Peer Knowledge Networking Groups Facilitate Social Connections, Information Sharing, and Collective Action

Peer knowledge networking group activities and membership

Four neighborhood groups were focused on the topic of vine mealybug (Planococcus vitis), an invasive pest of widespread concern in California (Daane et al. 2012). One group also discussed other topics (Table 1). Another neighborhood group initially formed around grape mealybug (Pseudococcus maritimus, an insect native to North America and vector of grapevine leafroll-associated virus-3 [Herrbach et al. 2017]) before evolving to cover other pests and diseases that its members considered to be of concern. Two neighborhood groups had a wider focus that included multiple salient threats. Of the two countywide groups, one focused broadly on viticultural challenges, and the other primarily addressed pest and disease management. An email listserv-based discussion was the primary activity of the broadly-focused countywide group. All other groups conduct face-to-face meetings multiple times per year to share information and experiences and to connect members. Three groups had organized group projects where quantitative data were collected and collated.

Countywide groups had a membership of 154 to over 200 (Table 1). The neighborhood groups were smaller; of the total membership of 12 to 70 individuals that received email updates or attended meetings irregularly, there were eight to 25 core members that regularly attended meetings. Respondents of the group member surveys worked in vineyards and/or wineries (63%), vineyard management companies (28%), or as consultants (7%). Viticulturists (35%) composed the largest job grouping. Other key decision-making roles were directors (13%), vineyard managers (7%), winemakers (7%), owners (4%), and outside advisers (6%; consultants, pest control advisers). Some respondents did not report job role (28%). Respondents were mostly active group members and had attended one to six group meetings in the year (mean = 2.84; standard deviation = 1.6). Four respondents had not attended any meetings.

Positive impacts of peer knowledge networking groups

The thematic analysis of coordinator interviews identified five top-level themes and 34 sub-themes. Eight sub-themes within Theme 1 detail the perceived positive impacts of the knowledge-sharing groups (Table 2). Three of these sub-themes are related to social network concepts. Coordinators noted that their groups were important venues to share knowledge and data. The type of information shared included anecdotal observations of disease risk, geographic distribution of disease and vectors, and numerical data such as insect trap counts. Group members shared knowledge of farming practices, including insights on efficacy, usefulness, and implementation. The groups allowed members to establish social connections by exchanging contact details and establishing relationships. Though this did not necessarily result in collective action within the group, it made it possible to reach out when opportunities for future collaborations arose, and for members to act as knowledge resources for one another. Simultaneously, the groups reduced neighborhood conflict by facilitating social contact and constructive conversations. For example, conflicts previously addressed through intervention of regulatory authorities were now raised and resolved through open communication between group members.

Three sub-themes emerged that relate to practical outcomes of group activities, including the perception that group activities increased adoption of practices because of group discussion, suggestions, and data collection projects. This resulted in a reduction in disease pressure and vector populations, an outcome reported by coordinators of the longer-running groups or by those where data collection projects quantified the reduction. In addition to providing actionable data for group members, group projects allowed coordinators to share these impacts within and beyond the group. Certain groups applied selective and collective pressure for regulatory change, including addressing an inconsistency from an organic certification agency and securing a pesticide use exemption.

The final two sub-themes are forward-looking. The groups were viewed as creating resilience to future challenges. The network of group relationships provided strong local foundations to respond to future threats, even if participation varied over time and the initial formative threats had subsided. Lastly, the groups were perceived to inspire new groups and future collaborations, as several coordinators described the genesis of their groups as deriving from the successful examples set by other peer knowledge networking groups.

The results of the member surveys reinforced the coordinators’ comments and provided insights into how members use information and participate in the groups (Figure 1 and Appendix 4). Overwhelmingly, members viewed their groups as successful. Thirty-one respondents (67%) thought their group had “some success” or had been “very successful”. None of the respondents thought their group had been “unsuccessful”, and only two respondents (4%) thought there was “little success” in achieving current goals and objectives. Eleven (24%) did not know and two (4%) did not answer. Most respondents (87%) reported that they had networked—described as establishing contact or a relationship—with other members and neighbors through membership in the group (Figure 1). Group membership led to collaborations with neighbors through activities such as sharing staff expertise (63%), data (61%), and/or by coordinating straightforward practices such as pesticide applications or mating disruption (52%). Complex or costly activities were less frequently reported. Fewer than half of respondents participated in a group project (41%), coordinated complex or high-cost practices (26%), or shared material or financial resources (11%). Groups influenced adoption of new practices and technology, with 57% reporting their companies adopted these after learning about them in the group. Total number of impacts reported was correlated with the number of meetings attended in the past 12 mo (r = 0.32; p = 0.035), indicating that greater engagement with the group was associated with greater impact. The 10 comments shared by respondents (Appendix 4) reinforced several of the impacts described previously, with one viticulturist adding that membership in the group supported their career growth.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1

Impact on respondents (n = 45) as a consequence of membership in a peer knowledge networking group, with examples given for impacts. One survey respondent did not answer the question.

Group challenges and strategies for promoting success

The challenges faced by the groups and their leaders, with strategies to address those challenges, are summarized in Themes 2 to 5 (Tables 3 and 4), along with example quotes (Appendix 5). The member survey generated a further 19 comments describing challenges and suggestions for improvement (Table 5).

Recruiting members to form a group was an early challenge faced by coordinators. To address this, they targeted key individuals who could be identified with the help of public resources; direct communication was used to persuade them to join. When developing recruitment strategies, group leaders considered existing relationships between potential members and why members may find participation difficult. Group members noted the difficulties inherent to convincing all neighbors in an identified area to participate. Regular communication by the coordinator was essential to sustaining membership and participation.

Deciding who to target for recruitment and whether to allow or exclude members in certain occupations was a challenge for some coordinators. It was noted that groups should be inclusive of farming styles and open to varied approaches. Given the groups’ purpose, those in grape production positions were generally prioritized for membership. However, involvement of other key decision-makers within the winegrape industry was beneficial. Individuals in adjacent organizations (e.g., university extension) were sometimes leveraged to support group activities. Being strategic about membership decisions avoided issues with topic drift and kept the group relevant for its members. Group members commented that in the presence of representatives from outside commercial entities (e.g., companies selling technology or chemicals), they could not openly share information, distracting from the stated purpose of the group.

Leadership was another theme that emerged from the coordinator interviews; a committed coordinator is critical to group success. Leadership activities included group communication, arranging and facilitating meetings, recruiting and retaining members, and coordinating group projects. Limited time was a key challenge for coordinators, who are unpaid volunteers spending up to 21 hr annually leading the group, with more time required if group projects are conducted. All coordinators were self-selected or nominated, and members were concerned that groups would disband without their coordinators. To address time burdens of leadership and ensure the succession of coordinators, several groups employ dual coordinators.

Four third-level sub-themes were coded within the group organization and process theme. At the outset, the groups needed to determine their purpose. Most groups had informal aims that were verbally agreed or implicitly assumed; other coordinators initially recorded some aims. In some instances, the purpose was very specific, whereas other groups were more broadly focused on sharing information. Uniting over a shared threat or building on existing farming practices were common reasons for groups to come together. To increase commitment and trust within the group, coordinators engaged members to jointly design the group purpose. Commitment to and understanding of the purpose was further enhanced by regularly and clearly articulating it to current and incoming members. The need for well-defined aims and objectives was emphasized by group members, who valued clear goals to justify their investment in group activities.

With the purpose of the group identified, meeting logistics and process needed to be determined. Regular meetings at appropriate times and consistent communication from the coordinator encouraged participation. Several members noted the scheduling challenges inherent to these groups. Most groups held informal meetings where members shared information. Several groups experimented with hosting technical guests or demonstrating practices and technology. Creating a safe conversational space was critical for allowing members to share information. Coordinators must strike a balance between informality that creates an open forum, and a basic structure to keep the discussion on-topic and relevant. Coordinators with strong facilitation and communication skills can guide discussion, promote transparent conversation, and manage conflict if it arises. Comments from group members indicated their desire for improved facilitation of meetings.

Three groups currently, or previously, conducted joint data collection projects such as insect population monitoring with pheromone-baited traps (MacDonald et al. 2021). Project success relied on the commitment of volunteers. Sustaining participation in a project can be difficult and a small number of people must be prepared to do much of the work. To sustain participation, groups set achievable goals and a reasonable timeline, made it easy to contribute to the project, protected the anonymity of data outside of the group, and communicated regularly about the project objectives. Successful projects often involved collaborations with adjacent organizations with complementary goals, such as extension professionals who provided technical assistance and resources. We did not code a ‘resources’ theme (Marek et al. 2015) because in general these groups do not demand a major investment of resources aside from the coordinators’ and members’ time and a meeting space easily supplied by a group member. However, materials and personnel skills were necessary to ensure success for the groups that conducted projects. In one case, a company ran their project at significant financial cost because they felt the return from collective action was worth their investment.

Social network analysis

We identified 249 network actors communicating about vineyard pest and disease centered on Napa County (Figure 2). Most (77%) of the actors in the Napa-centered pest and disease communication network were those working in vineyard teams involved in pest and disease management decisions (Table 6). Their primary job roles included vineyard managers, viticulturists, winemakers, owners, directors, company executives, and viticulture technicians. Other actors (18%) were key advisers for these decision-making teams, participating as consultants and pest control advisers, sales representatives, extension professionals, and university research scientists. The extension professionals included academics (advisors or specialists) affiliated with the University of California (UC) or Washington State University, as well as professional staff based in Napa County. Forty-five actors (18%) were identified as peer knowledge networking group members, with 31 (12%) belonging to one group and 14 (6%) belonging to more than one group. Viticulturists and vineyard managers comprised 42% of members belonging to a single group, with the remainder in diverse job roles. Members of multiple groups were predominantly (64%) viticulturists, with the remaining 36% composed of vineyard managers, winemakers, and a director.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2

Napa County-centered pest and disease knowledge network (n = 249) for the exchange of vineyard pest and disease information. Extension professionals were based in Northern California (Napa, Sonoma, and San Joaquin Counties) and Washington. One staff extension professional also works as a viticulture consultant. They are indicated as a staff extension professional but are included as a member of a single peer group for the permutation test calculations. UCCE, University of California Cooperative Extension.

The network structure suggests a hub of highly interconnected individuals surrounded by clusters of actors that tend to represent company teams and clients of consultants or vineyard management companies (Figure 2 and Table 7). Five different clusters of actors were isolated from the main network with no lines of communication reported. Members of one peer knowledge networking group were spread throughout the network, but members of multiple groups were all close to the central hub, as were the UC advisor and four professional extension staff based in Napa County. Extension professionals had the highest mean degree scores (11), followed by viticulturists and viticulture consultants (5.3 to 3.6), indicating that actors in these job roles communicated with the greatest number of people about pest and disease management. Decision-makers in other job roles communicated on average with fewer actors (≤2.7). The betweenness scores closely mirrored the degree scores, indicating that extension professionals, viticulturists, and viticultural consultants are key intermediaries for the flow of pest and disease information. The closeness scores were similar across most job roles (0.26 to 0.37), although it is notable that sales representatives were numerically (0.45) more efficient transmitters of pest and disease information than others.

On average, members of multiple groups had significantly higher degree and betweenness scores than members of one group, and both had higher scores than non-members (ps < 0.05) (Table 4). This indicated that group members, especially those who are members of multiple groups, communicate with significantly more network actors and are more important intermediaries for exchange of pest and disease information than non-members. There was a trend for members of multiple groups to score higher on closeness than those of one group, and both had higher scores than non-members. This indicates that group members are more efficient transmitters of information. However, these differences were statistically significant only when non-members were compared to members of multiple groups (p = 0.01).