The proposed study examines how accredited academic institutions collaborate with various partners to share the innovative expert knowledge they have created with local communities. In particular, the research examines how Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE) programs share knowledge developed by the research faculty at Cornell with New York State consumers and producers.

In an information society, timely access to innovative knowledge is crucial for making informed decisions (Drucker, 1999). For producers of agricultural products, this implies better usage of resources and a sustained competitive edge (Argote, McEvily, & Reagans, 2003; Yuan & McKelvey, 2004) when, for instance, the adoption of a new pesticide can more effectively protect crops. For consumers, this implies a healthier lifestyle and a better quality of life when, for instance, obese children start eating a healither diet. Yet locating accurate innovative knowledge when needed can be a challenging task. The Internet, for example, has made it easier to obtain and share information with a large audience at relatively low cost. Yet the reduced cost of posting information online and the open nature of the technology have also made this information marketplace replete with false or misleading information posted by not-so-credible sources.
As a result, it has become very difficult for knowledge seekers to identify and utilize accurate and complete information. A common problem is not the inaccessibility of information, but rather how to sift through and analyze the data they receive in order to, finally, determine its value. Under these circumstances, expert knowledge generated by accredited academic institutions becomes especially valuable because academic research follows strict procedural and ethical guidelines, and research findings are under constant scrutiny from impartial peers.
The benefits of seeking expertise from CCE are twofold: First, Cornell University is respected world-wide for its academic excellence, and can function as a huge knowledge base for diverse disciplines; Second, CCE has traditionally focused on developing interpersonal relations with producers and customers. These relations can play a vital role in helping consumers and producers critically evaluate the quality of information they find on the Internet, particularly when the information found on the web offer conflicting opinions. The current research, will focus on two programs: Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and nutrition programs, and study how Cornell University faculty work with extension educators to share innovative pest and dietary practices with local producers and consumers.
CCE programs have been set up for the very purpose of collaborating with local governments to share Cornell’s innovative research findings with local communities in New York State. Advanced communication technologies, including designated websites for different extension programs, electronic newsletters, teleconferencing equipment, etc., have been adopted to facilitate this process. What is unknown, however, is (a) the effectiveness of using these technologies to share innovations, (b) the extent to which they might be adopted by participants of CCE programs and (c) their impact on CCE and extension educators’ roles in the knowledge-sharing process.
One important question to ask, then, is how direct, albeit impersonal, access to research-based innovation via the Web changes (or is likely to change) the way(s) in which extension educators interact with consumers and producers? Specifically, is the nature of innovations shared via the Web significantly different from innovations shared via interpersonal contacts with Cornell and extension educators? This research addresses these, and many similar, questions by initiating a comprehensive study to explore the following issues: First, how Cornell and extension educators and participants of CCE programs utilize such communication technologies as the Internet in their daily lives. Second, how the development of social network ties and trusting relationships between extension educators and consumers and producers facilitates the sharing of innovative knowledge. Third, how communication technologies and interpersonal ties interact with each other in the process of knowledge sharing to achieve better efficiency and effectiveness of CCE programs.

During the first year of this project, we focused on studying how extension educators share and retrieve expertise through both interpersonal and electronic channels. One major undertaking was a case study that used a concurrent nested mixed method strategy, collecting both qualitative and quantitative data from extension educators. The case study addressed the following research questions.
Q1. How does the knowledge of “who knows what”--also referred to as transactive memories--develop and continue to influence expertise seeking in organizations?
Q2. What role do interpersonal relationships play in expertise seeking? What properties of networks, including strength of ties, existence of structural holes, density of network, etc., will influence this process?
Q3. What factors will influence expertise-seeking activities? To what extent will the different characteristics of knowledge interact with different characteristics of ties to influence the process? To what extent will the different task purposes interact with different characteristics of ties to influence this process?
Q4. What factors influence people’s adoption of information and communication technology and their use of electronic resources for expertise- seeking?
Q5. Under what situations will employees prefer interpersonal versus electronic resources when seeking expertise? To what extent are interpersonal and electronic resources replaceable or complementary to each other?
Using both the qualitative and quantitative data collected during the first year of our project, two research papers have been completed (see the Publication section for specific information). The first one has been submitted to the 2007 annual conference of International Communication Association, one of the two major conferences in communication. It is also currently under review at one of the top journals in communication. The second paper--an extension report--has also been sent out for review for possible publication in “Journal of Extension.”
Currently, we are collaborating with Lois Levitan on expertise seeking on agricultural plastic disposal issues. A focus group was conducted on November 15, 2007, after CCE Agriculture Inservice Conference/Workshop to study extension educators’ expertise seeking activities and their perception of producers’ concern for ag-plastic disposal issues. Currently we are in the process of analyzing data collected from this focus group. Additioanlly, we are planning a few more focus group studies on producers’ perceptions of potential health, economic, and environmental risks related to ag-plastic disposal, and their primary sources of expert information they look to to answer their questions and deal with problems.

Below is a summary of our major findings for each of the five research questions listed above.
First, qualitative analysis of the interview texts revealed that knowing “who knows what" is crucial for seeking needed expertise for both junior and senior employees, although their expertise directories of “who knows what” are significantly different in size and diversity (as found via quantitative analysis). In addition, senior personnel frequently function as gatekeepers of information for junior personnel, and the latter tend to rely on the former for both their expertise and for referrals.
Second, consistent with previous research, social relationships were crucial for gaining actual access to information. This finding is confirmed by data gathered using different methods. First, interview data showed that employees reported a higher likelihood of talking to a friend(ly) expert if such a source existed. Second, a quadratic assignment procedure (QAP) correlation analysis of the friendship and advice-seeking networks revealed significant overlaps between them. Furthermore, cross-examining network data and interview data, we found that those who do not have many friends (as reflected by low centrality scores in the friendship network) and were disliked by their colleagues (as identified in the adversarial network) reported having limited access to expertise in the same knowledge domain in which others enjoy a network of consultants. It seems that isolation in social networks will influence access to expertise for professional work.
Third, distinct from Hansen (1999), we did not find from qualitative analysis of the interview data that people obtain different types of knowledge--tacit/non-codified vs. explicit/codified knowledge--from different types of network ties.
Fourth, because all participants of the study are very well educated, our results did not agree with the 2005 published findings of Yuan et al. that technical competence played a major role in influencing the use of electronic resources to gain expertise. Participants, however, did express major concern about the credibility of online information provided by non-academic or non-governmental sources.
Finally, we examined how people chose between interpersonal and technological sources for expertise seeking and to what extent the two sources complemented each other in the process. We found that participants were very goal-oriented. They tried to optimize what was available, and often used multiple sources--both interpersonal and electronic means--to seek and validate the information they obtained. While task characteristics influenced their media choice, they showed more agency than what has been described in the media richness theory. We found that email and telephone were used more often when there existed geographic distance; the Internet was used for quick searches; and electronic documents from academic, governmental and extension sources were retrieved when the expertise providers were not accessible due to personality differences.

expertise retrieval

Hatch