Retta explained this really well. A framework that helps me think about this is explicit vs. tacit knowledge. Explicit knowledge can be easily codified. It might be quantitative, or describe a specific set of steps to enroll in a program or deal with a plant pathogen, etc. Tacit knowledge is different - it involves insight, intuition, "know-how," interpretation, and judgement -- the kind of information can't easily be codified or written down.

Presentations are a great way to teach about explicit knowledge. Peer discussions are a great way to teach about tacit or implicit knowledge because there's such value in hearing how "people like me," operating in a similar context interpreted and made sense of this issue, and chose a path forward.

Maybe saying they are "not comfortable" was the wrong way to phrase this on my part. Better said, it's almost as if they can't believe that you are letting them share and teach each other. I find that if your peer to peer activity gets peers talking about the things of importance and interest to them, it takes off naturally without them thinking that they are "teaching" each other. They generally trust their peers more than Educators or Agency folk, and they feel that their peers understand their experiences and speak their language.

For sure and I like your follow up questions. Good ideas. We did find that by starting off with a discussion, folks felt empowered to comment and interject during presentations, so the overall workshop was more of an exchange. Also, sometimes reticence is OK.

Yes it is - the library is a free and open-access website. Anecdotally, I know some foresters send their clients to the site to give landowners a way to validate things like "aspen really needs (almost) full sunlight to thrive and doesn't respond well to thinning, so clearcutting is the best silvicultural option in most cases." Or "red pine shoot blight is damaging enough that if full stocking is your goal, leaving residual mature red pine on site can be problematic." In other words, it can be a way for relatively inexperienced land owners or land managers understand conventional and novel ways to manage certain plant communities for certain (stated) objectives.

See my answer to the similar question above.

Almost never. But you should be prepared to do so if needed. I sometimes interrupt wayward discussions politely and say "we have to move on now and cover another theme before we end the activity." If someone talks too much over others, I have asked them to finish up their comment and make sure we give others a chance to share. That usually is sufficient.

This is a bit of a challenge - great question. A few strategies that have worked:
-Our state DNR has asked interns to write up case studies along with veteran staff.
-Marcella Windmuller-Campione, or silviculture faculty member, has her UG students work with a professional to write up a new case study. Not all get published, but some do.
-A few agencies have promoted this and recognized it as a valuable contribution by their staff.

All of these help, but getting land managers to sit down and write can be challenging.

Not sure of the current status, but Tony D'Amato, who during his time at the UMN helped to found our silv library, is exploring the idea in northern New England.

That's great Angela, and yes I have done this via Zoom 4-5 times in the past few years. I usually have the three statements for an entire theme put up in one slide (with representative photographs of the types of peers I am addressing), and then I ask them (the peers only) to discuss the three statements via chat comments for 7-8 minutes. They need to be sure they send their comments to all participants and panelists in the chat pod so we can all see them. After these are all written in and they have gone back and forth some, I (the pro) and any other pros I have working with me (that I have prepped), discuss what we saw in the chat and the strengths and merits of some of the ideas and thoughts that the peers might have made. It's also the time to gently correct any misunderstandings or where research may say something different than what they did. I hope this is clear Angela, if not I would be very happy to talk to you directly via Zoom, Teams, or a cell phone call. I am even willing to help you do your first program - to model how it can be done (fairly easily).