Information sharing has changed with the growth of online sources, therefore this research examined the sources of information farmers now use and trust for soil management. Farmer influencers are increasingly important for the dissemination of agricultural information. They are not just celebrities; they can be farmer influencers who share credible and trustworthy information which are important for the adoption of sustainable farming innovations (Rust et al. 2020). Furthermore, the growth of social media platforms has introduced a whole new breed of relatable, and easily accessible, farmer influencers (Zhang et al. 2020). For example, this role was found to be significant for the learning and decision-making of no-till farmers in UK (Skaalsveen et al. 2020). Working with these types of influencers as part of a communication strategy may help governments reach farming audiences in a way that feels more relatable than traditional information dissemination methods including “experts”. Instead of talking to the audience using experts, employing farmer influencers can open up new communication channels, creating an easily accessible information source that communicates with the modern farmer.
Unsurprisingly, in contrast to previous studies (Chowdhury and Odame 2013; Kaushik et al. 2018; Mills et al., 2018), farmers and advisers in both Hungary and the UK are now frequently using digital channels to seek information on soil as it is freely accessible and useful, with farmers using agricultural social media sites and advisers regularly using online journals. Whilst most advisers in this study were sceptical of the soil management claims on social media sites, farmers were more willing to consume social media content from respected farmer “influencers”. Farmers are increasingly drawing on social media farmer influencers (Zhang et al. 2020) for information and these farmer influencers are the online version of Rogers’ (2003) opinion leaders or champions, who have the ability to inflence the diffusion of innovations. Influencers are important as they share endorsed opinions on social media platforms, which can help disseminate information quickly and broadly, and change norms about behaviours and practices (Kay et al. 2020). These farmer influencers also provide tangible evidence of the benefits of new management practices and technologies on farm, reducing the perceived risks associated with change (McKitterick et al. 2019). Consistent with studies examining the role of social networks on farming practices (Skaalsveen et al. 2020), findings from this study show a shift away from traditional sources of information such as broadsheet newspapers and periodicals towards digital and interpersonal sources including farmer influencers, which are often perceived as more credible and trustworthy.
The findings from this study provide support for Phillipov and Goodman’s (2017) argument that farmers are increasingly becoming celebrities in the same vein as celebrity chefs, and have the ability to influence the food system as a whole. Indeed, farmer networks on Twitter have been found to be quite strong and dense, with farmers tending to group with other farmers, with research scientists and other advisers on the periphery (Meador et al. 2021). These close-knit farmer social networks may enhance exchange of soil knowledge and uptake of innovations through growth of in-group social capital (Rust et al. 2020). This resonates with the finding of Mills et al. (2018) that virtual communities of practice are developing around soil management on Twitter in which farmer champions are emerging that are highly respected by other farmers. However, there are risks with only interacting with people who share similar views and beliefs through curating your own social media bubble (Colleoni et al. 2014). These risks include susceptibility to confirmation bias (Nickerson 1998) and content bias (Tian and Chao 2012), through seeking information that matches pre-existing beliefs (Colleoni et al. 2014). Such an approach could exacerbate lack of trust between “insiders” and perceived “outsiders”, even when the information of “outsiders” could provide additional benefits to farmers. Using trusted, perceived similar intermediaries may help to expand knowledge exchange beyond social media bubbles, building more bridging social capital to increase the chance of innovation (Rust et al. 2020). Opportunities also exist for “expert” advisers and others working in agricultural and rural sectors to engage on Twitter with well-connected individuals who can act as ‘brokers’ between stakeholder networks and “launch” information between science, policy and farmers (Meador et al. 2021).
In contrast to historic agricultural research (e.g. Eldon 1988; Fearne 1991), we found that it was not necessarily the traditional “expert” advisers that farmers preferred to go to when they wanted to learn about soil—instead, they often chose to learn from other farmers. In contrast to North America, where agronomists and agri-business companies are often viewed as trusted sources (e.g. Fransoo 2018), farmers in our research were less trusting of these sources. This may be in part due to the more recent privatisation of advice services in Europe, compared to North America where these actors have played a more prominent role in the advice system for longer. It may also in part be due to a wariness of biased commercial advice or in some cases limited expertise in soil management (Ingram 2008). That farmers are now turning to their peers for advice and support has also been observed in more recent studies (Joffre et al. 2020; McKitterick et al. 2019; McMorran 2021) as other farmers are perceived to not have a conflict of interests, and instead have applied, practical experience that is more relevant to the innovating farmer (Inman et al. 2018). Tsouvalis et al. (2000) argued that farmers particularly value knowledge gained through farming experience, and in turn value researchers and advisors who work directly with farmers. Using blended learning approaches have also been found to be important, for example, in addition to online sources, farmers also valued learning from experiences such as visiting sites where the new practices were being successfully implemented by other farmers (Cullen et al. 2016). This is consistent with experiential learning as argued for by Tsouvalis et al. (2000) and is particularly important for soil management (Ingram 2010). For example, Stoate et al. (2019) studied five participatory research projects working with farmers, concluding that direct engagement with farmers builds trust within the farming community, resulting in a greater shared understanding of how to address their soil management objectives. Farmers in our study were more trusting of other farmers and more likely to change their soil management based on farmers’ recommendations, indicating that social learning (Reed et al. 2010) through trusted, similar peers—such as other farmers—is important for farmers to be persuaded to act on that information. Applying the Diffusion of Innovation theory (Rogers, 1995), farmers raise their own awareness of soil issues via their social network, which leads to evaluation (i.e. verification) and then on to trials. In effect, farmers see themselves as the experts (Palmer et al. 2009).
Having said this, farmers in our study also often trusted agricultural levy boards and researchers at agricultural colleges due to their longstanding relationship with farmers, which allowed these institutions to build up credibility over time (Sutherland et al. 2013). It was important that information providers were perceived to have the farmers’ best interests at heart—a factor shown to increase trust (Head 2012). This is consistent with the experiential learning where farmers value information from researchers or technology developers who work with farmers (Stoate et al. 2019). Levy boards were believed to have this empathetic trait as these institutions were paid for by farmers and were thought to have shared values. Empathy and social similarity towards the farmer were therefore key in building trust (Neef and Neubert 2011).
With the growth of the Internet and social media, in contemporary society people have become more vocal about mistrust or a lack of confidence in information from some sources. When it came to distrusted sources, farmers from both countries did not trust “outsider scientists” (such as those not from agricultural levy boards or agricultural colleges). This is consistent with previous research where fabricated media stories—such as biased research produced by research institutions partnering with agrichemical industries (Blakemore 2018)—can undermine farmers’ perceptions of the research community (Stroud 2018). The recent farmer protests in India, one of the largest and longest acts of resistance against newly constituted farm laws, is a classic example of farmer anxieties and breakdown of trust between the government and farmers (Narayanan 2020; Mohan and Mistry 2020). The core problem was the inadequate stakeholder consultation before formulating laws, and inadequate discussion in parliament before laws were passed; and the perception amongst farmers that the laws were made in keeping with the interests of corporates in agribusiness, instead of the farmers (Mohan and Mistry 2020). Multiple rounds of talks between the government and the farm union leaders failed, and the debate continues to play out politically, through the media and social media, where distrust has been expressed in noted agriculture economists whose think pieces have been labelled as biased.
In addition to a perceived lack of empathy, farmers in our study did not trust outsider scientists due to the way information was communicated. To increase trust farmers need information that is accessible and easy to understand rather than advice provided being too technical to understand (Halabi and Carroll 2015). Building farmers’ trust in scientific recommendations for sustainable soil management technologies may, in addition to using a trusted, perceived similar third party, require careful translation of academese into communication styles more applicable for different farmer groups (Clark and Murdoch 1997). Another reason for the distrust by farmers from both countries towards scientists was reportedly because scientists had different goals to farmers: outsider scientists were thought to want journal article publications and research funding rather than create direct benefits for farmers. In effect, there was a perceived lack of homophily or perceived similarity between farmers and outsider scientists, supporting the use of diverse networks (Klerkx and Proctor 2013) and particularly farmers’ social networks (Skaalsveen et al. 2020).
Those interviewed in this research emphasised differences between farmers and certain types of trusted advisor, versus researchers and those (including certain advisors) with commercial interests. Farmers contested traditional notions of scientific “experts” versus those with “lay” or “local” knowledge, reframing farmers as the experts, based on experiential, situated knowledges and skills that were rooted in practical experience. The emphasis was on trust rather than expertise, exploring the various reasons why certain information sources were considered to be trustworthy or not, reframing expertise as the provision of information or knowledge that could be trusted. This resonates with calls to exercise caution over the use of terms such as expert, lay or local in relation to knowledge (Wynne 1996), which tends to emphasise difference and keep different knowledge communities apart. Instead, Tsouvalis et al. (2020) write about “knowledge cultures” to emphasise the complex processes through which knowledge is formed and transformed through social interaction and power relations, and how these processes in turn shape social norms, behaviours and cultures, as farmers derive meaning from the knowledge they embody through their farming practice.