The Tipping Point: Diffusion from a community approachThe ideas behind Elements of Diffusion are very similar to the ideas behind Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point. (while that link takes you to the book on google, you can read about the book in Gladwell’s blog). In the Peruvian Village, it is suggested that Nelida’s attempt to diffuse the technology of water boiling failed because she only focused on those similar to her, or social outcasts. She did not target influential members of the village. This is very closely related to Gladwell’s first rule of successful epidemics, which suggests that tipping points , which are very much a part of diffusion and innovation , rely on certain types of people to make them successful: Connectors, Mavens, and Salesmen. When Rogers suggests that Nelida would have been more successful if she had target influential village members, which he calls village opinion leaders, who could activate networks to spread the message, he is very much talking about the same three types of people that Gladwell says are important.A case of note, from Gladwell’s book, which shows the difference that targeting the right people can make: We’ve all heard of Paul Revere and know that he warned John Hancock and Samuel Adams of the approaching British Army. But fewer people are familiar with William Dawes. Dawes was the other rider sent with Revere that night. According to Gladwell, Revere, a Connector, notified influential members of the communities on his route; Dawes, like Nelida, employed a less effective approach by notifying many people but not many influential people. Clearly, the lesson is that spreading the word, or an innovation, is more dependent on the types of people you know in the community than what you know or how good the innovation is. I experience this every summer at my summer camp; key staff members or campers rise emerge, and any successful movement through the camp usually gathers speed and momentum once it reaches these people. The key, though, is that these community leaders don’t have to just receive the information; they have to buy into it! Cole is pretty passionate about the potential benefits and opportunities that arise from using blogs, podcasts, and other web 2.0 technologies in educational environments. Penn State supports him, or else I imagine he wouldn’t have his job and the resources to put together the many projects he is behind. I have bought in whole-heartedly and feel lucky to be involved in the early part of this movement. My impression, however, is that this innovation and its possibilities has yet to spread through the rest of PSU. Is Cole targeting the right people: PSU’s version of influential village members, and its Connectors, Mavens, and Salesmen? Will Cole be Paul Revere, or William Dawes?
dmd340 says
If you have not read the Tipping Point, I suggest that you do.
I enjoyed this post because it just further supports the thesis so well. I agree that audience is important. We are the the future, but we are easy, captive and in a tech-rich environment with instant feedback and support.I want to know how to make this Web 2.0 use a diffusion across boundaries of space and infrastructure, not to mention attitude and “near retirement”. Refer to my post about what kids should know in the future. Not so sure how we are going to do this…
REBECCA WEST BURNS says
What a great question! I wonder if Cole (and Scott for that matter) have evaluated their plan of action. I don’t think they selected us to be in this experimental class, but they did have many colleagues who influenced some of us to join. Was that part of their plan??? Oh, no, now we’re trying to get into the inner workings of their brains – that’s a scary place to go, I think. :0)
Your post (and others such as Paging Oprah Winfrey) make me wonder how we can identify the innovators – the key influential people that promote the diffusion of the innovation. Is it based on popularity? Respect? Intelligence? What would the qualities be? Is it context bound?
tam974 says
I think we will, the students, will play a pivotal role in determining the answer to that question. What will we do with all that we learn in this course? If we are teaching others and diffusing these new (uses of new) technologies, then Cole will be more like Paul Revere. If we choose to do nothing, he’ll be another Dawes.
kgp103 says
I am going to be a new teacher in the fall. I will be able to influence my students (at least to some degree) and many of them will likely already be familiar with Web 2.0 tech. However, do you think I will have much of an impact on diffusing this technology through the school? I think that there is a possibilty…if I was able to locate some of the influential village members on my own.
MICHAEL DENNIS MONTALTO-ROOK says
I agree that we (students in CI 597) will have a stake in this process and will help diffuse the technologies to our programs. For instance, I have already talked to three professors from Instructional Systems about our course and all have taken an interest in it. If all of us discussed our experiences with our programs, I’m sure the ideas and technologies from CI 597 would spread like wild-fire.
HEATHER BETTE HUGHES says
Relating the example of Paul Revere’s ride, as presented in The Tipping Point, to Wenger’s notion of boundaries and brokers in chapters 3/4 in Communities of Practice, a strong connection seems to exist by which we can identify Paul Revere as a broker. As a broker, Paul Revere acted as an information trader who held a position of authority, yet who did not fully belong to the communities of practice the (his)story highlights. In other words, Revere was not a member of the political elite, or (necessarily) a member of communities of practice to whom he communicated warnings along his ride. Yet, as the story suggests, he operated at the boundaries of these communities; facilitating information exchange between them. To accomplish this facilitation, Revere did not have to be a member of the communities (as Wenger would define membership), he just needed to be aware of the essential peripheral nodes (i.e. the communities’ information diffusers) to tap into and offload the information; letting them do the rest of the work, so he could move on to do his. Through this example, we can relate the positions of Revere and William Dawes to those of traders in the stock exchange. While Revere acted in the position of a Wall Street floor trader- making calls to other traders/nodes whose subsequent calls/trades exponentially multiply the initial work of the floor trader and cause significant ripples throughout the market- Dawes acted more along the line of one of the traders/nodes further down the line of communication who accomplished a large volume of trades, but failed to set off a burst of subsequent nodes of communication that would generate even more exchange. In short, Revere was a Wall Street floor trader and Dawes was your local Ameritrade representative.
COLE W. CAMPLESE says
This is just too good to pass up … I would urge you to pursue this question in class — essentially how do I (we) go about growing adoption on the appropriate use of technology for teaching and learning on a campus like we have here at PSU. The one thing I will say is that there really is a method to the madness and much of it relies on the basics of what you are reading. To really simplify things we go after influential individuals in Colleges and departments and find ways to make them part of our process. This takes all sorts of forms — I meet with every new department head every year (that’s a lot of people) and when I do I not only talk to them about what they are interested in but to tell me who among their peers they recommend I talk to. I spend a lot of time creating relationships with the ones that resonate with me — those that show real passion for their teaching … I spend time traveling with them, listening to their needs, working to get them resources, and so on … I then work to make sure they become part of the voice of my mission. When they have success, I find ways to share it with a much larger audience.
This is a small piece of it, but finding ways to engage the key members of your audience is critical. I’m not going to share it all here … this comment box is too damn small for that. Let’s save the discussion for class. I would like to hear Scott’s perspective on it as I spent quite a bit of time targeting him the last few years to be a part of the group.
BTW, I loved the post.
bsr11 says
I am really bummed that I miss tomorrow’s class and the discussion around this, as I will be in Philly for a prior engagement!!! Maybe I can participate via an audio iChat with someone in the class?
After all, this is Disruptive Technologies in Teaching and Learning =) If anyone is interested in helping me with this, send me an email at my psu address!
SCOTT P MCDONALD says
Brandon, we might be able to work something out to get you to participate. Email me you AIM and I will try and get you hooked in.
As far as the horse riding thing…I am not sure if I am (or Cole is) one of these two characters. Something about the analogy does not work for me. Part of it is that Cole, as he indicates in his comment, is an enabler. He seeks out people that are doing interesting teaching and learning and looks to help them think about how technology might take them to the next level. I know that Gladwell does not think of these roles as monolithic, so maybe we are blends of those three things.
I know that one of the attitudes I hear around diffusion of innovation at PSU is a “feed the eagles” mentality. You have to find the people who want to lead and push things and give them resources to do it, and that pulls others along either by inspiration or because the hope for more resources for themselves. The hard thing is know who the eagles are which is why Cole spends so much time with department heads.
Don’t feel like that clarified things, but we should take it up in class.