|
| Resource and codes | Frequency mentioned (%) | Cohen’s K |
|
| High-priority resources |
| Extension educators | | |
| Highly regarded for knowledge generation and dissemination | 74 | 1.0 |
| Provide support for disease management in multiple ways | 67 | 1.0 |
| Generate valued and trusted educational resources | 40 | 1.0 |
| Well connected to researchers and local industry | 26 | 1.0 |
| Consultants more appropriate for specific situations | 2 | 1.0 |
| Agricultural social network | | |
| Shared experiences of disease management | 38 | 0.89 |
| Trusted and experienced peers | 33 | 0.80 |
| Information can be unreliable | 21 | 0.81 |
| Vit Women (CA) network praised for sharing information | 12 | 1.0 |
| Formal presentations | | |
| Source of latest, high-quality information | 70 | 1.0 |
| Useful for teaching viticultural technicians, scouts, interns, and managers | 50 | 1.0 |
| Repetitive or do not like those about unfinished research | 31 | 0.95 |
| Promote informal social networking | 19 | 1.0 |
| Best combined with field days | 10 | 1.0 |
| Some researchers could be better presenters | 5 | 1.0 |
| Too busy to attend | 2 | 1.0 |
| Field days and interactive workshops | | |
| Useful for learning to identify virus symptoms and vectors | 36 | 0.80 |
| Scheduling could be improved | 24 | 0.88 |
| Lack of these events for viruses | 17 | 1.0 |
| Friendly format that promotes informal social network | 12 | 0.88 |
| Not preferred learning style | 10 | 0.88 |
| Factsheets, newsletters, booklets, and pamphlets | | |
| Used to train supervised employees and disseminated to other decision makers | 50 | 1.0 |
| Valued when from a reputable source | 36 | 0.90 |
| Valued when well presented | 29 | 0.94 |
| Highly convenient source of information | 21 | 1.0 |
| Information lacking in detail, misleading or quickly outdated | 10 | 0.88 |
| Medium-priority resources |
| Academic texts | | |
| Journal pay walls make access difficult | 36 | 1.0 |
| Need to invest time to read and digest content | 33 | 1.0 |
| Source of latest high quality, relevant information | 26 | 1.0 |
| Identify key findings and justify decisions to others | 24 | 1.0 |
| Webinars and educational videos | | |
| Convenient and efficient format | 48 | 0.86 |
| Source and quality of production important | 35 | 0.87 |
| Not preferred learning style | 26 | 0.82 |
| Lack of awareness (related to virus) | 19 | 0.82 |
| Used for training | 17 | 1.0 |
| Replicated research trials | | |
| Reliable information with opportunity to access recent data and researchers | 21 | 1.0 |
| Provides information specific to own vineyard or region | 21 | 1.0 |
| Hard to get information on own vineyard from researchers | 10 | 1.0 |
| No interest: disruptive of operations or reluctant to share data | 5 | 1.0 |
| Paid consultants | | |
| Good knowledge source | 38 | 0.81 |
| Variable in reliability | 19 | 1.0 |
| Good for teaching other staff about viruses | 12 | 1.0 |
| No point in having consultant | 14 | 1.0 |
| Can have conflicts of interest | 14 | 1.0 |
| Peer knowledge-sharing groups | | |
| Valued for communications about virus management | 31 | 1.0 |
| Uncertain about effectiveness for disseminating knowledge | 14 | 1.0 |
| Promotes informal social network | 10 | 1.0 |
| Limited suitability in areas with polyculture or few neighbours | 10 | 1.0 |
| Could be more welcoming to organic growers | 7 | 1.0 |
| Low-priority resources |
| Social media | | |
| Unsuitable for viruses | 69 | 0.82 |
| Accessibility potentially useful | 26 | 0.88 |
| Information unreliable | 19 | 0.86 |
| Used social media for virus information | 7 | 1.0 |
| Trade journals | | |
| Information overly simplified or outdated | 31 | 0.94 |
| Provide overview of virus problems | 31 | 1.0 |
| Reliability questionable and opinion-based articles | 12 | 0.87 |
| In-house demonstration trials | | |
| Vineyards lack expertise and resources for replicated trials | 24 | 0.93 |
| Useful for demonstration and exploration | 17 | 1.0 |
| Not essential or cannot see how applies to viruses | 14 | 1.0 |
|
