Diffusion of Innovations Theory and Applications - Essay Example

?Diffusion of Innovations Theory and Applications Introduction Walter Begehot said the following “ One ofthe greatest pains to human nature is the pain of a new idea. It.. makes you think that after all. Your favorite notions may be wrong, your firmest beliefs ill founded..Naturally, therefore, common men hate a new idea, and are disposed more or less to ill-treat the original man who brings it.” (Hornor, 2010). Scholars in the field of organizational behavior agree with this saying that people generally hate change be it in the workplace or in their personal life and this is attributed to the fact that people prefer the status quo than changes in the already existing relations (McGinnis, 2005). The relationships have been built for a long period of time and therefore breaking them means beginning afresh which is costly in terms of time and efforts. Other people are just skeptical of change because of the fear of the unknown. They are afraid that the introduction of something new may affect their lives negatively and thus they are better off without it not knowing that such a new idea may change their lives for the better (French, Rayner, Rees, & Rumbles, 2011). On the other hand if people are subjected to the change they do not automatically pick up the new idea and begin using it, they go through a series of stages before they fully adopt the idea into their lives. Diffusion of Innovations theory Everett Rogers a professor in sociology developed this theory and popularized it in 1962 in a book titled Diffusion of Innovations. The theory essentially seeks to bring to attention how, why and which rate new ideas and technology are spread through cultures. The origins of this theory stem from many ideas and thus come from varied fields. This theory has been used in many disciplines since its introduction and gained popularity in the field of social change in spreading ideas through its established philosophies. The theory is still popular though it has been overtaken by other social change theories that scholars are using to advance innovations or new ideas to communities (Rogers, 2003). In its historical development the concept of diffusion was first studied and propagated by a French Scholar by the name Gabriel Tarde (1890) and two other scholars Friedrich Ratzel and Leo Frobenius. The concept was also influenced by the ideas of Earl Pembrton who described aspects of institutional diffusion as including postage stamps and the early compulsory school laws. Later on Everett Rogers carried out a study on over 500 diffuse studies and came up with the theory of the adoption of innovations among communities and organizations (Rogers, 2003). In his book he proposes four elements that are crucial and influence the spread of new ideas which include: The innovation, channels of communication, time and the context (social system). He first defines the concept of diffusion and sees it as a process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system. This brings up the four elements mentioned above (Kreuter, 2003). An innovation is described as an idea, practices, or objects that are perceived by individuals or a unit of adoption. This innovation may spread quickly or slowly depending on a number of factors. The innovation to spread and be adopted they must show the following characteristics: (1) relative advantage (2) Compatibility (3)Complexity (4) triability (5) observability to those people in a given context (Kreuter, 2003). Communication channels are the means by which the message is spread from one individual to the other. Mass media channels are described as more effective in the creation of knowledge of innovations and the interpersonal channels on the other hand are seen as effective in forming and transforming attitudes towards the innovation and thus play a significant role in influencing the decision to either adopt or reject the new idea. Research has shown that most individuals to do subject ideas to evaluations based on scientific research rather they base their evaluations on near-peers who have adopted the idea (Rogers, 2003). Time is viewed in three ways: (a) in the innovation decision making process- that is the mental process that an individual passes through from his first encounter with the innovation to forming an attitude about the innovation, to making a decision to adopt or reject, to implementation of the innovation and to conformation of this decision. The individual must seek information in this process to reduce uncertainty about the ideas expected consequences. (b) Innovativeness of an individual or other unit of adoption. Innovativeness is explained as the degree to which an individuals or other unit of adoption is relatively earlier in adopting innovations than other members of the social system (Kreuter, 2003). In their studies, two scholars Bryce Ryan and Neal Gross classified members of the Iowa farm in relation to the amount of time they took to adopt an innovation and came up with five categories: Innovators, the early adopters, early majority, late majority and the laggards. Rogers on the other hand refined these findings and provided several characteristics of each group. The innovators he describes them as high in the ladder as compared to any of the other groups and they require a shorter time to adopt an idea. He sees them as venturesome, desire the rash, are daring and take risks. They also have a substantial control of financial resources to absorb possible losses from the innovations. They have the ability to understand and apply complex technical knowledge and have the ability to cope with the high degree of uncertainty brought about by the innovation. (c) The rate of adoption which is the relative speed with which an innovation is adopted by members of a social system. This rate is usually measured in terms of the number of members of the system who adopt the idea in a specific period of time (Rogers, 2003). The context or the social system is the last element and is defined as a set of interested units that are engaged in joint problem solving with the intention of accomplishing a common goal. The members of this social system may be individuals, informal groups, organizations and or subsystems. It provides a boundary within which an innovation or idea diffuses. The structure of the social system in general affect the rate of diffusion of the innovation. The structure may involve aspects such as the norms, the values, attitudes, beliefs, leadership structures among others. All these have a role to play in the adoption of the innovation and may either speed the adoption process or facilitate the immediate rejection of the proposed idea by people or units in the social system (Bartholomew, Parcel, Kok, & Gottlieb, 2010). The adoption process Rogers in his book Diffusion of Innovations explains the diffusion process as one in which there is the spread of ideas from a source of the invention to its ultimate users. It should be differentiate from the process of adoption which he says is a process that pertains to an individual and defines it as the mental process through which an individual has to pass through from first hearing about the innovation to adopting and using the innovation. He identifies five stages of the adoption process: Awareness, interest, evaluation, trial and adoption (Rogers, 2003). The awareness stage is the first stage in the adoption process where the individual become aware of the innovation. People must be knowledgeable about the new idea or innovation that is being proposed. Therefore this stage entails mass media communication that aims at publicizing the idea to the community or the people be it in the organization or the general public (Kreuter, 2003). The mass media channels make it easy to reach a greater number of people at a shorter time and thus is effective for communicating a new idea (Rogers, 2003). The second stage is the interest stage and here after the individual has information about the new idea or innovation, he/she becomes interested in the idea and begins to seek additional information about the new idea. In this stage the innovators go out of their way and want to find out what exactly the innovation is and how it is going to impact on their lives (Rogers, 2003). There are various ways in which individuals seek information about new ideas and this may range from consulting with the experts to talking with friends and relatives about the new idea. In the contemporary world, the internet is another source of information which the individuals can consult to learn more about the innovation (Hornor, 2010). The third stage is the evaluation stage and this involves the individual mentally applying the innovation to his present and anticipated future situation and then decides whether or not to try it. Most researchers agree that this stage is very important because it is the decision making process and the idea or innovation is most likely to be rejected at this stage. This is because the idea is evaluated on the basis values, needs, norms attitudes and beliefs of the individual. If the idea does not conform to these chances are very high that the idea may be rejected by the individual. If it conforms to a majority of these chances are very high that the individual will proceed to the next stage and want to try out the innovation (Kreuter, 2003). The fourth stage is trial and this is where the individual tries out the idea on a small scale. The idea is usually experimented on others to find out if it works or not. It is also tried out on other people because of the perceived risks usually associated with a new innovation (Rogers, 2003). Once the individual is certain that the idea works he may try it out on him or herself thus building confidence and strong attitudes about the idea. If the idea does not work it is rejected completely by the individual. The last stage is the adoption stage where the ideas is fully accepted by the individual who then begins using the idea or innovation in his day to day activities (Kreuter, 2003). The idea is implemented on a large sale basis as the individual feels confident in employing the philosophies proposed by the idea because he views them as important and conform to what he or she believes. Individuals take a long time to reach this stage and may require constant reinforcements to increase their chances of reaching this stage (Rogers, 2003). Application in the medical field The medical world has continuously evolved over the years with many innovations coming up that have improved patient care and conditions of working, increasing patients’ safety, reducing risks involved in the field and building confidence in the care givers in their day to day endeavors of providing health care. But just as in many other professions and working environment, change in the status quo is something that is not readily accepted (Huesch, 2009). Medical practitioners have no option but to continuously improve their skills and knowledge as pertains to various subfields of the medical world that they are engaged in. this is because there are new diseases that crop up each and every time which require knowledge a deep understanding of such ailments in order to treat them (Zoutis & Chiang, 2007). This therefore means that medical practitioners have no option but to continuously upgrade their knowledge, learn new ideas each and every time, conduct research so solve clinical problems and incorporate other researchers and innovations arrived at elsewhere in order to improve the profession and their careers (Sanson-Fisher, 2004). It can be assumed that all medical practitioners are willing to accept these new changes and are willing to incorporate them into practice. This is not the case as many would need to go through the entire process of adoption mentioned above in order to adopt a given idea (Huesch, 2009). This difficulty is experienced because of the differences in perceptions of the new innovations and the new problems brought about by the innovations, some of which may not go down well with medical practitioners (Zoutis & Chiang, 2007). Many changes are needed in the medical world but the most pressing change that should be adopted in any medical institution is the nurse patient ratio. Since the introduction of this innovation or idea in the state of California, many health institutions have followed suit but some with much resistance and this is because of issues of policy and state laws. The law requires a 1:1 nurse-patient-ratio in the operating room, 1:2 in the intensive care, critical care, neonatal care, post-anesthesia recovery as well as labor and delivery (Gordon, Buchanan, & Bretherton, 2007). The ratio of 1:4 is proposed for antepartum, post-partum, pediatric care, emergency room and any other specialty units. The medical surgical units are encouraged to have a ratio of 1:5. Due to the strenuous work performed by nurses, the idea is good because it leads to a reduction in job related burnouts, job dissatisfaction. It also decreases nurse workloads and leads to the improvement in the patient safety (Gordon, Buchanan, & Bretherton, 2007). The reason why the idea became controversial in hospitals and many medical institutions did not want to adopt it is because of the required continuous compliance with the ratio. At any one time whether the nurse is in the rest room or anywhere else, the ratio is supposed to be maintained at all times. The idea is also expensive because it means that health institutions must ensure they have adequate staff to ensure compliance with the said laws. The adoption was difficult but since its introduction in 1999 many other states have adopted the idea but reduced its rigidity to serve them better (Gordon, Buchanan, & Bretherton, 2007). References Bartholomew, K. L., Parcel, G. S., Kok, G., & Gottlieb, N. H. (2010). Planning Health promotion programs: An Intervention Mapping Approach. New York: Wiley Publishers. French, R., Rayner, C., Rees, G., & Rumbles, S. (2011). Organization Behavior. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Gordon, S., Buchanan, J., & Bretherton, T. (2007). safety in Numbers: Nurse-To-Patient Ratios and the Future of Health care. Ithaka, NY: Cornell University press. Hornor, M. S. (2010). Diffision of Innovation Theory. Retrieved April 7, 2012, from http://www.disciplewalk.com/files/Marianne_S_Hornor.pdf Huesch, M. D. (2009). Comment on " the difussion of a medical innovation: is sucess in the stars?". Southern Economic Journal, 75(4): 1270. Kreuter, M. W. (2003). Community health promotion Ideas that Work. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. McGinnis, S. K. (2005). Organization behaviour and Management Thinking. Retrieved October 1, 2011, from Jones and Barlet learning: http://www.jblearning.com/samples/076373473X/3473X_CH03_4759.pdf Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations. London: Free Press. Sanson-Fisher, R. W. (2004). Diffusion of innovation theory for clinical change. Medical journal of Australia, 180(6):S55. Zoutis, L. B., & Chiang, V. W. (2007). Comprehensive Pediatri Hospital Medicine. London: Elservier Health Sciences. Read More