DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 390 619 RC 020 403

AUTHOR Martinez-Brawley, Emilia E. TITLE Knowledge Diffusion in the Context of Development in Rural Areas. Keynote Address. PUB DATE Jul 94 NOTE 8p.; In: Issues Affecting Rural Communities. Proceedings of an International Conference Held by the Rural Education Research and Development Centre (Townsville, Queensland, Australia, July 10-15, 1994); see RC 020 376. PUB TYPE Information Analyses (070) Viewpoints (Opinion/Position Papers, Essays, etc.)(120) Speeches/Conference Papers (150)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Adoption (Ideas); Change Agents; *Change Strategies; *Community Attitudes; Community Development; Context Effect; Cultural Influences; *Diffusion (Communication); Human Services; *Innovation; Program Development; Resistance to Change; Rural Areas; *Rural Development; Social Change IDENTIFIERS *Knowledge Utilization; Social Construction of Reality; World Views

ABSTRACT This prtper analyzes principles of knowledge diffusion and provides a framework for applying new ideas or innovations, particularly in relation to rural community development. As new knowledge is created or old knowledge is found to have new applications, the art of spreading knowledge and managing innovation has become more crucial in both urban and rural communities. Change causes anxiety, and many innovations will encounter rejection. The diffusion of knowledge and of innovations in rural areas depends on the interpretation and communication by various stakeholders of the relative advantage of adopting an innovation. A critical component is effective marketing of an inrovation or program to help clarify its advantage t) the community. A second principle in knowledge diffusion suggests that the dissemination and use of innovations is constrained by the social, cultural, and organizational realities of the new context. Contextual forces often provide an explanation for resistance and for difficulties encountered in the dissemination of new knowledge, programs, or innovations. Equally important is the transactional nature of knowledge diffusion. Perceptions of the complexity, triability, and observability of an innovation will determine the rate of trial and adoption. This paper suggests that culture, norms, values, beliefs, and assumptions about life are major determinants of how individuals and communities view the world and change. The challenge of the innovator is to work within the social constructs of reality of those who will use and benefit from the new knowledge or program. Examples discuss introduction of innovations in human services delivery in rural areas. Contains 48 references. (LP) KEYNOTE ADDRESS

KNOWLEDGE DIFFUSION IN THE CONTEXT OF DEVELOPMENT IN RURAL AREAS

Emilia E. Martinez-Brawley USA

U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS e nr I ducabonal Research and Imp,overne-' MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY E DUCA TIONALRE SOURCESINFORMATION CENTER !ERIC) doc,rnent h peen reproduced Is 'ece.red Iron, the ()emir,n or organization I M.o0, hanoes hare Peen made to ..C.M0411 D McSwan 'egYodue o0ald,

4, ..os 01,e. or 0otn.OnS slated In thIS docv .nenr an no, neCesSar.ly represent officIal TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES 0E141 DOS.1.00 DolICY INFORMATION CENTER IERIC1' L1.34 IMO Is "tofu.. ... KEYNOTE ADDRESS KNOWLEDGE DIFFUSION INTHE CONTEXT OFDEVELOPMENT IN RURAL AREAS Emilia E. Martinez-Brawley USA are introduced in modernlife, their scope and pervasiveness. INTRODUCTION Modern changes have deeply affectedhuman relationships have Community Development has beendefined n many ways. It (Fitchen, 19C i)In the human services, lack of resources R, for new and creative is generally agreed, however,that it encompasses sxial, economic, pressed professionals in all fields to search political and cultural enhancementfor the purp,me of improving ways of insuring that ruralpeople receive the degree and quality of the quality of He of rural citizens andthat it must o-cur within a services they deserve. Citizens andprofessionals in rural framework of participation, respectfor diversity and self- communities have joined the searchfor new ideas, new knowledge determination, whether the particulardevelopment project utilizes or new programs that canalleviate their problems and satisfy their internal or external rc-jurces t",'>)ey & Wong,1994; Cary, 1973). needs Change and innovation havecertainly become thc order of the day. Development, when treated as a normative conceptis usually synonymous with improvementand social transformation Furthermore, as modern communication hasrendered the whole "jewels" which (Christenson, Fendley & Robinson,198)). In this process, the role world accessible, the search for the programmatic ever-increasing needs of the of community leadership in facilitatingthe dissemination of new might prove useful in meeting the ideas, the acceptance of new roles, thediscovery of new solutions countryside has taken on internationaldimensions. In the U.S., for or the replication of old ones,whether introduced into the example, federal, state and local governments,voluntary agencies community by insiders or outsider, emergeas central. By and for profit corporations are activelysearching lor new national borders.1 It can definition, rural community developmententails the introduction. approaches in the human services, across dissemination and adoption of new ideas,technologies, programs safely be assumed that the same is true inother countries. In has suggested that the or other changes by localpeople (Cawley, 1984; Huie, 1976), or relation to social problems, Schor (1988) the re-discovery of old ones for newand different purposes. As a best way to combat helplessness is toidentify innovations that help process, rural communitydevelopment is closely allied to and encourage their diffusion. It hasbecome apparent across the innovation, knowledge diffusionand transfer of technology world that, as new knowledge is created orold knowledge is found However, as suggested by Tarde(1903), the diffusion of to have new applications,the art of spreading knowledge and crucial in urban and rural knowledge is not an easy process.Unfortunately, of hundreds of managing innovation has become more novel ideas or innovations introduced at any onetime, very few communities (Smale & Tucson, 1992).We know, however, that probable that innovations will spread while the rest will remainedunnoticed. changes cause anxiety; thus, it is highly Whitehead suggested, the innovation in the contem of will encounter rejection. As Alfred North This paper will focus on the process of art of progress, improvement, or,for that matter, the art of rural community development.Knowledge diffusion theory and and change amid that might be useful to development is "to preserve order amid change practice will he used to suggest basic steps order" (Whitehead, 1988/1933). Thephilosopher understood the the ruil innovator. Can we identifybasic principles that can be Indubitably, as many introducing a new idea, fine complementarily of change and stability. used in rural development when community development veterans know, agood innovator must replicating an old one or simply spreading a concept,principle or which can allay the anxieties of those elsewhere? What can rural preserve some sense of order practice which may have worked who participate in the process. community leaders and prokssionalsdo to energize the process of replication and discovery of new knowledge inrural areas? In all DEFINITIONS AND BASIC THEMES spheres of life, but particularly in thehuman services, we cannot afford to discard "gems" that may haveworked elsewhere simply Before we proceed, a few definitions mightbe useful. The term because we are unable to translatethem into helpful local innovation simply means something new;change implies practices. Yet, the energies ofthe innovator often go into finding something different from the establishedorder or the common the "gems" while the process ofapplying them, cultivating them pattern. While many innovations arethe direct consequence of and letting them take new roots goesunattended. new discoveries in science ortechnology, many are only the result of applying very old principles inrelatively new ways or in new Even though seminal work onknowledge diffusion originated in and of itself neither positive nor & Shoemaker, 1971), rural contexts. An innovation is in the rural field (Rogers, 1983; Rogers positive or negative qualities existing, predictable patterns of negative. An innovation only takes on innovators have often disregarded searching for solutions to an existingproblem. 1979; Watson, 1983). as we pursue it, knowledge diffusion (Chatterjee & freys, Having confronted a problem whichresisted former solutions, a Innovators have frequently been perceived aseccentrics or people involved in the process to whose processes, though change or innovation allows those with "hairbrained" ideas (Smale, 1993), explore alternative ways of solving it. at times successful, may notdeserve systematic study and attention. Yet, particularly inthe human services, where "one is Among the better known work onknowledge diffusion and the dealing with human beings with deepand pressing needs, the transfer of innovations is that of Rogers(1983) and Rogers and disparaging of innovation is an immoralposition" (Governors Shoemaker (1971) Their work has given us aframework for Center, 1991:4). This paper willanalyze knowledge diffusion synthesizing some of the characteristicsof the innovations principles and suggest steps that can bereplicated easily and Ca 11 themselves and sonic of the highlights of the processof innovation provide frameworks and blueprints for newdevelopments in rural which might be helpful in disseminating newideas in rural areas areas, not only in the humanservices but also in a variety of other At a more abstract level, Dunn,Holzner and Zaltman (1985) have the nature of fields identified conceptual premises that explain knowledge useFinally, based on the work of Rogers(1983). and on research experience 1 HF PROBLEM OF CHANGE Dunn, Holzner and Zahman (1985), rural areas, Martinez- AND THE MANAGEMENT OFINNOVATIONS with projects of knowledge diffusion in 1;rawley (1993) suggested steps that couldhe followed to achieve be a certainty in rum( change has always been and will continue to more successful rates ofknowledge diffusion and innovation. areas Broad so( ietal trends rangingfrom the delivery of rural mail, communities andrural the mechanization of agriculture, theviability of the family farm, Based on what we know about rural analyzing and illustrating the introduction of industry, fromtextiles to shoes and computers, development, this paper will focus on tlw transformation of the one room schoolhouse, the advent of how three selected characteristics orattributes of innovations in the use of rural , dovetail with the more abstract principlesof knowledge (Whisk.") tadm and television, the wax and wane the nndwives, or more broadly speaking,the appreciation or6 imd with conciete steps suggested fortlw innovator In turn, depict iabon of rural life styles, have beenthe daily reality of many following will be dis( rural citizens What is perhaps new is thespeed at which changes Knowledge interpretationRelative advantageInnovation knowledge of the innovation and the second is a degree of dissatisfaction with the existing state of affairs. Dissatisfaction with market ing; the current state of affairs is fairly spontaneous. We know, 2 The systemicnatureof knowledge useValue however, that, knowledge is interpretative; consequently ideas do compatibility Aids of constraints iniunovation diffusion; not transfer by themselves;'eommitted innovatorsand product 3 The transactional nature of knowled& Complexity, champions of the new knowledge need to have no!, only taiability and observabilityNetworks and concept knowledge of the innovation but must perceive one or more of its simplification. relative advantages, because the proponent of an innovation must FigureI summarily presents how the conceptual premisesof the carry out a variety of marketing tasks. characteristics of the process of knowledge diffusion, the In marketing an innovation, the proponent of the new knowledge, along innovations themselves and the steps of the innovatoi run technology or program will need to first identify the perceptions selected parallel lines While the characteristics of the innovations and attitudes toward the innovation and then proceed to clarify its because they do not constitute an exhausdve list, they were chosen relative advantage. In the human services, the innovator is likely to established principles of rural are extremely compatible with well be dealing with changes that represent a social/communal cost and where development. Particularly in the rural human services, but render mainly a non-financial or service benefit for the provideless economicorcommercial motives often individual or community (Agarwal,1983). Furthermore, the than in other areas, encouragement in the adoption of innovations decision of whether or not to consider the innovation is often in enhance the diffusion of it is useful to study processes that can the hands of those who may not use it, and thus, may not seethe improved ways of canng. direct advantage of the new idea. Consequently, communal consensus is likely to be an importantmarketing factor. For KNOWLEDGE INTERPRETATION RELATIVE example, the relative advantage of opening a new day carefacility ADVANTAGE INNOVATION MARKETING for children in a small town may not be apparent to an older or the Those who study the sociology of knowledge or theheld of well estabhshed community leadership. On the other hand, knowledge utilization report that knowledge isalways consensus and cohesiveness of the youngmight convince the interpretative. In other words, knowledge, oncediscovered, or leadership of the relative advantage of having the younger innovations, once produced, do not speak forthemselves. They constituents on their side; their support might be needed to Rot by various stake holders into effect other efforts that might benefit, moredirectly, the must be interpreted and communicated for before they will be utilized or translated into practical action leadership. Even the objective evidence of better cared children, or of reduced social costs in the long run, may not (Dunn, Holzner & Zahman, 1985; Lazarsfeld, 1975).Regardless of the nature of the new knowledge, interpretation is partof the necessarily be the best marketing approach. The better technique might be to market the idea first among the potential adopters and utilization cycle. let their consensus and cohesiveness play a rolewith the However, is some knowledge more amenable to interpretation leadership. Indirectly, the leadership may recognize a relative than other? Are sonic innovations more likely to becaught in the advantage for themselves. whirlwind of the utilization cycle than others? In the early the idea of development of innovation theory, researchers believed the In a recent innovation project in rural Pennsylvania, objective status of an innovation (its intrinsic worth ormerit) on "integrated services", that is, single agencies that provide a variety potential of personal social services in the rural counties, was theobject of a the one hand, and the personal characteristics of the & adopters (their socio-economic or educational status,their knowledge diffusion and innovation project (Martinez-Brawley identification with traditions) on the other, were majorfactors in Delevan, 1992). Objective evidence that showed integrated and agencies as advantageous was collected but so wasevidence that the rate of adoption. Thus, scholars often arnved at sweeping effective or perhaps mistaken conclusions about a particular group's or showed that integrated agencies were not any more region's propensity to use new knowledge oradopt new efficient. Administrators and providers who had both positiveand technologies. A perfect example of this was the over-generalization negative experiences with integrated agencies debated the concept. and In the end, those who moved to apply the newidea in their that rural areas were absolutely reluctant to accept innovation favorably change, a premise that has been shown to be not always correct. counties were those who had begun by being more disposed toward it because they believed the cost savingsand Rogers'(1983) studies placed much greater significance on socio- improved access factors were an obvious relativeadvantage. psychological dimensions, that is, the perceived characteristicsof Additionally, those who perceived the new model to havereal the new idea or practice rather than on its objective status.Osdund financial and political advantages became the champions. (1974) corroborated that Roger's socio-psychologicalattributes of Increased knowledge and familiarity with the new ideahelped innovations were good predictors of adoption. Pandeyand Yadama solidify positive perceptions and move marginal ones in a positive (1992) further suggested that relative advantage,compatibility and direction rather than change those who werevehemently opposed compkxity were probably the strongest. Russell andNicholson to the conceptIn the human services, where few innovations or (1981) stressed the importance of participatory decisionmaking new ideas can be shown, with certainty, tobe improvements over advantage are Relative advantage refers strictly to the way in which an innovation the ones they replace, perceptions of relative particularly important. is perceivedIf a new idea or innovation is perceived as being better than the idea it replaces, it will probably be tried outand Finally, a very important marketing approach to aninnovation in even adopted. The strength of theobjective evidence that it works rural communities is the contagion effect. Capitalizing onthe very does not seem to make a fundamental difference at the start,hut close social networks of most rural places, whether inreference to the degree to which a person or community feelsrewarded or individuals, to organizations or to communities,the rural disadvantaged in adopting an :inovation or new technologydoes innovator needs to identify a fewenthusiasts for the given factor in the innovation and make sure that the new idea ispublicly displayed, Cost of the new idea is often a very important debate in Changes, which might be talked about, discussed and demonstrated. Even intense perception of advantage or disadvantage. reputable public forum can create a positive contagioneffect, advantageous in urban areas, for example, are often disregarded in political or It wa., recently suggested that provided the debate does not obscure all the potential rur.il areas because of cost factors other relative advantages. Again, drawing on theexample of a the cost of implementing new EEC piped water regulations inthe recent Pennsylvania project on thetransfer of "cornmunity oriented Highlands of Scotland was so high, that the Chairmanof the and patch based services", a human service deliverymodel from Highland Forum openly suggested that providing bottled waterfor the U.K. (Martinez-Brawley with Delevan, 1993)2,the contagion drinking would be cheaper (Bryden, 1991). Clearly, such achange effect became apparent. When one county director,who was a proposal would not he high on relative advantage evenif it had product champion, began to receive substantial press covetage been viewed by the leadership as an improvement (both, positive and negative) for his innovating interests,many Belot e perceived advantage among feasible alternatives Lanbe other directors began to discuss the perceived relativeadvantage of discerned, there arc probably two pre-mluisitesI he firstis 4this coverage for their own organizations Thisprompted a wave Of interest and experimentation with the new idea and resulted in the Issues relar:d to the naming of the innovation arc discussed in the eventual diffusion of the innovation to two other rural counties. context of making it compatible with the new surroundings. While innovators may believe that the names they give to their projects reflect the essence of those projects, localites (Rogers, 1983) must THE SYSTEMIC NATURE OF KNOWLEDGE USEVALUE develop names which fit their linguistic patterns and meanings and COMPATIBILITYAIDS OR CONSTRAINTS IN reflect positive rather than negative local experiences. In adjusting INNOVATION DIFFUSION . the innovation to fit the local system the innovator is following A second principle in knowledge diffusion suggests that principles of community development that stress local decision- knowledge use is systemic, that is, the dissemination and use of making. innovations or discoveries is constrained by the social, cultural and In rural areas, one way of testing compatibility is to bring the organizational realities of the new context. This is an important discoverers or inventors, the product champions and the users into principle which applies to rural and urban areas alike As already close contact. This can be through face-to-face interaction, mentioned, rural areas have been said to be particularly resistant to workshops and seminars that bring together the various parties the adoption of new ideas. Traditional values and mores, even in involved in the diffusion and encourage their exchanges. This highly industrial societies have been cited as causes. Yet, when one process is not limited to testing compatibility but extends, as we examines innovation from the perspective of relative advantage, shall see, to minimizing the complexity and enhancing the other explanations emerge for rural areas. In the U.S., for example, triability of an idea. Naturally, the process of exchange cannot be educational levels and local authority's investment in rural limited to the early stages of adoption; it must be nurtured so that education have remained low in many rural communities. Rural it does not end with the assessment of compatibility but continues schools are often unable or unenthusiastic, it would seem, to invest to the development of truly autochthonous or local solutions. in new educational approaches or technology. Johnson (1991) has argued that two important reasons for this under-investment is the The example of two recent Pennsylvania projects come to mind. A declining number of jobs in rural communities. Lack of jobs leads 1991 project (Martinez-Brawley & Delevan, 1991)sponsored by to perceived (and real) low return on educational investments for the Center foi Rural Pennsylvania, a legislative agency of the individuals and to disincentives for rural schools, inasmuch as they Pennsylvania General Assembly permitted two researchers to do not reap the benefits of their investments because of rural out- gather, in four intensive workshops through the course of one migration. (Rural Sociological Society, 1993). Contextual forces year, the administrative and political leadership of about twenty often provide, if not a justification, at least an explanation for rural counties to explore the idea of more integrated human service resistance and for difficulties encountered in the dissemination of agencies that would serve the needs of those counties. Through new knowledge, programs or innovations. interviews, discussions and focus group techniques, the leadership explored the possible innovation, adapted it to their own contexts, Furthermore, because knowledge use is systemic, the value modified it, re-named and explored the possibilities of its compatibility (Rogers, 1983) between the innovation or program diffusion. What began as the consideration of a model of and the specific context, needs to be determined carefully. A "integrated human services agencies" ended up as the diffusion of a survey of the literature on knowledge use found that "researchers continuum of local possibilities, from the very integrated to the and users belong to separate communities" (Beyer & Trice, specialized. The originally proposed name for the project was 1982:608). Value and cultural discrepancies between the chan;eil to reflect the thrust of the emerging consensus3. developers of knowledge or technologies and the users of the product have often been profound. For example, testing the rate of Wnile the original idea had been transformed, the doors of adoption of new wood stoves in rural Nepal. Pandey and Yadama dialogue and exploration remained open for yet a second project (1992) ascertained that cultural compatibility between the which introduced, in similar fashion, the principles of community technology, however simple,.and the user was the major factor in oriented social work from the U.K. to rural Pennsylvania. Of the determining stove use Nepalese women found that the new stoves original twenty counties, ten were ready to make an investment in were a pi oblem in preparing some standard dishes and were also the second project and four actually operationalized innovations, incornpatible with their pots and utensils. Obviously, in designing which took on different characteristics in rural Pennsylvania than the new stoves in a community development project, had been the case in rural Britain (Martinez-Brawley, 1993). Any customization of the technology to the users' needs and new knowledge applied or disseminated to a new context preferences should be a central concern. undergoes transformation; the final product is never the same, for new situations aid in the discovery of new relationships, the The situation is not dissimilar in the human services; in fact, it can generation of newer ideas, and the transformation and re-invention be more complex. Human service innovations, even administrative of the old ones into programs that work for local users (Martinez- ones, just like stoves, result in changes in the action patterns of the Brawley, 1993). users. Unlike innovations such as household insulation, which, once installed, require no alteration in the homeowner's action One final issue in relation to the systemic nature of knowledge patterns to achieve economies (Darley & Beniger, 1981), human diffusion must be considered. Particularly in the human services, service innovations require a great many changes in the action -innovations are not as structured or concrete as they are in patterns of the user. Changing the model of provision of rural technical fields. Human service innovations tend to be, in Gruber's services from a variety of specialized agencies to an integrated one (1977) words, "messy solutions to messy problems" (p.22). Not based in a school, for example, would require modifications in the only will they be more difficult to maintain (because action patterns of many people. The daily patterns of the "users", communicability and evaluation are more difficult for messy whether defined as the social workers themselves or the innovations), but also, they will have very pervasive systemic clients/consumers, would undergo change Innovators and product consequences. Innovators must be aiert to assessing consequences champions of new knowledge need to view the process of in other parts of the system or even in other systems they never knowledge dissemination as a collaboration or transaction between intended to impact. In rural areas, where the inter-connectedness nuny parties They need to assess the fit between the new idea and of systems is significant, the intended and unintended the many parries involved in the new context. consequences of new knowledge must be carefully monitored. For example, in certain rural Pennsylvania counties, when introducing In contouring the innovation or new knowledge to the local decentralized, community oriented services through the use of situation, objective evidence that the innovation has been tried and patchworkers4, the question remained as to the additional demand works, preferably in similar surroundings, becomes more useful. for services the new technology would generate. Most rural county The more locally credible the evidence, the more likely that the administrators anticipated that the pres. ence of the patchworker user will be able to identify with the new idea. In rural areas, a would result in additional requests not just for social services but program that has been shown to work in an urbad area will be far probably for educational, sanitary, medical and other services The less attractive to the user than one which can boast of broad rural resolutiol. ol one problem often generates awareness of other application This will be hecauce of both, perceived relative problems advantage and compatibility THE TRANSACTIONAL NATURE OF KNOWLEDGE theories of Freire (1972). More recently, the concept of promotores COMPLEXITY, TRIABILITY AND OBSERVABILITY has been transferred to the health field and reflects the work of NETWORKS AND CONCEPT SIMPLIFICATION health para-professionals who attempt to introduce improved health practices by drawing on local and traditional forms of istransactional. Knowledge Knowledge dissemination healing. The promotores, in that sense, are no longer limited to the disserninauon is not a one dimensional process in which discrete socio-cultural field. The basic idea has been disseminated to other pieces of information are moved from one party to another. In fact, fields and to broader regions. Each field and each region has neither knowledge, nor technology nor innovations can be said .to adapted the concept to its own context. No details were ever he truly exchanged, marketed or transferred. "On the contrary, needed for the adaptation of the key concept. knowledge is in fact transacted among parties engaged in symbolic or communicate acts of negotiating the adequacy,relevance and A recent project partnership between the University of Arizona cogency of knowledge claims" (Dunn, Holzner & Zaltman, College of PhannacY and Arizona State University School of Social [085 2832-2833). Work, entitled Nuestra Communidad, Nuestra Salud defines promotores as "lay health promoters who share with the client a Know le* can be transacted in a variety of ways. In rural areas, social, environmental and ethnic subculture as well as the client's some important ways are networks, whethercosmopolite or verbal and non-verbal language" (Slack, 1994). In this project, the localite (Rogers, 1983, p.200), professional or acquaintanceship. promotores are viewed not only as preservers of local culture, as Networks form channels of communication through which had been the case in the Spanish original, but as agents in the innovations spread and through which the contagion effect already transfer of health practices and technologies. Naturally, not all described is enhanced. Cosmopolite or professional channels (Rogers, 1983, P.200) are important at the conception and concepts have such a commendable degree of simplicity inherent generation stages of new ideas or projects. Localite or in them. acquaintanceship networks of communication play a key role in The concept of case managers is another example. One of the spreading awareness of new ideas and managing attitudes about reasons for the variety of definitions of a case managers isthat a them. In fact, the process of innovation becomes collaborative as basic concept, which had its roots in the early tasks performed by all the parties and networks engage in understanding the new caseworkers, has been transferred, negotiated and re-interpreted in concepts. The collaborative aspects o: knowledge diffusion dovetail many local settings. While situations such as this add complexity with the process of community development and with the to the human service vocabulary, they also create flexibility in development of appropriate technology (Schumacher, 1973; Fear, knowledge application. In the end, the professional finds himself Gamin & Fisher,1989). Innovators and product champions must or herself enmeshed in a much broader web of applicationthan the engage in an exchange of ideas with the likely adopters.Effective inventor may have envisioned. Additionally, these modifications exchange, suggested Gruber (1977) is started at the outset, not and re-inventions of the knowledge have proven essential to developed after the fact. maintaining the momentum for change. Fo: example, in transferring patch models from the U.K. to counties in rural Complexity refers to the perceived difficult of the innovation. Pennsylvania, what finally emerged in one county was not a Inability refers to the degree to which an innovation can he tested remote, rural, generalist patch, but a patch in a minority either for effectiveness, cost, or even other dimensions such as comfort, accessibility, etc. Finally, observability refers to the neighborhood of the biggest county town, operationalized through one of the specialized county agencies (T. L.Barley, Personal potential outcomes. Will others be able see or experience the Communicatinn, Dec 1st, 1993). (Parenthetically, questions about change? Will the situation change for the better in observable the tendency o: social agencies to base the trial of innovations in ways? Rogers (1983) emphasized that these dimensions have a minority communities could be raised here, for positive and psychological effect on the trial of innovations. How complex, negative reasons, but that needs to be the focus of a different triable and observable an innovation is perceived to he will determine the rate of trial and adoption. Clearly, the easier an debate.) innovation is to understand, the more likely it is that it might at If a concept is simple, it will be used and diffused. But, it will also least be tried. be changed, re-interpreted and can quite possibly become unrecognizable. As Rein and Schon (1977) suggested, we may do As was mentioned before, interaction and proximity of all the something new and, when done, finally ask. "how did we get parties involved in the knowledge diffusion process serve to test, here?". Thc practitioner who cannot live with this is denying the not only compatibility with values and culture, but also to reduce most basic practice assumptions in the field of knowledge use.The the level of complexity and enhance the triability of an innovation process of re-invention makes it essential for the innovator or user Schor (1988) has warned that in attempting to transfer an idea or a of expert knowledge "to identify real concerns and forestall program, the innovator must focus on the basic concept, not the narrow, self-serving ones" (Boggs, 1992). detail. Awareness of the basic principles of an innovation have been translated into high rates of triability. Even in villages where stereotypes of tradition-bound or conservative inhabitants were SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS prevalent, increasing awareness of the new knowledge brought the This paper has reviewed the process of knowledge diffusion in stereotypes into question (Gartrell & Gartrell, 1979). This does not relation to selected characteristics of new ideas or innovations. mean that awareness alone will result in viability; what seems to Steps an innovator can take in enhancing positive outcomes have be the case is that simple, understandable and easily triable been suggested. Parallelisms were drawn between the processes of innovations, stand a better chance of being used by locals. Details knowledge diffusion and innovation and that of community are usually filed away or discarded by potential innovators.They development; particular rural examples were discussed. become a kind of "noise pollution" in transferability. In human Implied in the discussion was the fact that culture, that is norms, service agencies, where bureaucratic details tend to quickly values, beliefs, assumptions about life, linguistic habits, etc ,is a overtake program management, it is only the essence of the major determinant of how individuals and communities view the program that can he considered transferrable. If simply articulated, world and approach the realities of daily living. The strength of the a good idea will take on various shapes, as it is applied in various daily reality, whether of rural people in a particular part of the contexts world, or of professionals in a given social service agency, is often An example of a key idea, succinct in its origin to be cited here is underestimated. Yet, new ideas or innovations disrupt that reality. that of the use of promotores (or promoters) in many contexts and New ideas can often go counter to or question individuals' basic in many fields in the rural U S., particularly, but notexclusively, social constructs, while attempting to modify their habitual actions where Hispanics constitute a large percentage of the population (Berger & Luckmann, 196(). The biggest threat to the Thc concept of the promotor was originally used in Spain dissemination of new knowledge or the success of innovations in Promotores socio-culturales helped to engage local rural groups in development is the resistance inherent in local social constructs the re-claiming their own traditions and lore immediately and habitual actions following the Franco regime (Martmez-Brawley, 1 (N; Brawley & Vet, as (iouldner writes, the social construction ofindivulual and Martinez-Brawley, 1090). The concept was also used in Latin 6 t one, tive realities is not SLUR butloicver changing (Goulding, America in the saute Socio-culttual sense and reflected some ol the Capital Investment. permit Johnson, T. 0. (1991, August). Poverty and Human 1976) Only a dynamic interpretation of social reality can Unpublished manuscnpt presented at the meeting of RuralSociological be the work of the innovator. Culture and habitual actions can Society, Columbus, Of I. viewed as mouvating rather than binding. Lazarsfeld, P., Reitz, J., & Weiss. C. (1975). An Introduction toApplied The cuallenge of the innovator is to identify the constructsthrough Sociology. Elsevier, New York. which the individuals or communities with which he/sheworks Martinez-Brawley, E. E. (1984). In Search of Common Principles inRural interpret their world These social constructs must beunderstood Social and Community Work. Social Work in Rural andUrban Areas. fully in order to be influenced The most basic and yet most Aberdeen: University of Aberdeen. fundamental task of the knowledge builder, transmitter or Martinez-Brawley, E, E. (1991). Social Services in Spain The C.Iseof Rural innovator is to work with the socialmstruction of reality of those Catalonia. International Social Work, Vol-34, 265-286. who will use, receive and presumably benefit from the new Marunez-Brawley, E. E. (1993, Nov 3). Knowledge Diffusion aridTransfer of knowledge or program. Technoloisy: Conceptual Premises and Concrete Steps for HumanServices Innovators. Paper presented at the NASW meetingof the Profession, REFERENCES Orlando, Florida. Agarwal. Bina. (1983) Diffusion of Rural Innovations: Some AnalyticalIssues Martinez-Brawley, E. E., & Delevan, S. M. (1991).Considerations on und the Case of Wootl-burmng Stoves. World Development,Vol-11 (4), Integrative Structures, Conditions and Alternative Modelsfor CAnenty Human 359-376. Services Delivery. Harrisburg, PA: Center for RuralPennsylvania. Backer, T. E. (1991). Knowledge (!tilization- Ihe Third Wave.Knowledge: Martinez-Brawley, E. E., & Delevan, S. M. (1992).Patchworking reation, Diffusion, Utilization, Vol-12 (3), 225-240 Pennsylvania: Innovation and Technology Transfer in the RuralHuman Backer, T. E., & Shaperman. J. (1993). Knowledge Utilizationand Services. Harrisburg, PA: Center for Rural Pennsylvania Foundations Supporting Health Research and Demonstrations. Maninez-Brawley, E. E., with Delevan, S. NI. (Eds.). (1993).Transferring Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, I 'tilization, Vol-14 (4), 386-400. Technology tri the Personal Social Services. NASW Press. Barclay, P. M. (1982). Social Workers: Their Role and Tasks. The reportof a Ostlund, L. (1974). Perceived Innovation Attributes asPredictors of working pony.ondon: Bedford Square Press / National Institute of Innovativeness. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol-1, 23-29. social Work. l'andey, S., & Yadama. G. N. (1992, Dec). CommunityDevelopment Berger. P., & Luckmann, T. (1906) The Social Constructionof Reality. Programs in Nepal: A Test of Diffusion of InnovationTheory. Social Garden City Doubleday. Service Review, Vol-66 (4), 582-597. Beyer, J. M., & Tnce, II. M. (1982). The l`nlization Process: AConceptual Rein, M., & Schon, D. A. (1977). Problem Setting in PolicyResearch. In C. Frammorh and Synthesis of Empirical findings. AdministrativeScience IL Weiss (Ed.), Using Social Research in Public PolicyMaking (235-51). Quanerly, Vol-27, 591-622. Lexington. MA: Lexington Books. Boggs, I. P. (1992). Implicit Models of Social Knowledge Use.Knowledge: Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations. 3rd Ed.New York: Free Creation, Diffusion, (It ilization. Vol- 4 (I), 29-62. Press. Brawley, E. A., & Martmez-Brawley, E. E. (1990). Paraprofesionales enlos Rogers, E. M., & Shoemaker, F. E. (1971). Communicationof Innovations: A sermoos sooales en Espana. Revista De Treball Social(RTS), No- 118, 137- Cross-Cultural Approach. New York: Free Press. 140. Rural Sociological Society. (1993). Work Structuresand Rural Poverty. In Bryden. J. (1991). New Strategies for Managing Sermces inRural Areas In Rural Sociological Society, Persistent Poverty in Rural America.Boulder, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development(OECD), New Colorado: Westview Press, Inc. OECD Ways of Managing Services in Rural Areas, Pans, France. Rural Sociological Society. (1993). Spatial Location ofEconomic Activities, Publication Service. Uneven Development, and Rural Poverty. In RuralSociological Society, Cary, F. J. (Ed.). (1973). Community Development as a ProcessColumbia: Persistent Poverty in Rural America. Boulder, Colorado:Westview Press, University of Missoun Press Inc Cawley. R. (1984) Exploring the Dimensions of Democracy inCommunity Russell, C. S., & Nicholson, N. K. (1981). PublicChoice and Rural Development. Journal of theornmunity Development Society, Vol-15 (1), Development. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future,Inc. 15-26. Schor, L. B. (1988). Within Our Reach: Breakingthe Cycle of Disadvantage Chatterjee, P.. & keys. II (1979). Technology Transfer: Viewsfrom some Garden City, New York: Anchor Press / Doubleday. Social Science Disciplines..Social Development Issues, Vol-3 (3). 5-'75. Schumacher, E. F. (1973). Small is Beautiful: Economics asif People Mattered. Chnstenson, J. A.. Fendley, K., & Robinson, J. W. (1989). Community New York: Harper & Row, Publishers. Inc. (lids.), Development. In J. A. Christenson & J. W. Robinson. Jr Slack. M. K.. (1994). Principal Investigator. Grant,for Interdisciplinary Community Development in Perspective. Ames, lowa: IowaState University Training for Health Care for Rural Areas, Proposalsubmitted by the Press College of Pharmacy. University of Arizona tothe United States Daley. 1. M.. & Wong, P. (1994). Community Developmentwith Emerging Department of Health and Human Services. hnic Communities. Journal of Community Practice, Vol-1 (1), 9-24. Smile, G. (1993). The Nature of Innovationand Community-Based Harley, J. M., & Bemger, J. R. (1981). Diffusion ofEnergy-Conserving Practice (p. 14-26). In E. Martinez-Brawleywith S. M. Delevan, Innovations. Journal of Social Issues, Vol-37 (2), 150- I 71. Transferring Technology in the Personal Social Services, NASWPress. Dunn, W , Holzner, B., & Zaltman, G. (1985). KnowledgeUtilization. In T. Smale, 0 G.. & Tucson, 0. (1992), ManagingChange through Innovation: I lawn & F. N. Postleihwane tEds ), The InternationalEncyclopedia of Towards a Model for Developing and Reforming SocialWork Practice and Development Exchange / Education. Research and Studies, Vol-5.1-1.. 2031-2839. Social Service Delivery. London: Practice and National Institute of Social Work. I ear, I-A Comm, L.. & Fisher. F. (1989). The TechnicalAssistance Approach In j A Chnstenson & J. W. Robinson, Jr. (Eds.), Community farde. G. (1901). The Laws of Imitation. Translationby Elsie Crews Parsons Vvelopment in Perspective. Ames. lowa: Iowa State University Press New York I bolt. Welfare, Vol-41 htt hen, INt. (1991). Endangered Spares, Enduring Places: Change,Identity, Watson. K. W. (1981). Efficiency Versgs Process Public and Survival in Rural Amenca. Boulder, Colorado: WestviewPress. (3), 19-21 Webster's New World I reire, P (1972). redagog of the Oppressed. London. PenguinBooks Whitehead, A. N. (1988/1933) In E. F. Brussell, New World. Ganrell, J. W., & Gartrell, C 13 (1979, spnng) Status. Knowledge,and Dictionary of Quotable Definitions. New York Webster's Innovation Rural Sociology, Vol-44 (I), 73-44. Foundanon initiatives related to innovation have beensponsored among Institute (1992), the Ihe Dialectic (if Ideology and In hnology New York others by the Aspen Institute (I 993), the Synergos t.ouldner. A. (1976) Mega Cities Project (1992). In 1989, thelargest 475 American seabury Press foundations awarded S 563 million for research anddemonstration. The Governois Center at Duke University, Instituteof l'ohcy Sciences and Exxon Foundation IMPACT program wascreated to promote wider I.ocal Allairs. (1991) Research on Innovations in State and utilization of educational innovations (Backer &Shaperman, 1993). t'covernment, Durham, NC knowledge diffusion prospects A I he federal government has funded Giuher.Nt (1977. Spring)Innovation and Organization Institutes of I lealth, (I), through the National Cancer Institute, the National Polyoreanizational Approath Administration in 'io(lal Work. Vol-1 the National Institute on Drug Abuse,the Maternal and Child Ilcalth 19-29 Bureau, the Children National DemonstrationProgram, the A chailenyy to the others (Backer & II II Ir. I NI 0 76)W. b.it %sr oo Administration of (.hildren and families and i)evelopinmil Journal of the I ommunity Shaperman, 1991, Bac keiI 001) I lesetopment Sot Loy, Vol-6 (2). 14-21 THE COMMUNITY: POLICY, PRACTICE AND PEDAGOGY 267

Community oriented social work or community social work is an and Alternative Models for County Human Service Dehvery". The final approach to social work that uses local networks, teamwork by title reflected not only the reluctance to imply sweeping changes but also professionals, integrated service de': ery systems, and user involvement. the broader continuum of possibilities participants needed to be able to A basic definition appears in the Barclay Report (1982). A patch is a sub- re-invent concepts. organizational unit in a !ocal authority (county) social services Social workers who deliver generaltst services to delineated geographic department. It is limited geographically and by population. The idea is regions. Patches are usually based on population but also take into to based in the patch a social worker who is conversant with the local account accessibility to the corners of the patch by the caseworker, community and relate in non-bureaucratic ways to local needs. familiarity of the worker with the patch culture, etc. (Martinez-Brawley, f he originally proposed name for the project was "Human Service 1984). The term originated in the U.K. and was part of the technology to Delivery in Rural Counties in Pennsylvania. Barriers to Integration. be transferred to Pennsylvania rural counties (Martinez-Brawley with Implications for Legislative Action". The final name agreed to by all Delevan, 1993). participants was ''Considerations on Integrative Structures, Conditions

8 /'