Deborah+Week+3

** A Graphic Organization ** ||
 * Criticisms of Diffusion Research

Pro-Innovation because the study is based on lessons learned after diffusion of product has occurred. || Isman, A., Dabah, F. (2007). Diffusion of distance education in North Cyprus. The Turkish online journal of distance education-TOJDE. (6)4. Retrieved from http://anadolu.edu.tr/ I really wanted to see if I could fit this under Individual Blame Bias, but it seems more appropriate here. Schaack, A.V. (n.d.). Livescribe in K-12 education. Retrieved from [|www.livescribes.com/en-us/media/pdf/education] /Livescribe-K-12_Research_Support.pdf || Recall Problem Hall, M. & Elliott, K.M. (2003). Diffusion of technology into the teaching process: Strategies to encourage faculty members to embrace the laptop environment. //Journal of Education for Business, (78)//6 301-307. (Rogers, p. 126) Issue of time. Technology in teaching is not totally diffused while during the process technology will change. || Issues of Equality || No Criticism || Dearing, J.W. (2009). Applying diffusion of innovation theory to intervention development. //Research on Social Work and Practice, 19(//5) 503-518. This study examines the application of Diffusion of Innovation to Intervention Development. “Diffusion research does not have to be conducted after an innovation” (Rogers, p. 112). ||
 * Pro-Innovation || Abu, S. (2010). Technological innovations and 3G mobile phone diffusion: Lessons learned from Japan. Telematics &Informatics, 27(4) 418-432.
 * Individual Blame Bias

*Disclaimer. The graphic organizer did not look like this on the word document. A positive not is that I found it and somehow put a copy here.

At first glance, many of the studies reviewed for this class appear to look at products that are mechanical in nature and will be used by members of a school as the system. This assumption could automatically place much of this research under the pro-innovation bias category. Pro-innovation bias is based on the idea “that an innovation should be diffused and adopted by all members of a social system” (Rogers, p. 106). The study by Aytekin on the diffusion of distance education was a little different. This study looked at the concept of distance education as the innovation. This innovation was different from the majority of articles that were not based on a tool. However, in order to utilize distance education the participants must have the tools. However, this study seems to fit under the pro-innovation bias category. “The paper is to explore how distance education has diffused in north Cypruss” (Aytekin, p.59). This is based on the element of time. It looks at distance education after it has been diffused. Thus this study is looking at the advantage of an already in place program. The program is seen in a positive manner. The study discusses “the limitation of EMU distance education system,” but does not discuss the bias of diffusion research (Aytekin, p. 64). The limitation references teacher instructional methods and not the pro-innovation of distance education possibly by the educational system. In the alternative, this study could be placed under the issue of equality category. This bias category examines the fact that “researchers have not paid much attention to the consequence of innovation” (Rogers, p. 130). The accessibility for members of a society to participate in distance education is dependent on their resources. The study states on page 62, “students did not much training (the article is missing a word) to use the internet” (Aytekin). However, depending on the society is the internet already provided? Are the tools that connect the internet and the learner provided? People that are not able to purchase the tools needed for distance education are not able to participate in distance education. This lack of participation based on economic resources can broaden the social economic gap. One study that could loosely fit under the individual blame bias category examines Livescribe. I put it here and specify loosely, because similar to many tools of technology if the individual cannot grasp its use than it can be considered the fault of the individual. This bias holds “an individual responsible for his or her problems rather than the system” (Rogers, p. 119). The user or adopter is being blamed. “An individual-blame orientation implies that “if the shoe doesn’t fit, there is something wrong with your foot” (Rogers, p. 119). The article begins with a set of professional or authoritarian type individuals expressing their success and belief in the product. Similar to an advertisement this seems to promote the idea that if I can use it successfully and I feel it benefits a system than it should and can be used by you. The paper by Dearing was placed under the no criticism category. This article examines the application of “Diffusion of Innovation Theory” in respect to “intervention development” (Dearing, p. 503). On page 112, Rogers states, “diffusion research does not necessarily have to be conducted after an innovation has diffused completely (Roger, p. 112). The data can be “gathered before or after an intervention” (Rogers, p. 112). In addition, “an alternative research design [would be] to gather data from adopters at several points in time during the diffusion process” (Rogers, p. 113). Thus utilizing diffusion research in programs that are providing an intervention strategy might eliminate some of the bias that has been associated with diffusion research. The intervention could be a concept such as abstinence or a product of innovation such as birth control pills or devices. “Innovations, the new practices, programs, and policies that we try and test and try again, enter the social work profession and social work academic training and research communities from all directions and sources” (Dearing, p. 503). Conclusion This assignment was a more difficult because the instructions added the element of a graphic organizer. That leads me to ponder some of the criticisms of diffusion research. In the instance of product research if the item is purchased, but never used to its fullest potential is that diffusion? Would it fall under the issue of individual blame bias? Of course one person’s torment with a product does not constitute research unless it is a case study. Accordingly the terms of technology need to be learned; an example, does “digital media” (Rubric) mean through wiki or could it simply be as provided in this paper? Dearing, J.W. (2009). Applying diffusion of innovation theory to intervention development. //Research on Social Work and Practice, 19//(5) 503-518. Isman, A., Dabah, F. (2007). Diffusion of distance education in North Cyprus. The Turkish online journal of distance education-TOJDE. (6)4. Retrieved from []. Rogers, E.M. (2003). //Diffusion of innovations// (5th.). New York, NY: Free Press. Schaack, A.V. (n.d.). Livescribe in K-12 education. Retrieved from www.livescribes.com/en-us/media/pdf/education/Livescribe-K-12_Research_Support.pdf