Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
or a social-movement phenomenon. They are better understood as
socio-technical networks, meaning diverse stakeholders working
collaboratively toward common social and scientific goals. Socio-
technical networks are more likely to be successful among large, or
capital-intensive, or specialty, or Sunbelt agriculture than the populism
of Wisconsin's grassroots networks.
California partnerships have not created new relationships so much
as intensified existing ones. By tapping external resources, partnership
leaders are able to offer incentives for collaboration to a wide array of
participants, specifically for the generation of new applied knowledge or
the hope of additional financial and professional gain. Participants
described partnerships as strengthening their relationships with each
other through knowledge exchange, or in terms of Latour's model, circu-
lating knowledge through hybrid socio-technical networks.
To secure the participation of varied participants, partnership leaders
have to configure incentives for exchanging knowledge within a net-
work. The partnerships that agricultural leaders have deemed “good” or
successful” have been facilitated by leaders who understand this. The
balance of this chapter describes the network building strategies of sev-
eral partnerships. It presents four pairs of partnership comparisons to
contrast differing network strategies: differing motivations of NGOs and
commodity organizations; the relative importance of leadership by grow-
ers or extensionists; informal grower associations and extensionists; the
challenges and opportunities of growing a premium crop in regions
highly valued for real estate development; and the relative advantages of
local and statewide partnerships. These comparisons will demonstrate
the range of network building strategies and the trade-offs for choosing
one over the other, using sociograms to illustrate the relative strength of
knowledge sharing relationships within these networks.
6
Each sociogram has one social group or organization circled, repre-
senting the primary, lead actor in the partnership. The primary relation-
ship supported by the partnership is identified with a triple line. Other
relationships critical to partnership success are represented by a double
line. Single lines indicate relationships strengthened by partnership activ-
ities, and broken lines show existing relationships acknowledged by but
marginally important to partnerships.
