Check out that site.  If you’re interested, join the network and one ore more subgroups.  You can also sign up for new content feeds, join discussions, etc.

Thanks for your interest!

The project is fascinating. As they explain, the Stew-MAP process allows them to begin to map not only the geographic / physical stewardship landscape, but also the social landscape. Check it out.

Call for Presentations:

5th Annual National Conference of the Alliance of Natural Resource Outreach & Service Programs: Master Naturalist Programs and More

September 28th-October 2nd, 2009
US Fish and Wildlife Service National Conservation Training Center
Shepherdstown, WV

Conference Overview

This dynamic conference is for professionals and partner organizations
who coordinate, administer, or host training and volunteer programs in
natural resource conservation, education, and outreach and for those
interested in developing such a program. Enjoy a beautiful Appalachian
setting as you learn from a diverse range of programs, network with
colleagues, and obtain valuable tools to enhance your existing program
or develop a new one.

ANROSP is a national alliance of adult natural resource education and
stewardship programs, including Master Naturalists, Master Watershed
Stewards, Coverts, Wildlife Stewards, Master Woodland Managers, and
more. ANROSP facilitates networking and exchange of resources and
information among coordinators of citizen-based environmental programs
across the United States, helping create healthy ecosystems and
communities through citizens who learn, teach, and practice natural
resource stewardship.

You can download the full call, with much more detail, here.

Woodland owner networks and peer-to-peer learning

Authors: Eli S. Sagor, Maureen H. McDonough, and Shorna B. Allred

Abstract: Small private forest owners consistently list peers as preferred sources of forest management advice. Since January 2008, the Woodland Owner Networks project has been investigating program models designed to foster peer-to-peer interaction and learning to support private forest management decisions.  In April 2009, the project will bring together 45 researchers, agency administrators, funders, and leaders and members of woodland owner organizations large and small, representing a wide diversity of program objectives and models.  The symposium is designed to bring together formal academic research with other perspectives and ways of knowing about peer-to-peer learning about natural resources.  The symposium will have three primary outputs:

1. a list of practical tools and best practices based on both research and informal first hand learning by program organizers;
2. a statement of the current state of knowledge, knowledge gaps, and skill development needs; and
3. a statement of emerging opportunities and barriers to peer-to-peer learning in the future.

This presentation will review the rationale (and risks) behind peer-to-peer learning to support sound small-scale forest management and report on the outcomes of the April 2009 symposium.  It will also include a review of recent research results from ongoing qualitative and quantitative analyses of the outcomes and impacts of peer-to-peer learning in a small-scale private forestry context.

Woodland Advocates’ job is not to deliver forestry advice–that’s the work of professionals–but rather to deliver basic information and recommend trusted professionals.  This approach builds on a foundation of trust among peers. Some landowners are more comfortable talking to peers than professionals, at least early on.  The model seems to be working:  100% of landowners contacted by an advocate were either happy or very happy with their experience.

The program is also attractive to foresters.  By making the initial contact and collecting basic information about the land and landowner’s objectives, the volunteers allow the forester to focus on their strengths and hit the ground running when they start working with the new landowner with whom the volunteer has put them in contact.

Gerry’s done a nice job of streamlining the program and avoiding duplication of effort.  Woodland Advocates are recruited from one of Wisconsin’s two excellent woodland owner and leader training programs, Master Woodland Steward and the Woodland Leadership Institute.  That leaves the work of volunteer training and confidence-building to Extension, allowing Gerry to focus on community connections.

The downside of a model like this is finding a way to fund it.  Gerry’s been quite successful securing grant funding for program development and operations over the past few  years, and they’re funded, although only at half of previous levels, through this year.  As Gerry noted in his talk yesterday, this is a tough time to find funding, and it can be hard to fund ongoing, as opposed to new, projects.

Gerry’s been resourceful in the past, and I look forward to watching this program evolve.  To learn more about Woodland Advocate, drop Gerry a line.  His contact info is here.

Gerry’s webinar was organized by the National Network of Forest Practitioners.

February 18 @ Noon Eastern
Presented by Gerry Mich

A “member sampler” session presented as part of NNFP’s “Innovations in Landowner Outreach” Series

This example of a peer-to-peer outreach effort builds on Eli Sagor’s earlier  presentation, “Woodland owner networks and peer-to-peer learning.” You can view a recording of Eli’s session by visiting NNFP’s member networking site.

To register: Send an email to Leslie Horner (leslie at nnfp dot us) by 10 am eastern time on February 18.

Free for NNFP members and guests of the presenter.

Watch a complete recording at http://nnfp.acrobat.com/p73834210/. It’s long but you can skip ahead.  Presentation begins at the 5-minute mark, and discussion at around 55:00.

Update: The webinar is now over.  Watch a complete recording at http://nnfp.acrobat.com/p73834210/. Presentation begins at the 5-minute mark, and discussion at around 55:00.

Woodland owner networks and peer-to-peer learning:
A research review

Thursday, January 8, 2009 @ Noon Eastern

Presented by Eli Sagor of the University of Minnesota Extension
and Woodland Owner Networks project lead

Active sustainable management of private forest (PF) land provides public value through rural economic activity, forest ecosystem management, and water quality protection. PF conservation program administrators and funders recognize a need to engage many more private forest owners than they have in the past. Woodland owners consistently select peers as a preferred source of information to support forest management decisions. However, beyond Extension master volunteer programs, peer-to-peer learning has received little attention as a forestry outreach tool. Can peer-to-peer learning through woodland owner social networks influence landowner behavior? If so, how can Extension and allied outreach professionals mobilize and support landowners to provide accurate decision support to their peers? And what kinds of outcomes can be expected?

In this hour-long presentation and discussion led by Eli Sagor, we’ll explore research from sociology, social psychology, and related fields that may help answer these questions. We’ll also briefly discuss case studies from New York, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Ample time will be available for audience questions and input.

This webinar is the first in a series focusing on innovations in landowner outreach. Subsequent webinars will address regional variations on woodland owner networks projects.

The webinar is now over.  Watch a complete recording at http://nnfp.acrobat.com/p73834210/. Presentation begins at the 5-minute mark, and discussion at around 55:00.

(Pardon the formal tone–this is lifted from a draft of my dissertation prospectus.)

Strong and weak ties

In a seminal work on the “embeddedness” of rational economic decisions within social networks, Granovetter (1985) illustrates the importance of network effects on decisions and behaviors considered by classical economic theory as driven by atomistic, purely self-interested actors.  Granovetter’s embeddedness argument suggests that a variety of social influences constrain behaviors.  In fact, he argues, the notion of the atomistic, purely self-interested actor is overly simplistic and fails to account for the role of social systems in regulating human behavior.

The embeddedness argument says little about the details of network effects.  These are elaborated in Granovetter’s (1973) classic work on the strength of weak ties and subsequent work on the nature of strong and weak ties and high- and low-density networks.

The strength of weak ties argument demonstrates the value of weak ties for transfer of information across large social distances (e.g. across a large number of social ties).  Weak ties are an efficient way to access new ideas or codified information (Reagans and McEvily 2003; Wasserman and Faust 1994) such as quick answers on an online discussion board or participation in a one-off field workshop.

Weak ties allow easily codified information to travel quickly across social distance, because brief contact is often sufficient for the transfer of such information (Friedkin 1982; Granovetter 1973).  The value of weak ties is not their efficiency per se, but their numbers: each weak tie contributes little information, but in aggregate, a large number of weak ties gives access to a large number of pools of knowledge (Friedkin 1982), and a broader body of information.

Tacit information, on the other hand, is transmitted more efficiently through strong ties than weak ties (Friedkin 1982; Reagans and McEvily 2003).  By definition, tacit information requires a more intense, closer interaction, be it extended observation, direct instruction, or some other form of contact.  Information, or learning, that requires this kind of contact flows relatively inefficiently through weak ties compared with strong ties.

Different kinds of networks thus provide efficient access to different kinds of information.  Dense networks, composed of small numbers of strong and interconnected ties, produce more stable knowledge systems.  Less dense networks, composed of large number of unconnected weak ties, produce more dynamic, open access to different bodies of information and new ideas (Wasserman and Faust 1994).

Implications for woodland owner network organizers

Some behaviors are driven mostly by easily codified information.  For instance, an individual who has already decided to sell timber might be swayed by a friend’s testimonial that a professional forester increased his timber sale returns by 20 % over an offer already received, and thus be persuaded to (change behavior and) hire a consultant.

For other behaviors, however, information may not be enough.  For some landowners, easily codified financial information may be a minor consideration.  More central to their decision process might be factors like trust, a feeling that managing the stand might improve future growth or provide underrepresented habitat, a more abstract desire to do the right thing.  In these cases, personal contact from trusted, known individuals (strong ties) might be the only factor that would lead them to consider managing their woods.

Most woodland owner networks exist not to promote any specific behavior, but to help landowners feel supported, find answers to their questions, and make well-informed decisions.  Nonetheless, understanding how strong and weak ties affect information flow may help network organizers create learning spaces well suited for effective and efficient member support given the network’s, and members’, goals.

What do you think?  How do strong and weak ties operate differently within your networks?

Citations

• Friedkin, N. 1982. “Information Flow Through Strong and Weak Ties in Intraorganizational Social Networks.” Social Networks 3:273-285.
• Granovetter, M. 1973. “The strength of weak ties.” American Journal of Sociology 78:1360-1380.
• Granovetter, M. 1985. “Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness.” American Journal of Sociology 91:481-510.
• Reagans, R., and B. McEvily. 2003. “Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range.” Administrative Science Quarterly 48:240-267.
• Wasserman, S., and K. Faust. 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Collaborative processes of learning can enhance the conversation between Natural Resource Professionals (NRPs) and Private Forest Landowners (PFLs). In our work with PFLs, we are increasingly finding merit in the idea of promoting an interaction that creates civility, fosters productive conversations, and builds on common ground. These strategies have been examined in grassroots literature and collaborative forestry literature, but, for many, are not yet part of a natural resources practice.

Collaborative processes help build social agency. That is, people build the capacity to meet their own needs and to work together to find solutions that work for them. Ownership of the process, and of the solutions formed, fosters a commitment to seeing those solutions implemented. Through this collaborative process, a community with shared interests forms and begins to address environmental, social, and economic issues simultaneously. The relationships formed here, built on confidence and understanding, will endure and serve to address future resource and community questions.

Bringing groups of people together can encourage these types of constructive interactions. Doing so forms a “local” community with a shared desire to influence the protection and use of natural resources. Through participatory decision-making and collaborative processes, communities of PFLs can focus on and affect natural resource management issues on their own lands.

However, there are risks inherent to such an approach; NRPs are not in charge. Individuals and the community more broadly are making the decisions. The decisions made may not necessarily be the “right” or “best” decisions from a purely resource orientation; but, perhaps are “good” decisions that consider the well being of all, including the resource. This approach does not deny the importance of the technical, experiential, and academic resources that NRPs bring to the conversation. We have a responsibility to share this information with decision-makers; however, our primary role may more appropriately be to facilitate decision-making, create learning and ownership for the PFLs, and help the community make the best decisions possible.

Collaborative learning is a tool that promotes learning and the creation of social agency. Its focus is on interactions among people that often foster extraordinary creativity. Peters defines collaborative learning as “to labor together in order to produce knowledge, and frequently, to take action on the basis of new knowledge” (1995, p. 269). Collaborative learning is people – PFLs and NRPs – working together to create new understandings. To accomplish this we need to:

• Establish dialogue
• Focus on construction
• Recognize multiple ways of knowing
• Create cycles of action and reflection
• Promote fellowship and build trust

Dialogue

Dialogue is an open conversation in which meaning flows through and between the participants, and new understanding emerges (Bohm 1996). To enhance our dialogue with PFLs, we need to inquire into the things they say, to reflect upon our assumptions, and create a new interaction. By modeling this behavior for PFLs, we create a space in which they feel comfortable sharing in a similar manner.

Focus on Construction

A focus on construction encapsulates two ideas: the creation of new understanding and the recognition of the importance of relationships to the creation of those new understandings (social construction) (McNamee and Gergen 1999). In a collaborative learning event, the NRP and the PFL construct new understandings out of the experiences and knowledge each brings to the group. By focusing on creating something new in our conversations, or simply becoming aware of that possibility, we take our interactions to a new level and reflect new possibilities.

Multiple Ways of Knowing

In our interactions with PFLs, each person in the conversation brings with them a unique set of experiences and knowledge. The lived experiences of PFLs are equally important as the technical resources NRPs can contribute. Allowing people the opportunity to share their learning gained through life experience empowers them to participate fully. By making space for different types of knowing to come to the table, we create a more equal and respectful interaction through which PFLs are more comfortable contributing to the interaction and committing to the solutions formed.

Cycles of Action and Reflection

Reflection serves to redirect actions and provides a way to examine and challenge assumptions guiding the actions. Through this process refinement, new ideas emerge. In a collaborative learning interaction with PFLs, this means we keep checking in with each other, talking about what has changed, and deciding together how to move forward. This is difficult to do when writing a management plan for one PFL property, but should be part of our efforts across the landscape to encourage continual growth and interaction with PFLs.

Fellowship

Finally, collaborative learning involves creating fellowship and building trust. People must be comfortable enough with each other to be open and willing to try new ideas, and they must feel that others have their best interests at heart. For things to work best, group members have to relate to each other. The building of trust between PFLs and NRPs is a time intensive process, but remains necessary to our interactions. These informal connections set the stage for further efforts and conversations that will create new understandings.

In practice, we propose that NRPs be intentional about creating relationships wherein these actions can occur. By remaining open to the possibility, we create the space for a change in our interactions with PFLs. We allow them to become a contributor to their understanding about the land, and with that new understanding (of which they have more ownership through their contribution) reach good decisions.

Selected References:

• Bohm, D. 1996. On dialogue; L. Nichol (ed). Routledge, New York. 101 p.
• McNamee, S. and K.J. Gergen. 1999. Relational responsibility: Resources for sustainable dialogue. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. 236 p.
• Peters, J.M. 1995. Good question! Collaborative learning and the intentional stance. P. 269-274 in Proc. of conf. on Educating the adult educator: Role of university, M. Collins (ed.). Canmore, Alberta, Canada.

Other Resources:

• Isaacs, W. 1999. Dialogue and the art of thinking together. Doubleday, New York. 428 p.
• Parker, J.K. 1992. Hanging question marks on our professions: Addressing the human dimensions of forestry and natural resource management. J. F. 90(4):21-24.