00:18:14.040]yeah, even though these farmers, they have moderate to high systems thinking scores
[00:18:18.000]the systems they think about are different. And what does this mean for the program? Well,
[00:18:23.500]it means that there may be different ways that we could emphasize our program and maybe there
[00:18:27.520]are other ways that we can. So Linda Prokopi also came out with a paper that said often regenerative
[00:18:32.920]ag programs are focused around holistic thinking, which is maybe what we think more of is health and
[00:18:37.800]environment, right? We're thinking about nutrient and wildlife and CO2 emissions, and we're thinking
[00:18:42.120]of all those things together. But what this shows is some of them are way more siloed and specific,
[00:18:47.760]right? There's some here that have that strong economics. Economics is a driver. That is what
[00:18:51.860]they're worried about, they're concerned about. Others are looking at breeding, which was not
[00:18:55.820]something that this program even covers or thinks about, but there's a lot of purebred
[00:18:59.000]livestock producers out there that are saying breeding and genetics is my number one focus.
[00:19:03.120]And in interviews with them, they're like, but I don't understand how rotational grazing will
[00:19:06.760]fit into that scheme, right? So by understanding these different
[00:19:10.300]systems that they emphasize, we can better target programs to them. And what I really like
[00:19:17.520]about this relationship in particular was one of the big things we hope from collaboration is,
[00:19:21.760]of course, that they are sustained. We want a collaboration to last. They take a lot of time
[00:19:26.320]to build. They take a lot of time to sustain. And with this one, that involved me constantly
[00:19:31.760]engaging with my partners and being comfortable sharing preliminary data, which I know is always
[00:19:36.560]like a hard thing for us to do as scientists. But NGOs just work at lightning speed compared
[00:19:41.520]to the way the publishing industry works for us, right?
[00:19:44.160]So I was constantly having meetings being like, here's where my data is at now.
[00:19:47.280]You know, they're like, we're applying for our funding right now. We need to know what
[00:19:52.080]you have right now. That's what we're going to submit. And you have to be comfortable with that,
[00:19:55.440]or that's not a partner that you can work with. And since working with them, we were able to
[00:20:00.400]apply and move with -- I started working with the Living Labs in Canada, which is an on-farm,
[00:20:04.320]it's a working farm experimental program. It's kind of like LTAR,
[00:20:08.800]but they work with farmers on their operational farms. And we were able to
[00:20:12.560]apply for a grant and hire a student who did a study with them. He was actually even hired
[00:20:17.040]by them. This relationship has also led to me being invited to their annual conference,
[00:20:21.760]both last year and this year. I'll be going again. It also led to me running webinars
[00:20:28.480]and actually doing more facilitation and talking about how can social science
[00:20:31.760]methods be used as a form of engagement for farmers, thinking about some of these
[00:20:35.920]participatory methods that we have in our field and how they can help us bring farmers into that
[00:20:39.920]discussion and help them think through their adoption process, as well as doing work with
[00:20:46.800]specific provincial living labs who I now have relationships with. So you can see how that one
[00:20:51.440]project over two years, it was only a two-year project, really responded to me having connections
[00:20:56.560]with the national living labs, with the New Brunswick living labs, with the Newfoundland
[00:21:00.160]living labs, and I have since been contacted by other organizations through Mirt of Mouth because
[00:21:04.640]they heard about this and it's of interest to them. So that is the benefit, you know, we get
[00:21:09.120]some of this research out of this and it was practically useful for my partners. It also
[00:21:12.960]helped me think about the theory of systems thinking, which is what I presented today, but it
[00:21:16.560]has been sustained into other work and other projects and we've even submitted a proposal
[00:21:20.960]together, though I haven't heard back on that so I don't know if we got it. And if you're interested
[00:21:26.400]more about what these relationship dynamics can look like with the non-profit sector that are
[00:21:30.880]NGO-moded, this was actually a research published by one of my partners during my PhD who run an
[00:21:37.440]incentive-based conservation program in Bolivia and they talked about evolving mutualism for
[00:21:42.640]parachutes, which parachute is when scientists would kind of drop down, right, and do research.
[00:21:46.320]And they talk about their structures for how they engage in research and Purdue,
[00:21:51.480]which is my research with them, is one of them. So I would encourage you to check out this if
[00:21:55.320]you're interested more in what that structure could look like when we think about engaging
[00:21:58.280]with nonprofits and specifically international nonprofits. All right, so my last example is a
[00:22:07.440]cross disciplinary one. So we talked about one where it was biologist driven, where I
[00:22:11.700]was brought in a bit later, I was able to add some theory to it, but I wasn't only part of
[00:22:16.080]that full design. And then the nonprofit one where I was fully part of it, but it's really
[00:22:20.720]tied to my nonprofit's objectives. And now this is one I've been brought in that was
[00:22:25.760]cross-disciplinary co-developed with Andrea, where the scientists got together and they
[00:22:31.240]said, "We're going to collaboratively think about how we can tie in our different expertise."
[00:22:36.460]And they call this the Thriving Future Cross.
[00:22:39.500]CropScapes project. We have a beautiful website if anyone wants to check it out there's a QR code
[00:22:43.710]and this project focuses on CropScapes. So what are CropScapes? Has anyone heard that term before?
[00:22:50.270]No? Good. So we hope it's unique. So when we think about a crop we think about crop landscapes we
[00:22:58.230]might think about just the the crops themselves or depending on your field you might think about
[00:23:01.850]soil or water but a CropScape is really recognizing that crops exist in a landscape of different
[00:23:08.130]interactions and activities. There are multiple things that influence what's being grown on the
[00:23:12.690]ground right. It's a mix of the crops, the practices, the systems, and infrastructure that allow the
[00:23:19.110]agricultural landscapes that we see today to function and be successful or change or evolve.
[00:23:23.110]So a thriving CropScape says when we look to the future of what the future of our landscapes will
[00:23:29.370]look like here in Nebraska, in Georgia, or Ohio we need to be holistic in that thinking. We need to
[00:23:35.870]have a systems focus and look at all the different ways these could interconnect. And so this project
[00:23:41.390]looked at what is what is the current system of agriculture here in Nebraska, Ohio, and Georgia.
[00:23:49.190]What could be and we use modeling so that's our data scientists modeling looking at environmental
[00:23:56.430]variables to model and think about what does the what are what are variables that could influence
[00:24:01.250]what cropping systems are most viable in these landscapes in 40 years or more.
[00:24:05.370]What should be when we talk to farmers? What do they actually want their futures to look like?
[00:24:11.730]What are their kids? What do they want their kids futures to look like? And then toward a renewed
[00:24:16.170]what is how can we get there? What are the steps we can take to support farmers in that process?
[00:24:20.310]And to do that we're doing work in Nebraska, Georgia, and Ohio and these are all their a lot
[00:24:27.130]of the main crops and all of them alright corn is not right there in the right one but and we
[00:24:32.250]applied a mixed methods approach so this has data science modeling so that's our data scientist who's
[00:24:36.630]doing those environmental modeling engaging with the social scientists and agronomists to say what
[00:24:41.470]variable should I be including in this? Literature review, we're also doing key informant interviews
[00:24:46.930]with experts in expertise in climate climatology and extension in commodity production asking them
[00:24:53.150]what are your thoughts on this and then we'll be working with experts to develop a consensus
[00:24:58.410]survey so being like what do you think is likely to change? What probabilities?
[00:25:02.130]Is this going to happen? So that we can inform our modeling. I'll go back in here. I don't know
[00:25:07.490]why I'm sorry guys this is just not working. And then once we have that we're going to go
[00:25:13.290]into focus groups with farmers to ask them what do you think about this model? What do you think
[00:25:17.550]about this map? Do you agree with it? Do you believe it? Are we missing something in that?
[00:25:21.930]And we'll go back to them again after we reiterate to follow up and be like well is
[00:25:26.910]it better now? Do you know and then once we agree on that we can move forward thinking
[00:25:32.010]about great what are pathways that you think to move toward this future that you want?
[00:25:37.650]And a little bit I'll show some preliminary results from that project. One of the things
[00:25:41.910]that we asked our experts was what has changed to lead us to here today? So I thought it's
[00:25:46.830]a good one to bring in because you all might have good commentary on it. So what they said
[00:25:52.370]is technology has changed a lot, right? Technology has really driven us to our current landscape.
[00:25:57.110]We've seen digital ag rise. It's one of our seminar talks coming up with Guillermo.
[00:26:01.890]Biotechnology and genetics, increases in irrigation. These are across the board. We're seeing also
[00:26:09.610]though increased concerns around pests and weed concerns and climate change. Higher temperatures,
[00:26:15.930]higher lows when we need them to be lower. Variable weather. We're seeing interest in
[00:26:22.570]regenerative ag and multi-cropping systems, and that's probably in relation to some of
[00:26:26.410]these concerns, right? We're also seeing increased policy support
[00:26:31.770]for practice. So we're thinking we're seeing programs like Equip or some of
[00:26:34.710]those coming out that are supporting that. We're seeing shifts in the public
[00:26:38.330]being more interested in what's going on with our food and where the food is
[00:26:40.950]coming from, but we're also seeing a decline in farmer operators and fewer
[00:26:45.510]farms. So we're seeing larger farms come out of that. And these are the three that
[00:26:49.730]were shared by across all of our states. And so the next part of that is we also
[00:26:54.930]looked at challenges and opportunities, which I won't be covering as much today,
[00:26:57.750]but hopefully this gives you an idea. This gives us an idea to think about this is what
[00:27:01.650]has informed us to where we're at now. And when we ask about challenges, I'm sure some of you can
[00:27:07.050]see some of the challenges are the same things that have led us here today, right? Challenges
[00:27:11.310]around climate change and pest concerns are still present. Technology, we're still talking about
[00:27:17.790]what the newest technology will look like. Declining farm operations has been happening
[00:27:22.410]historically. It's still happening today. And we're starting to hear more from people talking
[00:27:25.490]about that impact that it's had on mental health, right? These all identify not just different
[00:27:31.530]cultural landscapes are impacted and what is, right? But also how diverse and how the different
[00:27:36.930]expertise will be needed to really solve these issues and just think about the future.
[00:27:41.410]So stay tuned for our findings from this project. This is our link for Thriving
[00:27:47.210]Cropscapes. Or if you have questions, you can always contact Andrea.
[00:27:50.070]No, you're fine. Sorry. That's just, that's not what I wanted.
[00:27:55.910]So just to wrap up, I wanted to just give some considerations. I gave you three different types
[00:28:01.410]of collaborative projects. The disciplinary driven, I was not as highly involved in, but
[00:28:05.890]there was respect for my expertise. We did have some challenges in communicating things that I
[00:28:10.870]thought would be relevant and they did not. But at the end, they respected what I did and they
[00:28:16.310]allowed me to do it. And we saw the outcome in the modeling that those were relevant.
[00:28:19.110]The nonprofit motivated ones, they are highly engaged, but they took a lot of time. This type
[00:28:25.550]of collaboration just takes a lot of time and effort to maintain because you're going to have
[00:28:28.870]to stay in contact with them. You can't work in a silo.
[00:28:31.290]You have to make sure your content is modified in a way that they understand, that's useful for them,
[00:28:36.570]that they can take and put into their funding reports. It might have to align with other groups
[00:28:40.650]they're working with and doing research on. You need to be comfortable sharing preliminary work
[00:28:44.430]with them. The co-developed one also share vision and goal, and that's one where all the groups are
[00:28:49.590]engaged. And this takes time in that you need to be open to learning about other disciplines.
[00:28:54.090]So when we meet, everyone goes through their different projects, right? I'm learning about
[00:28:58.990]how is modeling happening and what are the variables
[00:29:01.170]that go into modeling as much as I'm learning about what a Delphi survey is and the considerations
[00:29:04.870]for that. Those may not be my discipline per se, but part of this process is that everyone
[00:29:11.070]is part of that conversation and understanding it. So ultimately the benefits from these
[00:29:17.170]combined expertise to support more comprehensive research findings, these more collaborative
[00:29:21.970]projects are often funded off larger grants. They allow for different viewpoints and perspectives.
[00:29:28.470]You can also generate a wide variety of papers across different
[00:29:31.050]disciplines, which can showcase that you're interested in collaborative work. It can help
[00:29:34.290]you find new partners, and it can be an opportunity to solve complex problems.
[00:29:39.010]So here at UNL, moving forward, in addition to the Thriving CropScape project, my plan
[00:29:45.170]is to look at how I can integrate social science with other different types of projects, right?
[00:29:49.310]I truly think that if you think hard enough, there is a way for social science to integrate
[00:29:53.650]into almost everyone's research at some point in there, either from like conception to getting
[00:29:57.990]it out to the public, to try to get the public to do something.
[00:30:00.930]Whether that's developing methods to support practitioners in their work, which is what
[00:30:05.150]I'm really passionate about, expanding understanding of these sociological systems and taking a
[00:30:09.970]more systems approach to how we think about agriculture and natural resource management,
[00:30:14.490]and identifying pathways that we can integrate the biophysical knowledge that's being generated
[00:30:18.790]in the department with social science to enhance knowledge uptake and adoption.
[00:30:23.390]So if you're interested in building your own teams, the Water Integrated Cropping System
[00:30:28.690]Hub has a conference every year.
[00:30:30.810]One of the main topics of their workshop this year is building large efficient teams.
[00:30:35.910]It'll have that full day.
[00:30:36.910]It'll cover anything from grading them to informing that team, organizing them.
[00:30:41.910]I will be on a panel talking about how do we connect with external partners, talking
[00:30:45.110]a little bit more about that work that was published, as well as how you can incorporate
[00:30:49.190]arts and humanities, maybe a discipline many of us haven't really thought about in our
[00:30:52.610]research.
[00:30:53.610]So check that out if you're interested in kind of thinking about your own teams.
[00:30:57.730]And then I'll just end that with let's collaborate.
[00:30:59.690]Thanks, everybody.
[00:31:00.690]So if you have any questions about the process or any of the specific results, yeah, feel
[00:31:10.270]free to ask.
[00:31:11.270]Okay.
[00:31:12.270]Thank you so much, Brooke, it was a nice and interesting presentation.
[00:31:17.750]So we have a little bit more than 20 minutes for questions.
[00:31:22.130]So for those who are connected, please use the chat.
[00:31:27.350]For those who are here in person, just raise your hand.
[00:31:30.570]Ask your questions to Brooke.
[00:31:34.010]Thank you for your presentation.
[00:31:44.390]I think it's good to, we talked before in a couple of meetings, incorporating the social
[00:31:49.670]aspect and so with all your work in three different projects, so I would like to know
[00:31:56.350]a little bit more about the barriers that you have in each of those or just in barriers
[00:32:00.450]identifying those, you know, looking for those collaborations, if you can expand a little
[00:32:05.270]bit on that.
[00:32:05.730]Yeah, well, with the disciplinary-led one, sometimes, like, historically barriers are
[00:32:11.190]that it's difficult to communicate across disciplines.
[00:32:13.430]Sometimes there are language that we use specific to our field that can just be hard to communicate.
[00:32:18.130]I would really encourage, if you're students here, practice talking about your research
[00:32:22.050]to your family or someone that's not in your field.
[00:32:24.670]In this case, Patrick has worked with social scientists before, and so having that prior
[00:32:30.330]experience was not as much of a barrier.
[00:32:32.050]The barrier really came in our government partners really wanted to ensure that this
[00:32:38.950]survey was concise and as short as possible.
[00:32:40.910]As we all know, long surveys are the death of a survey, and I get that.
[00:32:44.410]And so adding in a theoretical component to a survey that they intended to be a very straightforward
[00:32:49.230]one was, I think, a bit of a challenge, and it took multiple conversations to be like,
[00:32:53.350]there is value in this, even though I understand we might hit challenges in the length of that.
[00:32:58.350]And so that was a balance.
[00:33:00.210]That was a balance that we had to really discuss and work through.
[00:33:02.610]So I wouldn't say it was a barrier, but it was a challenge, right?
[00:33:05.810]And we eventually evolved.
[00:33:07.010]Like, I cut some things out of mine, and we found some questions from theirs that maybe
[00:33:10.610]could have been integrated better, and so we were able to redo that, but it was a lot
[00:33:14.670]of back and forth.
[00:33:15.390]For the nonprofit one, honestly, the problem with that was we developed an evaluation plan,
[00:33:21.390]and then the program kept evolving in ways that were outside of my research plan.
[00:33:25.430]And my work in Bolivia did the same thing.
[00:33:27.850]So if you're working with a nonprofit that's doing
[00:33:30.090]program implementation, their program is changing while you're evaluating,
[00:33:34.850]which can make it difficult.
[00:33:37.130]We think about randomized control trials.
[00:33:38.910]We think about evaluation.
[00:33:39.710]We want consistency and standardization.
[00:33:41.830]And that's just not realistic, I think.
[00:33:44.830]And I think RCTs are also going to have their moment in the sun about how standard those
[00:33:51.670]are when they do field RCTs, because your nonprofit's doing work.
[00:33:56.350]But you won't catch that.
[00:33:57.710]You won't catch those changes if you're not
[00:33:59.970]constantly talking with them.
[00:34:02.030]My work in Bolivia that I didn't talk about that was published, we found out that they
[00:34:06.390]were actually having slightly modified contracts in every municipality, depending on how their
[00:34:10.410]negotiations with the government was going and what funding they had.
[00:34:14.610]That could have no impact on RCT, but we wouldn't have even known it was happening if we didn't
[00:34:18.430]talk to the people on the ground.
[00:34:20.490]So what I have learned in doing work with nonprofit or other sectors, where they're
[00:34:24.830]having to be flexible and adaptable because they're trying to increase buy-in, you need
[00:34:28.290]to be constantly talking with them.
[00:34:29.850]They need to know if they're making changes while you're in the process of evaluating
[00:34:33.470]their program, they need to communicate that to you.
[00:34:36.990]Otherwise, then you get to the point where you're halfway through the evaluation and
[00:34:40.810]you have too many moving things to be -- that you can't standardize in that process.
[00:34:45.610]The code one, so far, we haven't had too many issues.
[00:34:48.490]It just started that one.
[00:34:50.250]But, you know, one of the challenges with that is always, like, where do we balance?
[00:34:54.110]Who takes the most time?
[00:34:55.110]How are the roles?
[00:34:56.110]And who's the responsibilities?
[00:34:57.110]And I don't really see that as a barrier so much.
[00:34:59.730]But then that does require really engaged conversation to understand who's doing what.
[00:35:04.690]The most complicated part with a lot of these sometimes is IRBs.
[00:35:07.230]Like, how do our IRBs work across institutions?
[00:35:10.130]And do they accept one or the other?
[00:35:11.830]And so that can sometimes be a challenge, either with collaborative multi-institutional
[00:35:15.770]work or even cross-sectoral research.
[00:35:18.810]The living labs are challenged with that.
[00:35:20.510]Like if the government's collecting data, but their partners are the university and
[00:35:23.430]a nonprofit, can they share that data?
[00:35:25.710]Probably not.
[00:35:27.530]And so those are sometimes challenges to collaborative groups like that.
[00:35:29.610]Considering all the corn and soybeans grown in Nebraska, what are the opportunities
[00:35:44.010]to work with the natural resource districts?
[00:35:48.150]Because they're the link to the farmers in certain ways, and they also have money.
[00:35:53.850]So what are their problems?
[00:35:54.850]Have you talked to them and explored that opportunity?
[00:35:59.490]No, I do hope to get to know more.
[00:36:02.190]I will be honest, I moved here in July, so I'm still quite new to the region.
[00:36:08.250]But I think lots of natural resource organizations are doing work with farmers right now, whether
[00:36:13.430]that's thinking about conservation easements or pollinator strips, or the Ducks Unlimited
[00:36:17.590]is doing more with marshes and restoration with that, so I think the integration with
[00:36:24.310]how they can work with farmers and how I can work with those is what are aspects of their
[00:36:29.370]project that they're doing that farmers are interested in, and where are they having challenges
[00:36:32.450]getting buy-in from farmers, and then maybe we can talk about exploring how we can enhance
[00:36:36.130]those or enhance the opportunities for farmers to have more buy-in for that, but it's definitely
[00:36:41.250]a group I'm looking I would love to learn more from.
[00:36:44.550]Any other questions?
[00:36:50.130]Thanks, Brooke, for your presentation.
[00:36:55.070]It was excellent.
[00:36:56.070]We're so glad to have you in the department, so do you have any advice?
[00:36:59.250]I know there's a bias, I mean, I've hung around with lots and worked with lots of social scientists.
[00:37:05.790]I understand there's a bias of we have a grant proposal due, let's pull in a social scientist,
[00:37:12.190]let's do a survey.
[00:37:14.250]How do we prevent that from happening to really do more integrated work?
[00:37:17.550]Because all of what you've showed us is really more in-depth than that, right?
[00:37:22.470]So how do we avoid that token social science, let's do a survey bias?
[00:37:27.130]That's a great question.
[00:37:29.130]I mean, I will say social scientists are more and more being wary of doing that, of even
[00:37:33.190]engaging in that relationship when they're a token scientist in the process.
[00:37:38.010]But if you think that there is going to be an interest in either, hey, I'm working on
[00:37:44.370]soil, right, soil health, eventually I would like farmers to adopt this practice or technology
[00:37:49.410]or whatever you're working in, engage the social scientist at the beginning of your
[00:37:53.110]project, right?
[00:37:55.290]You can create a vision together and they will come up with stuff that compliments you,
[00:37:59.010]social scientists are often collaborative.
[00:38:02.450]And if for some reason you can't, you don't think about it until the end, and that is
[00:38:06.230]what sometimes happens, then be open about that social scientist having recommendations
[00:38:11.670]and changes to your proposal, right?
[00:38:13.610]If you're saying, like my biology one, if you're going to bring me in and I'm saying,
[00:38:17.390]great, I'll be in, but I need some buy-in to this project as well, this is something
[00:38:21.290]I want, you need to be open to that and have that conversation on how can we tie these
[00:38:25.350]things in better.
[00:38:26.350]So best gold standard, invite them beginning.
[00:38:28.890]If for some reason you absolutely can't and you don't, and you realize at the last minute
[00:38:33.130]and you were never intending, then you need to be flexible to changing your initial proposal
[00:38:36.770]and integrating with them.
[00:38:37.950]And part of that also means that when you're having meetings, inviting them to meetings,
[00:38:42.450]they may be aren't part of their field and coming to talks where they're updating on
[00:38:45.590]theirs and also be open to answering questions about your field that they may not understand
[00:38:51.010]or follow.
[00:38:52.010]Right?
[00:38:53.010]I learned a lot about livestock, doing livestock work.
[00:38:55.250]I'm learning more about crop research, but there are still terms that are
[00:38:58.770]unfamiliar to me.
[00:39:00.590]And I'm going to ask you questions that may seem stupid to you, just like I might say
[00:39:04.830]things about my research that you're like, "What is that even?"
[00:39:08.970]And we need to be comfortable in that space and asking questions and being vulnerable
[00:39:12.710]to learn from each other.
[00:39:16.610]Hi, thanks, Brooke, for that presentation.
[00:39:25.530]One question I had was how can we
[00:39:28.650]collaborate and network with social scientists?
[00:39:31.890]Often I'm in a conference or symposium and I'm seeing agronomy and horticultural natural
[00:39:36.790]scientists.
[00:39:37.790]So how can I find more of the social scientists so that we can collaborate?
[00:39:41.530]Yeah.
[00:39:42.530]Conferences are hard, right?
[00:39:43.530]I attended a social science conference that also has no other social scientists.
[00:39:48.270]I will be attending Tri-Society for the first time, which is not super dominated by social
[00:39:52.170]science.
[00:39:53.170]And I think that's true.
[00:39:54.590]It's probably going to be hard for us to find them at conferences unless they're very big
[00:39:57.530]national conferences.
[00:39:58.530]Like American Association of Geographers often has geospatial scientists and social scientists
[00:40:03.610]together.
[00:40:04.610]But what I would best recommend is look, are there social scientists in your department?
[00:40:12.130]When you look up your Google Scholar and your scope is searching your research field and
[00:40:16.730]you add social science to it, are there social scientists that are doing work within the
[00:40:21.030]scope of your discipline or field of interest?
[00:40:24.210]And contact them.
[00:40:26.330]We're usually very open to collaborations.
[00:40:28.410]And you might look to your social science departments.
[00:40:32.430]Sociology and psychology often have environmental sociologists and environmental psychologists
[00:40:37.010]that are doing that kind of work.
[00:40:38.450]And I'm sure they would love to hear more about partnering with folks.
[00:40:40.910]Excellent.
[00:40:41.910]Thank you.
[00:40:42.910]Follow up real quick.
[00:40:43.910]I wanted to know if you could elaborate a little bit more on the process of program
[00:40:48.130]evaluation and maybe some of those perspectives that you refined in order to evaluate a certain
[00:40:54.850]program.
[00:40:55.850]Sure.
[00:40:56.850]I have a paper coming out on how I think.
[00:40:58.290]Evaluating blended learning programs are extremely difficult.
[00:41:03.590]Because a blended learning program, evaluating online content is not that hard.
[00:41:07.850]You have a pre-post or you do a post-test.
[00:41:09.870]They are all in that materials together.
[00:41:12.710]It's like doing a class evaluation.
[00:41:14.770]When you move on to adult learning principles, adults don't have to take every module in
[00:41:19.070]a course.
[00:41:20.070]And if they're blended, they're not even taking all of them in person.
[00:41:24.290]So if I were to do that differently, I think a pre-post is a goal standard but sometimes
[00:41:28.170]unrealistic in application.
[00:41:32.290]Even if I were to do a pre-post or a post, what I realized in this project is because
[00:41:36.070]of all the partners that were involved in actually implementing that work, they should
[00:41:40.050]have all been involved in buying into that evaluation.
[00:41:43.990]And they should have all been able to provide content to say how can we find questions that
[00:41:46.790]align with your goals as an organization but also our evaluation needs so that you actually
[00:41:51.330]push the survey.
[00:41:52.330]Because I had a lot of challenges in getting them to do that, so evaluation is about
[00:41:58.050]clear planning and understanding what your objectives and the content of that program
[00:42:01.990]is.
[00:42:02.990]If the program is constantly changing, then that would be a challenge.
[00:42:05.950]But also, sometimes with my nonprofit, it's a matter of what is the actual objective.
[00:42:10.570]Their objective they thought was looking at adoption, but a several month participation
[00:42:15.630]in a program, you're not going to be able to tie that to adoption immediately.
[00:42:19.090]You're going to have to follow up with them later.
[00:42:21.410]But what we said is let's look at community development.
[00:42:25.090]Are they forming communities of practice that are actually engaging?
[00:42:27.930]With each other to create support networks for adoption?
[00:42:30.770]That's probably a more feasible objective that we could tie into the program.
[00:42:33.610]And so that is something that you need to sometimes have with your program.
[00:42:36.270]But also, it might depend on what their funders are wanting.
[00:42:39.810]Thank you. Yeah.
[00:42:45.610]Thank you for this presentation.
[00:42:48.370]Go speak a little bit to the next step.
[00:42:51.990]So you gathered this information about by interviewing and other things,
[00:42:56.450]this group of people
[00:42:57.810]but now we need to take that to the wider group, right?
[00:43:00.390]We need to take that to the rest of the farmers to try to move towards that adoption.
[00:43:03.750]Talk about the steps of taking your information and having that be useful into the next level.
[00:43:10.830]Maybe that's extension, maybe that's whatever it is in whatever place it is.
[00:43:14.610]That's a great question. That's something I've been thinking about a lot.
[00:43:16.590]I think a lot of social science has gone and identified several barriers and opportunities for farmers.
[00:43:21.270]And some of that has translated into support for policy work as a broad support but one of the things I would
[00:43:27.690]really like to build as a lab myself is looking at as extension and maybe
[00:43:32.410]developing methods that are grounded in social science findings and theories
[00:43:35.790]that can support farmers and thinking through those barriers. So sometimes we
[00:43:40.110]think about what are barriers to adoption. Some of them are infrastructure.
[00:43:43.650]Those are things that we maybe have less control over. Maybe that's something we
[00:43:46.570]need funding for or program. But oftentimes there are other concerns
[00:43:50.850]around like they want the land to be sustainable for their future generations
[00:43:55.110]but they're unsure of the
[00:43:57.570]benefits of that process or there's a lot of anxiety around the risks and
[00:44:01.590]there are tools that we have that can help farmers think through that right.
[00:44:05.430]Actually have them like talk through it and develop communities so they have
[00:44:08.130]support for that. And I think working with Extension to train and cross train
[00:44:12.270]for tools to do that is one step in one way to move that forward. But I also
[00:44:18.090]think community-based research is going to be a big one and you're going to see
[00:44:21.150]that and the idea that is not to be broadly applicable but specifically
[00:44:24.330]let's start targeting communities and saying let's work with
[00:44:27.450]you, let's do these interviews, let's aggregate it up and then we can feed
[00:44:29.970]back into you and talk about how as a community can we start developing
[00:44:33.210]pathways. And I think part of the thriving cropscapes will help support a
[00:44:37.210]little bit of that and having the focus groups come together and actually think
[00:44:40.450]about pathways for support that we can translate and that requires like
[00:44:44.730]constant collaboration, right? It's moving that forward but then finding partners
[00:44:49.170]that are willing to do the training and engaging and then having institutional
[00:44:52.630]support to make that last. I don't think it's easy. I don't think there's like any one clear answer
[00:44:57.330]but that's my health anyway. Questions?
[00:45:05.830]Okay. Great. Thank you so much, Brooke. Thank you.
[00:45:13.010]Thank you.
[00:45:17.630]Thank you.

The screen size you are trying to search captions on is too small!

You can always jump over to MediaHub and check it out there.

Comments

0 Comments

Cultivating Collaboration: Incorporating Social Science for Innovative Approaches to Agriculture and Wildlife Research

Description

Searchable Transcript

Comments icon comment

Related Channels

Comments