IndexesIndex by Title

A

• AAACE Changed Our Lives: NPAC and Agricultural Communication in the '50s. Miller, M., 79(3) 1-11.
• Accountability, Information and Communications Systems (AICS): Washington State's Approach to Accountability Reporting. Duncan, 85(2) 7-20.
• Accessibility Regulations and Tips for Reaching Older Adults and People with Disabilities. Newman, 90(4) 9-17.
• ACE Membership: A Benchmark Study. White, 91(3-4) 57-78.
• Adapting Prior Television Production Experience for Distance Education Instructional Design. Telg, 79(4) 1-16.
• Adroit Accountability or Keeping a Step Ahead. Richardson, 84(3) 20-29.
• Affective Problems in Writing. Nehiley, 76(2) 19-24.
• Agent Satisfaction with Extension Publications: An Exploratory Study. Scherer, 74(2) 37-43.
• Agricultural Blogosphere (The): A Snapshot of New Agricultural Communicators Online. Rhoades, 91(3-4) 37-55.
• Agricultural Communication Efforts During the Florida Medfly Infestations of 1997 and 1998. Telg, 85(1) 7-23.
• Agricultural Literacy: A Framework for Communicating to the Public Sector. Frick, 75(2) 42-50.
• Applying Lessons from Text Research to Extension Educational Media. Boone, 80(3) 1-10.
• Approach to Annual Reports by Agricultural Research Departments. Kern, 76(1) 40-43.
• Approach to Including Ethics in Agricultural Communications Teaching. Hays, 74(2) 9-13.
• Are You Being Served? Gauging Customer Service. Boone, 82(3) 7-19.
• Assessing Interactive Videodisc in Extension. Rockwell, 74(1) 34-42.
• Assessing Internet Use in Florida Newsrooms. Rhoades, 89(2) 37-49.
• Assessment of Learner Outcomes As a Model for Evaluation of Distance Education. Laughlin, 82(4) 7-21.
• Assessment of Program Delivery to Small Farmers: Fax Information Center System at Satellite Locations. Richardson, 82(1) 21-30.

B

• Basic Primer on Copyrights on the World Wide Web. Loundy, 80(4) 1-14.
• Big Green and Careful: How Major California Newspapers Covered Two Ballot Initiatives in the 1990 General Election. Beall, 76(1) 6-11.
• Biotechnology: The Future as Viewed by Land-grant University Administrators. Anderson, 76(1) 19-23.
• Blogging Agricultural News: A New Technology to Distribute News Real-Time. Fannin, 89(2) 51-57.
• Bridging Borders: Organizing Short-Term Agricultural Communication Exchange Programs. Rhoades, 90(2) 17-27.
• Bridging the Gap with High-Tech: Are We Ready? Hutchcroft, 74(1) 43-49.
• Brief History of ACE, A. Carnahan, 84(3) 7-19.

C

• Case Study of Online Learners Participating in the Oregon State University Extension Service Master Gardener Training Program, A. Rost, 86(2) 7-16.
• Change and the Agricultural Communicator: Electronic Dissemination of Extension Information. Beck, 78(1) 1-10.
• Changing Horses: Shifting Agricultural Experiment Station Publications from Paper to Electronic Format. Rhodenbaugh, 87(1) 7-26.
• Characteristics, Educational Preparation, and Membership In Professional Organizations of Agricultural Communicators. Buck, 79(2) 1-14.
• Communicating Biotechnology: Relationships Between Tone, Issues, and Terminology in U.S. Print Media Coverage. Miller, 87(3) 29-40.
• Communicating with Farmers About Environmental Issues. Bruening, 75(1) 34-41.
• Communication and Behavior Change in Rice Farmers' Pest Management: The Case of Using Mass Media in Vietnam. Escalada, 83(1) 7-26.
• Communication on the World Wide Web: Designing an Effective Homepage. Kelleher, 81(2) 29-42.
• Communication Preferences of Politically Active Agricultural Leaders. Telg, 89(2) 7-20.
• Communications Challenges in a Smaller World. Richardson, 74(2) 14-20.
• Communications Methods Used by Agricultural Extension Agents. Bouare, 74(1) 1-7.
• Communicator Roles in Third World Development. Agunga, 77(1) 26-39.
• Communicators As Architects of Change. King, 87(1) 39-41.
• Community Leaders' Views on Water Quality BMPs in Kansas. Hill, 90(1) 33-54.
• Comparing Ethical Concerns of Agricultural and General Journalists. Reisner, 75(1) 42-48.
• Computer Applications in Extension Water Quality Programs. Makuch, 76(1) 24-30.
• Concerns Affecting Computer Usage by County Extension Educators in Florida. Ruppert, 81(3) 3-12.
• Counting Room Voices in the Farm Publisher-Reader-Advertiser Triad. Banning, 88(4) 23-38.
• Course Work Offered in Agricultural Communication Programs. Reisner, 74(1) 18-25.
• Cow That Stole Christmas: Framing the First U.S. Mad Cow Crisis, The. Ashlock, 90(2) 29-46.
• Creative Work Environment: Manager and Employee Perceptions of Factors that Influence Creativity Within Land-Grant Communication Units. Whaley, 78(3) 1-15.
• Creating an Innovative Web-Backbone Participatory Radio-Based Agricultural Communication System: The Russian Rural Information Network. Perov, 86(4) 31-37.
• Critical Thinking Dispositions of Agricultural Communications Students. Bisdorf-Rhoades, 89(1) 25-34.

D

• Decision Data Service: A New Resource for Communications Planning. Snowdon, 75(1) 1-7.
• Defining Research Productivity: It Depends Upon Who You Are. Ross, 78(1)11-21.
• Delivery Methods Preferred by Targeted Extension Clientele for Receiving Specific Information. Richardson, 78(1) 22-32.
• Demystifying the Puzzle of Applied Communication Research. Tucker, 88(4) 39-53.
• Department Head Perceptions of the Need for Distance Education in the Agricultural Sciences. Bowen, 79(1) 1-12.
• Designing Inservice Education for Extension Personnel: The Role of Learning Styles in Computer Training Programs. Gamon, 80(4) 15-24.
• Designing Multilingual Communications. Chu, 84(2) 7-28.
• Determining a Standard for Number of Viewers of Educational Programs Delivered Through Government Access Cable TV. Smith, M., 74(2) 25-32.
• Developing an International Framework and Agenda for Agricultural Communications Research. Doerfert, 91(3-4) 7-21.
• Developing and Communicating Effective Program Success Stories for Enhanced Accountability. Richardson, 83(4) 7-22.
• Developing Public Relations Curricula in Agricultural Communications. Sitton, 89(3) 23-37.
• Diffusion of Agricultural Health and Safety Information: A Study of Farmers and Extension Agricultural Engineers. Oskam, 79(1) 13-25.
• Disaster Communication on the Internet: An Examination of 12 Disaster Relief Web Sites. Paul, 85(1) 43-61.
• Disseminating Crop Variety Trial Results Via Agricultural Newspaper Supplements. Fett, 79(2) 15-24.
• Disseminating News Releases by Clip Sheets: Sometimes the Old Ways Still Work. Thomas, 80(1) 1-4.

E

• Edible Connections: A Model for Citizen Dialogue Used to Discuss Local Food, Farm and Community Issues. Thomson, 85(1) 25-42.
• Educational Methods Used and Subject Matter Areas Delivered by Extension Agents in South Karnataka, India. Radhakrishna, 76(1) 12-18.
• Effect of Labeling Genetically Modified Food on Perceptions of Accountability, The. Irani, 88(1) 29-42.
• Effect of Message Frames on Attitudes Toward Internationalizing Agricultural Extension, The. Lundy, 91(1&2) 31-49.
• Effective First Impressions Online: A Case Study of Working With Industry Professionals to Analyze Web Site Usability. Rhoades, 91(1&2) 51-63.
• Effectiveness of Automated Radio News Services. Brooks, 76(1) 44-48.
• Effectiveness of Delivering Leader Training Lessons Via Satellite. Mesecher, 79(1) 26-33.
• Emerging Model for a Farmer Information and Advisory Service for Russia, An. Mikhailenko, 86(4) 17-29.
• Enhancing Professionalism in Academic Agricultural Communications Programs: The Role of Accreditation. Tucker, 86(1) 28-50.
• Entertainment and Agriculture: An Examination of the Impact of Entertainment Media on Perceptions of Agriculture. Lundy, 91(1&2) 65-79.
• Evaluating Alumni Publications: A Readership Survey of the Graduates of an Agricultural College. Gerakis, 81(2) 19-27.
• Evaluating Alternatives for Communicating About Food Risk. Fisher, 78(2) 1-12.
• Evaluation of a County Extension Office's Use of Mass Media: A User Perspective. Fett, 79(1) 34-44.
• Evaluation of the Relevance of a Web-based "Ask an Expert" Feature: StratSoy and Soy and Human Health Queries. Wool, 84(1) 7-22.
• Evaluation of the Use of Water Quality Videotapes by County Extension Offices in Iowa. Gamon, 78(2) 13-23.
• Examination of On-The-Job Writing of Recent College of Agricultural Sciences Graduates. Scanlon, 77(2) 1-11.
• Examination of the Ethical Issues Facing Agricultural Communicators In Seven Agricultural Communication Organizations. Oliver, 79(3) 12-27.
• Examining New Directions in Media and Channel Selection in the Adoption Process. Jefferson, 76(2) 59-71.
• Exploring the Baseline: What Michigan Residents Know About Michigan State University Extension. Probyn, 89(1) 35-49.
• Extension Agent Attitudes Toward Paired/Cooperative Computer-Assisted Instruction for In-Service Training. Makuch, 78(1) 33-39.
• Extension Agent Attitudes Toward PENpages As A Computer-Based Information Service. Shaffer, 76(2) 25-33.
• Extension Bulletins and the Future of Our Past. Scholl, 88(1) 55-57.
• Extension on the Brink - Meeting the Private Sector Challenge in the Information Marketplace. Boehlje 82(3) 21-35.
• Extensions of Extension: Socialization and Credibility Constraints on Private Crop Production Advisors. Walters, 75(2) 30-41.

F

• Fading Voices: A 10-Year Trend Within an Agricultural Advertiser-Media-Reader Triad. Banning, 85(2) 21-38.
• Farm Broadcaster Knowledge and Beliefs of Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Organisms. Doerfert, 89(4) 55-68.
• Farmers' Voices: Concerns within the Agricultural Advertiser-Media-Reader Triad. Banning, 88(2) 7-20.
• Ferment in Our Field: Viewing Agricultural Communication Research From a Social Science Perspective. Tucker, 80(4) 25-41.
• Fields of Danger: Communicating Agricultural Safety and Health Information. Oskam, 76(2) 1-8.
• Fill 'er Up: Automating Hometown News Releases. Phillips, 82(2) 21-26.
• Firefighter Public Information Officers' Communication Effectiveness with the Media During the 1998 Florida Wildfires. Telg, 83(2) 7-21.
• Five Myths About eXtension. Meisenbach, 91(1&2) 11-13.
• Focus Group Study of Agricultural Marketing Programs. Sperbeck, 76(2) 75-78.
• Framing Biotechnology: A Comparison of U.S. and British National Newspapers. Lundy, 88(2) 37-49.
• Framing of Mad Cow Media Coverage. Ruth, 89(4) 39-54.
• From Budgets to Video News Releases: Television News Components In Agricultural Communications Programs at Land-Grant Universities. Booth, 76(2) 9-18.

G

• Getting Serious About Diversity: Reaching Out to Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Donnellan, 88(3) 33-45.
• GNC University: A Case Study in Partnering Business and Education through Distance Learning. Lundy, 88(2) 51-60.
• Graduate Education in Agricultural Communication: The Need and Role. Boone, 77(1) 15-25.
• Gauging Distance Education Students' Comfort Level With Technology and Perception of Self-Assessment and Technology Training Initiatives. Irani, 86(2) 45-55.
• Glitz, Glamour, and the Farm: Portrayal of Agriculture as the Simple Life. Ruth, 89(4) 21-37.

H

• Health and Safety Communication in the Workplace: A Case Study of California Farmers. Grieshop, 83(3) 7-21.
• How Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) Can Work to Enhance Distance Delivery of Courses. Bielema, 81(4) 3-17.
• How Do Agricultural Journalists Write: Social and Cognitive Behaviors of a Specialized Writing Process. Elefson, 76(1) 31-39.
• How Effective Are Video Teleconferences? Patterson, 76(2) 72-74.
• How Newspapers in Kansas are Using News Releases from K-State Research and Extension. Melgares, 87(3) 15-27.

I

• Identifying Extension Information Delivery Methods for Environmental Issues. Rollins, 75(2) 1-9.
• Identifying Informational Sources and Educational Methods for Soil Conservation Information Used by Landowners of Highly Erodible Fields. Gamon, 76(1) 1-5.
• Illinois Steward Readership Survey. Snowdon, 79(4) 1-16.
• Impact of Communication and Innovation Variables on Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices. Alonge, 76(2) 34-42.
• Impact of Communication Apprehension and Communication Skills Training on Interaction in a Distance Education Course. Kelsey, 84(4) 7-21.
• Influence of Agricultural Trade Publications on the News Agendas of National Newspapers and News Magazines. Sweeney, 84(1) 23-45.
• Influence of Involvement, Institutional Affiliation, and Geographic Location on Membership Retention in Voluntary Professional Organizations. White, 89(3) 39-55.
• Influence of Perceived Food Risk and Source Trust on Media System Dependency, The. Whaley, 88(1) 9-27.
• Influences on Professional Behavior of Agricultural Communications Staff. Diel, 79(2) 1-14.
• Information and Training Needs of Agricultural Faculty Related to Distance Education. Miller, G., 81(1) 1-9.
• Information Transfer Materials for Interested Publics: A Survey of Water Resources Research Institutes. Houtman, 75(2) 10-14.
• Innovative Radio Delivery Systems: The Pony Express Still Works. Rostad, 78(3) 16-28.
• Integrating Critical Thinking Into Agricultural Communications Curricula. Telg, 89(3) 13-21.
• International Agricultural Communicators for the 1990s. Hutchcroft, 75(1) 8-15.
• Interpersonal Communication Strengthens Web-Based Instruction. Donaldson, 83(3) 22-32.
• Invisible Divide: Farm Workers and Telephone Accessibility. Grieshop, 87(1) 27-38.
• Iowa Corn and Soybean Producers’ Use of Communication Channels. Licht, 90(4) 19-38.
• Is It the Sweet Siren of Technology or Just an Ill Wind? King, 75(1) 49-55.
• Is Print Dead? Characterizing the Influence of Print and Online Audiences From a Readership Survey. Herring, 91(3-4) 23-35.
• Is There a Communication Media Bias in Development Projects? Crowder, 75(2) 15-20.
• It Takes Two: Public Understanding of Agricultural Science and Agricultural Scientists' Understanding of the Public. Lundy, 90(1) 55-68.

J

K

L

• Lessons Learned In Distributing Videotapes In Demand. Brooks, 75(1) 31-33.
• Level of Preparedness for Managing Crisis Communication on Land-Grant Campuses. Whiting, 88(3) 7-20.
• Low-Cost Analysis of the Effectiveness of College of Agriculture News Releases, A. Skillman, 87(3) 7-14.

M

• Making of 'Pulp Feathers', The. Meyer, 86(3) 37-40.
• Marginalization of Food Safety Issues: An Interpretive Approach to Mass Media Coverage. Ten Eyck, 84(2) 29-47.
• Marketing: An Emerging Area. Carlson, 74(2) 1-8.
• Marketing Extension Gardening Publications in Boise Nurseries and Garden Centers in 1994 and 1995. Fritz, 81(1) 23-29.
• Measuring the Impact on Farmers of Agricultural Radio and Television Programs in Southwest Nigeria. Yahaya, 86(3) 24-36.
• Methods of Observing Agricultural Journalists. Elefson, 76(2) 50-58.
• Metro News Journalists Critique Food Biotechnology. Vestal, 83(2) 22-34.
• Michigan High School Science Teacher Perceptions of Futures Magazine as a Pedagogical Resource and Career Exploration Tool. Suvedi, 75(1) 24-30.
• Ministry of Agriculture Perspective on the Farmer Information and Advisory Service in the Russian Agricultural and Food Sector, A. Veselovsky, 86(4) 39-45.
• Model for Extension Publication Planning and Scheduling Systems. Winn, 82(1) 7-20.
• Modeling Preference for Agricultural College Publications: A Readership Study of Missouri's Focus21. Tucker, 81(4) 18-40.
• Musical Chairs: Preparing Extension Communication Units for Inevitable Change. Herring, 90(3) 9-16.

N

• New Directions for ACE. Forte, 74(2) 33-36.
• Newspaper Coverage of Swine Production Issues: A Closer Look at Reporters and Their Objectivity. Sitton, 88(2) 21-35.
• Newspaper Coverage of the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Outbreak in the United States: A Content Analysis. King, 90(3) 33-48.

O

• Opinion Formation on Environmental Protection: Understanding the Origins of Attitudes Toward Resource Enhancement and Protection in Iowa. Rodriguez, 82(2) 27-45.
• Opinions of Practitioners Concerning Curricular Requirements of Agricultural Communication Students at the University of Florida. Sprecker, 82(1) 31-42.
• Organizational Satisfaction and Participation: ACE Members Speak Out. Donnellan, 84(4) 23-39.
• Overview of Agricultural Communications Programs and Curricula. Reisner, 74(1) 8-17.
• Overview of Electronic Publishing and Extensible Markup Language (XML). Kane, 82(2) 7-19.

P

• Perception Change in Rice Pest Management: A Case Study of Farmers' Evaluation of Conflict Information. Heong, 81(2) 3-17.
• Perceptions of a Master of Science Degree in Agricultural Communication by Agricultural Communicators in Education (ACE): A National Study. Wilson, 75(2) 21-29.
• Perceptions of Iowa Beginning Farmers Toward the Delivery of Education. Trede, 82(4) 22-33.
• Personnel Interviewing Via Videoconferencing. Bower, 78(2) 24-33.
• Planning for the Next Wave: Assessing Current Faculty Distance Education Training and Development Needs. Irani, 85(4) 7-18.
• Podcasting Agriculture News: Producing Portable Audio News for Farmers and Ranchers. Fannin, 90(2) 9-16.
• Potential of Using Educational Technologies to Meet the Needs of Agriculture Graduates. Nti, 82(4) 34-47.
• Preferences of a Traditional Extension Audience for Self-Directed Delivery Methods. Caldwell, 79(4) 31-40.
• Preferred Communication Channels of Homemakers. Boone, 85(4) 19-35.
• Preparation for an International Development Assignment: How to Be Successful. Carey, 80(2) 1-11.
• Print and Television News Components of Agricultural Communications Programs at Land-Grant Universities. Telg, 77(1) 9-14.
• Print News Components in Agricultural Communications Programs at Land-Grant Universities. Smith, E., 78(2) 32-47.
• Prior Experience, Perceived Usefulness and the Web: Factors Influencing Agricultural Audiences' Adoption of Internet Communication Tools. Irani, 84(2) 49-63.
• Publish, Don't Perish: Experienced Authors Share Ideas. Patterson, 74(2) 21-24.

Q

R

• RadioSource.NET: Case-study of a Collaborative Land-Grant Internet Audio Project Sohar, 86(1) 9-27.
• Readability of Written Mass Mailing Material Produced at the County Level of the Alabama Cooperative Extension Service. Johnson, 76(1) 49-56.
• Readership Assessment of Missouri's Discover&Enlighten: Implications for Publications and Teaching Programs. Wood-Turley, 87(2) 15-30.
• Readership Study of an Agricultural Outlook Insert in a Farm Newspaper. Sperbeck, 76(2) 87-90.
• Readership Survey of the FFA New Horizons Magazine. Connors, 78(3) 29-38.
• Reaching Florida Urban Opinion Leaders: Uncovering Preferred Communication Channels. Ruth, 88(4) 7-21.
• Reaching the Black Press with the Land Grant Message. Benedict, 81(1) 11-22.
• Reaching Traditional and Nontraditional Extension Audiences. Richardson, 81(3) 13-23.
• Recovery Plan Awareness Among South Florida Land-Use Decision-Makers. Sinclair, 89(2) 21-35.
• Reply to Doerfert: A Call to ‘Skate’ with Caution. Tucker, 88(4) 55-57.
• Research Abstracts: A First for JAC and ACE! Thomson, 85(3) 17-28.
• Roaming the Changing Theoretical Landscape of Agricultural Communications. Evans, 90(1) 15-32.
• Rose By Any Other Name Might Be More Noticed: Attracting Journalists' Attention in the Digital Age, A. Day, 87(2) 7-13.

S

• Science-Based TV Spots: Educating the Public About Forestry. Hino, 80(1) 5-20.
• Selected College Students' Knowledge and Perceptions of Biotechnology Issues Reported in the Mass Media. Wingenbach, 86(3) 7-23.
• Selected Consumers' Evaluations of Genetically Modified Food Labels. Meyers, 91(1&2) 15-29.
• Settle for More. Sigurdson, 89(1) 51-53.
• Sludge Under Suspicion: Explaining Perceptions of Risks from a Relatively "Unknown" Technology. Rodriguez, 80(2) 12-25.
• Some Media Relations Success Stories. Sperbeck, 81(3) 24-39.
• Sources and Channels of Information Used by Educational Program Clients. Israel, 90(4) 55-78.
• Southern Agricultural Communications Undergraduate Programs: A Survey. Weckman, 84(4) 41-50.
• Student Perceptions of WebCT in a Web-Supported Instructional Environment: Distance Education Technologies for the Classroom. Lindner, 85(4) 36-47.
• Suburbanites' Perceptions About Agriculture: The Challenge for Media. Thomson, 80(3) 11-20.
• Successful Writing for the Journal of Applied Communications. Telg, 85(3).
• Sugar Tax Fight. Telg, 84(1) 47-57.
• Survey on Use of Quotes by Agricultural Communicators. Rost, 77(2) 12-17.
• Sustainability of Scientific Journals in the Developing World With Special Reference to Bangladesh. Ahmed, H., 83(4) 23-42.
• Syndicating Agriculture News With RSS. Fannin, 89(3) 7-11.

T

• Targeting Hispanic Immigrants with Food Safety Communications. Boone, 88(3) 21-31.
• Texas Agricultural Organization Board Members' Knowledge of and Information Sources for the 2002 Farm Bill. Catchings, 89(4) 69-81.
• Texas Clipping Effort Doesn't Leave Placement Tracing to Sheer Luck. Phillips, 88(3) 47-56.
• Then and Now: An Eight-Year Look at the U.S. Land-Grant University Agricultural Communications Profession, 1987-1995. Thomas, 80(2) 26-34.
• To Merge or Not To Merge: Observations and Recommendations. Vacin, 75(2) 51-55.
• Trends in Michigan Farmers' Information-Seeking Behaviors and Perspectives on the Delivery of Information. Suvedi, 83(3) 33-50.
• Trends in Urban Newspaper Use of Farm News: A Qualitative Study. Hays, 77(2) 18-23.

U

• Upland Farmers' Comprehension of Pictorial Messages on Environmental Protection. Gravoso, 84(3) 30-43.
• Usage and Impact of the Internet for Appalachian Chambers of Commerce. Lindner, 83(1) 42-52.
• Use of Agricultural Video News Releases by Television News Outlets. Telg, 76(2) 79-86.
• Use of Electronic Transmission by Agricultural Communications News Units. Fritz, 77(1) 1-8.
• Useful Water Quality Information Sources: The Farmers' Point of View. Bruening, 76(2) 43-49.
• Using Advanced Instructional Technology to Enhance Pesticide Applicator Training Programs. Weaver, 75(1) 16-23.
• Using Cross-Cultural Focus Groups as a Tool for Communication Campaign Design: An Example from Russia's Forest Project. Abbott, 86(4) 7-16.
• Using Feedback Panels to Analyze a Web Site's Target Audiences. Melgares, 89(4) 9-20.
• Using Focus Groups to Develop an Extension Home Horticulture Public Radio Program. Meyers, 90(4) 39-53.
• Using the Internet to Conduct College Credit Courses Developed From Extension Materials. Nehiley, 82(3) 37-45.
• Use of Radio in Arkansas for Agricultural Information. Barclay, Jr., 81(4) 42-51.

V

• Video Teleconference Evaluation at Land-Grant Universities. Dodrill, 79(3) 28-39.
• Video Ventures in Multimedia: The Making of an Accountability Database. Dodrill, 80(1) 21-28.
• Visual Special Effects in Instructional Video Programs and Their Impact on Adult Learning: A Review of the Literature. Greer, 78(3) 39-47.

W

• Visual Special Effects in Instructional Video Programs and Their Impact on Adult Learning: A Review of the Literature. Greer, 78(3) 39-47.
• Web Site Media Relations: A New Direction for Agricultural Public Relations Professionals. Ruth, 89(1) 9-23.
• What Are Agriculture Industry Professionals Trying to Tell Us? Implications for University-Level Agricultural Communications Curricula. Doerfert, 90(3) 17-32.
• What's the Impact with Congressional Aides? A Study of Communication Attitudes and Behaviors. Boone, 86(2) 17-44.
• Who Controls the Message? Vacin, 77(2) 24-30.
• Who Is an ACE Member? Results From a 2005 ACE Member Survey. McGovney-Ingram, 90(3) 49-60.
• 'Who's Out There?' - Strengthening Internet Communication for Agriculture Through Consideration of Audience Dimensions and User Needs. Emery, 83(1) 27-41.
• Why Haven't You Published That Research (and Your Other Ideas?) Montgomery, 80(1) 29-41.
• Working with Local Survey Researchers to Understand Extension Marketing Efforts. DeMarco, 80(3) 21-30.
• Writing and the Productive Agricultural Scientist. Donnellan, 74(1) 26-33.

X

Y

Z

ISSN 1051-0834 ©