Evolution of Diffusion and Dissemination Theory

Abstract

The article provides a review and considers how the diffusion of innovations Research paradigm has changed, and offers suggestions for the further development of this theory of social change. Main emphases of diffusion Research studies are compared over time, with special attention to applications of diffusion theory-based concepts as types of dissemination science. A considerable degree of paradigmatic evolution is observed. The classical diffusion model focused on adopter innovativeness, individuals as the locus of decision, communication channels, and adoption as the primary outcome measures in post hoc observational study designs. The diffusion systems in question were centralized, with fidelity of implementation often assumed. Current dissemination Research and practice is better characterized by tests of interventions that operationalize one or more diffusion theory-based concepts and concepts from other change approaches, involve complex organizations as the units of adoption, and focus on implementation issues. Foment characterizes dissemination and implementation Research, Reflecting both its interdisciplinary Roots and the imperative of spreading evidence-based innovations as a basis for a new paradigm of translational studies of dissemination science.

Integrating Models of Diffusion and Behavior to Predict Innovation Adoption, Maintenance, and Social Diffusion

“…For over a century, scholars have been documenting the adoption of innovations and considering their predictors (Dearing, 2008). The studies have typically been retrospective (Dearing, 2008), documenting successes and failures (see Rogers, 2003).…”

“…The studies have typically been retrospective (Dearing, 2008), documenting successes and failures (see Rogers, 2003). Recently, there has been a growing emphasis on predictive studies in which scholars use the DOI “to accelerate the pace of adoption, increase the number of adoptions, enhance the quality of innovation implementation, sustain the use of worthy innovations, and, as ultimate outcomes, demonstrate innovation effectiveness at individual client and client system levels” (Dearing, 2008, p. 99) 1 …”

“…The studies have typically been retrospective (Dearing, 2008), documenting successes and failures (see Rogers, 2003). Recently, there has been a growing emphasis on predictive studies in which scholars use the DOI “to accelerate the pace of adoption, increase the number of adoptions, enhance the quality of innovation implementation, sustain the use of worthy innovations, and, as ultimate outcomes, demonstrate innovation effectiveness at individual client and client system levels” (Dearing, 2008, p. 99) 1 1

In some disciplines, predictive studies have incorporated different terms, for example, using dissemination to refer to intentional, strategic efforts to spread innovations, but diffusion for unintentional spread (Green, Ottoson, Garcia, & Haitt, 2009; Rabin, Brownson, Haire-Joshu, Kreuter, & Weaver, 2008).

…”

“…The element of novelty creates uncertainty (Rogers, 2003). Diffusion results from reducing uncertainty about the innovation through conversations with people to gain insights into reasons for adoption, such as desirable attributes of the innovation and social pressures to adopt it (Dearing, 2008; Rogers, 2003). All else being equal, innovations with more desirable attributes and greater social pressure to adopt them are more likely to be adopted.…”

“…Campaigns attempting to harness the power of diffusion processes could identify innovators and opinion leaders within the end-user population and then create messages that persuade them (a) to adopt the innovation and (b) to encourage others to adopt it (Dearing, 2008; Rogers, 2003; Smith & Findeis, 2013). In practice, however, it is quite difficult to identify opinion leaders and innovators.…”