Advertisement
Research Report

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

Malcolm B. Hobbs, Hannah G. Fendell-Hummel, Monica L. Cooper
Am J Enol Vitic.  2026  77: 0770013  ; DOI: 10.5344/ajev.2026.25056

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Horizontal bar graph shows 8 peer networking impacts, with responses ranging from 87 percent for networking to 11 percent for sharing resources. The horizontal bar graph shows 8 response categories on the vertical axis and a horizontal axis labelled Number of respondents that checked yes percent, with tick labels 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50. From top to bottom, the bars read Networked with a neighbor or other members, for example, exchanged contact details for future communication, established a relationship, 87 percent. Shared staff expertise with a neighbor outside of a group meeting, example, scouts, knowledge of how to implement a practice, 63 percent. Shared data individually with a neighbor outside of a group meeting, example, vector trapping data, disease incidence, 61 percent. Learned about a new practice or technology that your company has then implemented, 57 percent. Coordinated relatively straightforward practices with a neighbor, for example, timing pesticide sprays, coinciding with the deployment of mating disruption, 52 percent. Participated in a joint project organized by the group, for example, collecting vector or disease data requested and collated by the group, 41 percent. Coordinated high-cost or more complex practices or collaborations with a neighbor, for example, replanting bordering diseased blocks simultaneously, 26 percent. Shared financial or material resources with a neighbor, for example, specialist equipment, covering practice costs for a neighbor with fewer financial resources, 11 percent.
    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.

  • Network diagram shows many linked actors, with circular and triangular markers grouped in clusters and a legend identifying member and extension roles. The network diagram shows many small circular and triangular markers connected by thin lines, forming a dense central cluster with several smaller clusters extending outward at the upper, lower, left, and right areas. The legend below identifies the marker groups as members of a single peer knowledge networking group, members of multiple peer knowledge networking groups, other network actors, extension professional academic advisor or specialist, extension professional staff, and nonacademic viticulture team members affiliated with the University of California Cooperative Extension Napa. The central area contains the highest concentration of connected markers, while peripheral clusters contain fewer markers linked by longer lines to the main network.
    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.

Tables

  • Table 1

    Details of participating peer networking groups.

    Group nameTopicsPast and current activities
    County-level groupsVit Women (est. ~2005) 200+ membersViticulture farming challenges•    Email-based discussion to provide safe space for female viticulturists to share information, ask advice, and make industry connections.
    •    Occasional social events.
    Neighborhood Alliance for Vineyard Protection (NAViP) (est. 2018) 30 members regularly attend meetings 154 total members on email listViticulture farming challenges (emphasis on pests and diseases)•    Email-based discussion for members to share information and ask advice; three to five meetings per year.
    •    Website (www.navip.org) with interactive map to access publicly sourced vineyard contact details.
    •    Facilitates and supports smaller neighborhood groups in Napa County.
    •    Group data-sharing projects: powdery mildew spore counts and treehopper girdle monitoring.
    Neighborhood groupsRutherford Central (est. 2012) 8 members regularly attend meetings 20 total members on email listMealybugs, Pierce’s disease, Grapevine red blotch disease•    Four to six meetings of 1.5 hr per year. Host speakers for demonstrations and presentations.
    •    Primer factsheet on grape mealybug monitoring and management.
    •    Coordinated vine and block removal to mitigate leafroll and red blotch diseases.
    •    Collaborative male mealybug trapping project to track spread and coordinate pesticide sprays. Data are shared with adjacent neighborhood group.
    •    Contact list established for communicating with members.
    Jahant Area Vineyard Alliance (JAVA) (est. 2019) 25 members regularly attend meetings 70 total members on email listVine mealybug•    Multiple winter meetings, including hosting invited speakers.
    •    Trapping and mapping project: traps monitored and maps created of trap counts and where mating disruption deployed. Data are shared in meetings and via email and short videos (2 to 5 min).
    •    Website: www.lodigroweralliance.net
    Hillside (est. 2022) 8 membersVine mealybug•    Three online meetings of 50 min per year. Members share practices adopted, geographic extent of mealybug populations, schedules of practices.
    •    Contact list created for members to communicate with each other.
    •    Exerted collective pressure to have Argentine ant bait approved by organic certification agency.
    Oakville West (est. 2022) 5 members regularly attend meetings 12 total members on email listVine mealybug and general viticultural challenges•    Two to three meetings of 1 hr per year are an open forum for sharing ideas and establishing relationships.
    •    Email list established for communicating with members.
    Rutherford North (est. 2023) (currently inactive)Vine mealybug•    Two meetings in 2023 and 2024 to educate members about control strategies and encourage members to deploy mating disruption for vine mealybug.
    Prichard Hill (est. 2024) 20 membersVine mealybug, Grapevine red blotch disease, powdery mildew, wildfire•    Three in-person meetings in first year and a separate online meeting with a guest presenter.
    •    Contact list for members to communicate with each other.
  • Table 2

    Theme 1: perceived impacts of neighborhood groups. LAMP, loop-mediated isothermal amplification; TCAH, three-cornered alfalfa hopper.

    Sub-themeExample quotes from interviews
    Sharing knowledge and data“I really benefit from interacting with different groups that farm differently to me…you learn a lot from hearing what other people are seeing and doing. You can improve your own practices, or even bounce ideas like what did you spray? Or what are your costs?”.

    “[There has been] sharing of data like spore traps, red blotch flagging counts, which blocks have red blotch, vine mealybug, biocontrol, mating disruption, red blotch was a big topic, people shared did they do LAMP, protocols, how they make it work, effectiveness”.
    Improved social network“We talk about similar problems, similar goals, we may not solve it in the meeting but…when we go to redevelop or something…you can call directly that person and say ‘hey, we’re doing X Y and Z, what do you think? You want to coordinate anything?’ I mean if you really want to dumb it down into one simple word it’s community. There was no community, and this [group] brings that”.

    “All these people I didn’t know before…now I can contact [other members] and ask ‘hey, I am seeing this, how would you treat this?’ So, it’s another contact in your phonebook”.
    Reduced neighborhood conflict“There [had] certainly been some conflict. I volunteered [to create the group] after having difficult conversations with neighbors. Before the group, the neighbors went directly to [the authorities] and filed a complaint…I suggested as a solution that we form a neighborhood group, for more cooperative and unneighborly communication…It has absolutely improved the relationship. We have shared openly what we’ve been doing, and they’ve shared as well”.
    Increased adoption of practices“We were able to show everyone in the neighborhood, here’s a block that has really high traps counts, and it is influencing blocks next to it… [that member] did a contact spray and started using pheromones. And then essentially our trap count went to zero”.
    Reduction in disease and vectors“[There has been] A big reduction in leafroll. I think so – significant, yeah. Huge”.

    “This year our counts are way down. We had a trap average in the 100s and this year we have an average of 25. That is a huge reduction, in 2020 we were getting 500 per trap”.
    Regulatory changes“For those of us who are organic there was a lot of work done to approve the ant bait… [another member] gave me the recipe they submitted which was exactly the same as I submitted to [certification agency] which they denied! So, then I could circle back and say: ‘hey I know you approved for them’…you spread that information so you and other people can…stand up for something you know should be approved”.

    “I got [other group member] excited about it and then he started talking to [supplier] and they suddenly got an exemption on one of the labels to legally target TCAH on the label”
    Resilience to future challengesResearcher: “If vine mealybug disappeared magically, would your group stick around to talk about other topics?”

    “Absolutely. There are always new viticulture challenges and so I think the group sees the benefit in the collaboration, the sharing of ideas and practices. So, best case scenario vine mealybug goes away but we know there is a new pest on our doorstep, we know water and climate and pest pressure, disease, there is always going to be a need for collaboration”.
    Inspiration for new groups“I started attending [NAViP] meetings in 2022, that was where I got the impetus to reach out and try make something happen on our driveway”.
  • Table 3

    Themes 2, 3, and 4: challenges of recruitment, membership, and leadership, and strategies to address them.

    Theme (challenge)Sub-theme (strategy to address challenge)
    Theme 2: Recruitment1.    Target key individuals. Key individuals are those who are well-connected, knowledgeable, influential, and the largest growers.
    2.    Use public resources. For example, email lists from previous events and county-specific pesticide permit database to identify potential members and contact details.
    3.    Begin recruiting with direct communication. Face-to-face conversations and phone calls were more effective in persuading people to join than mass mailing.
    4.    Use social network of members to expand recruitment. Ask initial recruits to help find more members by directly contacting people they know.
    5.    Be aware of existing relationships. Prior collaboration between members facilitates group formation but it can take time to build trust between strangers. Past conflicts can be a barrier to group formation. One coordinator asked another member to approach a neighbor with whom they had past conflict; the other member successfully acted as a neutral “emissary” to recruit them.
    6.    Understand the barriers to member participation. Barriers mentioned were (a) limited time; (b) a lack of authority (e.g., to share information); and (c) a negative attitude toward the idea of a group, often linked to the difficulty of perceiving group impacts.
    Theme 3: Membership1.    Core membership should be staff dealing directly with issue(s) of concern. The most important members are considered “boots on the ground” decision-makers dealing directly with the issue(s) of interest. Ideally, the highest-level decision-makers (e.g., owners, executives) should be included, but this is challenging. Their occasional participation and support for staff involvement is critical.
    2.    Be inclusive of farming styles. Inclusivity of farming styles was important, but in one county group there was a debate about member job roles, fearing the purpose of the group was being diluted.
    3.    Adjacent organizations can support groups. Involvement of staff from adjacent organizations should be considered. In several groups in Napa County, the involvement of local extension professionals aided group formation, projects, or knowledge dissemination.
    4.    Sustaining membership. Membership can vary over time. Regular communication by coordinator is required to sustain membership, and effort should be made to replace individuals who depart the group, for example, if they leave their employer.
    Theme 4: Leadership1.    Committed coordinators are essential. Annual time commitment was estimated at 21 hr, plus time to recruit members, and potentially lengthy time commitments for group projects. Limited time to conduct the role was a key challenge as duties are considered “extracurricular” by many employers.
    2.    Dual coordinator roles can help address time burdens and succession. All coordinators were nominated by a few members or self-selected because they created the group. Existing members were encouraged to take the position when a new coordinator was needed. In one case, failure to replace a coordinator led to disbandment of a group. Dual coordinators relieve workload burdens and ensure the coordinator role can be passed on when required.
  • Table 4

    Theme 5: challenges of group organization and processes, and strategies to address them.

    Sub-theme (challenge)3rd Level sub-theme (strategy to address challenge)
    Determining group purpose1.    Rally around a shared threat or crisis. This identifies a purpose, persuades members why group activities are needed, and helps formulate realistic goals. Groups may expand, switch to other topics, or disband temporarily in the absence of a shared purpose.
    2.    Build on the existing work of members. Design activities around work some members are already doing to make the group relatable. This is easier than designing an activity that is new for everyone.
    3.    Jointly design aims with members. This is more effective than pre-determining the outcome as it will build commitment, consensus, and buy-in from members.
    4.    Communicate group aims. Clearly articulate aims to members. A brief mission statement or list of goals can be helpful, but they need to at least be clearly communicated verbally.
    5.    Monitor aims. Few groups had a method for measuring their success. In groups focused on sharing data there were concerns this might “make the group more formal” at the expense of providing a safe space for conversation, or it was not obvious to them how to measure it. Groups running projects that generated data, by necessity, were able to monitor goals through the presentation of group data.
    Meeting logistics1.    Strategize effective meeting schedules. Agreeing upon a regular, predictable schedule, meeting frequency, and consistent communication from the coordinator is essential to ensure participation.
    2.    Meeting format can be tailored for needs. Groups meet in person, online, or a blend of the two, depending on the meeting. Most groups have informal meetings, where members share concerns, observations, experiences, and knowledge. Some meetings may be dedicated to local guest speakers to demonstrate the practical applications of new technology or knowledge.
    Facilitating meetings1.    Avoid excessive formality. Semi-structured, loose agendas create an open forum. Prepare an agenda that consists of a short list of a few topics, but allow participants to change or add topics on an ad-hoc basis.
    2.    Guide the conversation. Allow each member the chance to participate in the conversation and gently move the conversation on if required.
    3.    Promote transparent conversations. Lead by example and be the first to share information; ask questions to understand other members’ practices, reasoning, and experiences.
    4.    Managing conflict. No conflicts were reported during in-person meetings and groups were credited with dispelling conflict. Conflict arose occasionally during email-based discussions. These were ultimately resolved but one group formulated brief guidelines of conduct for their email-based discussions.
    Conducting group projects1.    Secure human and material resources. Success depends on the commitment of volunteers to provide skills; materials; and the time to collect, compile, and disseminate data to the group. The easier it is to contribute, the more likely that members are to participate. A small number of members may be required to conduct and cover the cost of the project.
    2.    Sustain participation by: (a) making it easy to contribute, (b) ensuring regular communication, and (c) protecting anonymity outside the group.
    3.    Adjacent organizations can support a project. Several successful projects were collaborations with staff from advisory organizations (extension; pest control advisers) who provided technical skills. In one case, insect traps were provided by a commercial supplier of synthetic pheromone mating disruptors.
  • Table 5

    Group member survey comments on group challenges and suggested improvements.

    Recruitment and membership
    •    “The main challenge is getting new neighbors to come and join the group. There seems to be an us vs. them mentality that is hard to bridge”.
    •    “The group is currently open to all, which hasn’t been an issue but as we’ve grown private companies have started to participate, which I understand has a time and a place. Though I do feel when they have full access to our meetings it limits the ability to share openly and honestly with some of the challenges we face”.
    Group organization and processes
    Determining group purpose:
    •    “The group is a very neutral place that is a bit amorphous in terms of leadership. It has a few people at the top calling meetings and bringing talking points, but otherwise it is led by the membership and an eclectic one at that. This is a positive thing, but it also keeps our goals in a nebulous space. It is difficult to aim for anything in particular when there aren’t any strong pulls in any given direction”.
    •    “The group was created with a precise goal to determine a common strategy to fight leafroll virus and share mealybug population counts. Over the years it lost determination to succeed in determining and achieving precise objectives”.
    •    “I don’t understand the group’s objectives or structure”; “I don’t know the objectives or purpose of this group”.
    Suggested improvements:
    •    “Better defined goals”.
    •    “Brief discussion of group mission and values at the beginning of each meeting”.
    •    “I think this group needs to write out what they wish to achieve, and that would help us feel more confident our efforts are being invested in ways that will pay off”.
    •    “A reintroduction to the group and how we might contribute might be useful”.
    •    “The group should be better managed with precise objectives to accomplish each year. Red blotch is a serious threat for our vineyard. We should use this group to determine a common strategy to slow the spread of the virus and coordinate between-neighbor replantation”.
    Meeting logistics:
    •    “I would like to see more growers attending meetings”.
    •    “COVID was definitely a challenge for this group, seeing that we were unable to meet in-person for a couple of years”.
    •    “The biggest challenge is that in the growing season, some people, myself included, simply can’t attend the meetings. This is understandable though, given we work in vineyards. At this time, I try to at least communicate with some people who attend the meetings more regularly about what I see across Napa and Sonoma as a consultant”.
    Facilitating meetings:
    •    “There needs to be more structure to the meetings so more people can talk, and the group is too large. I would recommend breaking up into smaller groups within the meeting and assigning a “leader/representative” to each group that had a list of topics to discuss. Then coming back together and have each subgroup give a short summary of what they talked about”.
    •    “I suppose if the group met or communicated more regularly it would feel like a more essential part of how I approached my work. I have not felt any group has been as organized or effective as [other group name] was before COVID”.
    •    “The group has struggled to be anything beyond a forum for conversation. Projects do not typically get off the ground”.
    Leadership
    •    “My only concern with the continuation of the group is that the organizer is part of a management company, not a full-time employee of one of the properties. If they get another job will the group continue?”.
    •    “The biggest challenge is just getting everyone in the same room at the same time. I hope [coordinator name] keeps at it, I’m not sure who would step up if he doesn’t”.
  • Table 6

    Social network composition statistics.

    Job role (% of sample)Non-member (n = 204)One group (n = 31)Multiple groups (n = 14)
    Extension professionala (3%)810
    Viticulturistb (18%)3078
    Viticulture consultant (7%)1340
    Vineyard manager (18%)3662
    Sales representative (3%)710
    University research scientist (2%)600
    Pest control advisor (3%)610
    Winemaker (15%)3142
    Directorc (9%)1732
    Executive (5%)1200
    Owner (10%)2420
    Viticulture technician (2%)410
    Other or unknown (4%)1010

    • ↵aConsisted of extension professional-academics (advisor, specialist) and professional-staff (non-academic team members) affiliated with the University of California or Washington State University. One extension professional-staff member in the Napa County viticulture team also worked as a viticulture consultant.

    • ↵bJob titles included viticulturist, regional viticulturist, and assistant viticulturist.

    • ↵cJob titles included director of viticulture, director of operations, director of winegrowing, and vineyard director.

  • Table 7

    Social network centrality statistics. SD, standard deviation.

    Job roleMean (+SD)
    DegreeaBetweennessbHarmonic closenessc
    Extension professional10.6 (10.7)2539 (3491)0.37 (0.09)
    Viticulturist5.2 (6.4)644 (982)0.32 (0.09)
    Viticulture consultant3.6 (6.7)393 (1225)0.33 (0.19)
    Director2.7 (3.1)158 (352)0.37 (0.23)
    Vineyard manager2.6 (3.6)215 (535)0.33 (0.17)
    Sales representative2.3 (3.2)109 (308)0.45 (0.26)
    University research scientist2.2 (1.2)66 (103)0.29 (0.02)
    Pest control advisor1.9 (1.2)120 (175)0.26 (0.05)
    Winemaker1.8 (1.9)74 (212)0.30 (0.09)
    Executive1.4 (0.7)91 (266)0.34 (0.16)
    Owner1.4 (0.8)30 (99)0.30 (0.15)
    Viticulture technician1.2 (0.5)45 (101)0.26 (0.03)
    Group membership (% of actors)Mean (+SD)
    DegreeBetweennessHarmonic closeness
    Multiple groups (6%)12.7 (7.2)1502 (1178)0.39 (0.04)
    One group (12%)5.7 (5.6)634 (1046)0.34 (0.13)
    Non-member (82%)1.9 (3.0)173 (846)0.32 (0.15)
    Permutation test group comparisons
    Non-member versus one groupp < 0.01p = 0.02p = 0.20
    Non-member versus multiple groupsp < 0.01p < 0.01p = 0.01
    One group versus multiple groupsp < 0.01p < 0.01p = 0.06

    • ↵aCounts the number of connections for each actor and indicates how active they are in the network.

    • ↵bCounts how often each actor falls on the shortest path between other actors.

    • ↵cMeasures the path distance from an actor to other reachable actors in the network.

Additional Files

  • Appendix 1   Protocol for interviewer (opening and potential follow-up questions).


    Appendix 2   Peer knowledge networking group member survey questions.


    Appendix 3   R script for permutation test with degree as an example.

     
    Appendix 4   Group member comments on group successes.


    Appendix 5   Themes 2 to 6: sub-themes and example quotes related to group challenges and strategies to address them.
Back to top
Print
View full PDF
Email Article
Citation Tools

Open Access
Peer Knowledge Networking Groups Facilitate Social Connections, Information Sharing, and Collective Action
Malcolm B. Hobbs, Hannah G. Fendell-Hummel, Monica L. Cooper
Am J Enol Vitic.  2026  77: 0770013  ; DOI: 10.5344/ajev.2026.25056
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
Save to my folders

Jump to section