Exploring the Influence of Demographic Impact on Agricultural and Science Knowledge in Georgia
Le résumé fourni par la source
In an era marked by widespread access to information and debates over truth, the need for scientific and agricultural knowledge has become increasingly crucial. This study examined the demographic characteristics and baseline science and agricultural knowledge scores of respondents in Georgia using a non-probability, purposive sampling approach delivered through a Qualtrics survey. Results showed significant variation in science knowledge scores based on ethnicity, generational age, education, income, political ideology, and political affiliation, with higher scores among Boomers and the Silent Generation, individuals with graduate or professional degrees, and those with higher incomes. Gender differences in science knowledge were not statistically significant. Agricultural knowledge scores, however, varied significantly by gender, generational age, education, and political ideology. Female respondents, Boomers, and those with graduate or professional degrees scored highest, while no significant differences were observed based on ethnicity, income, or political affiliation. The findings highlight the importance of demographic factors in shaping science and agricultural literacy and emphasize the need for targeted educational policies and public outreach efforts. Addressing these disparities is critical for fostering a greater understanding of complex scientific and agricultural issues in society.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Exploring the Influence of Demographic Impact on Agricultural and Science Knowledge in Georgia
- Date Crossref
- 24/06/2025
- Éditeur
- American Association for Agricultural Education
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.