Encounters with Knowledge Entrepreneurs and 'Sticky' Knowledge Transfer: Case Study Project 3030

Resources of many kinds are shared within social networks, including knowledge of innovations. Knowledge transfer is 'sticky' when it requires significant effort to share and also when the knowledge itself and social processes relating to it are complex, such as when there are many stakeholders involved. The focus of this study is to create understanding about who plays key roles in the sharing and smoothing of 'sticky' home-grown forage knowledge produced by Project 3030. Social network analysis is used to create visual representations of network relationships within the project, and is interpreted using qualitative analysis based on data collected through interviews and participant observation. The interviews conducted with a range of network participants (researchers, extension professionals, service providers and farmers) seek to understand how and why they are sharing knowledge about home-grown forage being produced in Project 3030. The study's findings point to the significance of 'knowledge entrepreneurs' within the social network. Their relationship patterns and attitudes to sharing knowledge enable them to create spaces where knowledge of innovation moves relatively smoothly between those involved in its development and potential on-farm users. The three key learnings that have emerged from the research are that social network analysis can be instrumental for locating 'knowledge entrepreneurs' within the Project 3030 network and then how we can understand how such people manage knowledge 'stickiness' in order to help other network participants.

[1]  A. Black,et al.  Extension theory and practice: a review , 2000 .

[2]  Stanley Wasserman,et al.  Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications , 1994, Structural analysis in the social sciences.

[3]  Colin Coulson-Thomas The Knowledge Entrepreneur: How Your Business Can Create, Manage and Profit from Intellectual Capital , 2003 .

[4]  C. Leeuwis Communication for Rural Innovation: Rethinking Agricultural Extension , 2004 .

[5]  R. Putnam Tuning In, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in America , 1995, PS: Political Science & Politics.

[6]  Gabriel Szulanski,et al.  Stickiness: conceptualizing, measuring, and predicting difficulties in the transfer of knowledge within organizations , 2003 .

[7]  Usa Ers Situation and Outlook , 1984 .

[8]  M. Waithaka Communication for rural innovation: rethinking agricultural extension , 2005 .

[9]  R. Hanneman Introduction to Social Network Methods , 2001 .

[10]  William Kingston Innovation : the creative impulse in human progress : industry, art, science , 2003 .

[11]  P. Senge THE FIFTH DISCIPLINE , 1997 .

[12]  John W. Creswell,et al.  Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research , 2006 .

[13]  Mark S. Granovetter The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[14]  M. Pelling,et al.  Understanding informal institutions: Networks and communities in rural development , 2005 .

[15]  Dawn Freshwater,et al.  Reading Mixed Methods Research: Contexts for Criticism , 2007 .

[16]  M. Paine,et al.  Context, Participation and Discourse: The Role of the Communities of Practice Concept in Understanding Farmer Decision-Making , 2008 .

[17]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of Innovations , 1964 .

[18]  Bethany S. Dohleman Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek , 2006 .