Download WAC Movement and Diffusion Theory: A New Perspective for Writing-Across-the-Curriculum and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Statistics in PDF only on Docsity!
22 Language and Learning Across the Disciplines
In ìThe Future of WACî (1996), Barbara E. Walvoord suggests framing the history and future of the writing-across-the-curriculum move- ment according to social movement theory (58), explaining that WAC qualifies as a movement because of its ìchange agenda and its collective natureófaculty talking to one another, moving to effect reformî (58). Con- sequently, she proposes that her evaluation of WACís progress at the 25 year mark and her re-envisioning of its future within this movement frame will uniquely reveal its ìcharacteristics, strengths, and problems in ways that may help us think creatively about themî (61). Certainly creativity may be the order of the day as the WAC move- ment, in spite of its successes, struggles to maintain its vitality and visibil- ity against the perennially resistant landscape of academe. Such resis- tance, educational reform scholar Parker J. Palmer reminds us, (though few at the front lines of the WAC movement need reminding) will remain an essential feature of the academy as long as teaching ìretains low status... tenure decisions favor those who publish, [and] scarce dollars.. .always go to researchî (10). These conditions result in a ìconstitutional gridlockî which breeds the ìmood of resignation.. .and despairî so familiar to those seeking reform (10). Walvoordís review of WACís progress from a social movement per- spective turns the literature in an important direction. By providing the template of social movement theory against which to examine their suc- cesses and failures, WAC proponents are forced to take a more analytical approach to their subject, an approach that transcends the more anec- dotal ìwhat works and what doesnítî scholarship that has dominated writing-across-the-curriculum, especially in its early and middle years. Specifically, it provides an entrÈe into the extensive network of sub-fields within social movement theory, one of which concerns itself with the spread of new ideas or ìinnovationsî within systems, a category of study known as ìdiffusionî or ìinnovation theory.î In fact, according to Daniel Surry, who writes about the application of social movement and innova-
Listening to Everett Rogers:
Diffusion of Innovations and
WAC
Stephanie Vanderslice University of Central Arkansas
DOI: 10.37514/LLD-J.2000.4.1.
Listening to Everett Rogers 23
tion theory to the field of Instructional Technology, ìprofessionals in a number of disciplines from agriculture to marketingí commonly study dif- fusion theory in order to further change agendasî (1). Taking the lead from our colleagues in Instructional Technology, a close examination of the process of innovation diffusion can enhance the ability of WAC advo- cates to implement their own reform agendas. The most widely recognized source for diffusion theory is Everett M. Rogersí seminal work, Diffusion of Innovations. Not surprisingly, Walvoord is the only WAC scholar whose work has recently referenced this volume, which synthesizes the last thirty years of diffusion research and distills it into a set of basic principles for the propagation of a new idea. Mentioning Rogers briefly first in ìThe Future of WACî and later, in her longitudinal study of three writing-across-the-curriculum programs In The Long Run , Walvoord however, narrowly focuses her attention on one small portion of his expansive diffusion framework, describing how the ìearly innovation adopterî figures in her study. In fact, beyond this spectrum of ìkinds of adopters,î Diffusion of Innovations offers a solid, replicable framework for the process of moving an innovation through a social system over time. Diffusion theory is especially relevant to WAC efforts, moreover, because it examines ìovert behavior change... the adoption or rejection of new ideas, rather than just changes in knowledge or attitudes (Rogers Communication of Innovations 12). Diffusion of Innovations can tell us a great deal, then, about how ideas are not just accepted but under what conditions they are most likely to be imple- mented. While many would argue that WAC ceased to be an ìinnovativeî idea in the late eighties (not coincidentally when most of the corporate and foundation funding had dried up), Rogers asserts that contrary to what its name implies, an innovation need not be a brand new idea but rather an ìidea, practice or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoptionî (Rogers Diffusion of Innovations 11). Thus, perceived newness is often a more important element to recognize in the diffusion of a new idea than objective novelty. This factor is particularly salient to writing-across-the-curriculum as it proceeds towards its thirti- eth anniversary and yet finds itself annually born and re-born at cam- puses across the country. To be sure, ìperceived newnessî is also important when relating Diffusion of Innovations to the WAC movement, as the text was first published in 1962 and its latest incarnation in 1995, yet it remained undis- covered by WAC scholarship until Walvoordís 1996 article. Thus, I will argue that Rogersí close attention to the step-by-step process of spread- ing reform is not only perceptually new to the WAC movement but also holds valuable implications for the achievement of its reform goals.
Listening to Everett Rogers 25
innovation, for example, a ìnewî writing-to-learn technique such as exit slips, on an experimental basis (16) and observability, or the extent to which ìresults of an innovation are visible to othersî (16). Both are con- nected to what Diffusion of Innovations posits as the ìheart of the diffu- sion processî (18), that is, its essentially social nature. While Rogersí assertion that humans are inherently social beings who from infancy to adulthood learn through the modeling and imitation that face-to-face con- tact provides is hardly groundbreaking, his grasp of the relevance of human relationships and social structures to the diffusion of new ideas can offer a system for understanding and analyzing the essential social nature of WAC that has often been reported in the research. Rogers divides the channels for information exchange into two main categories, mass media and interpersonal. While the former remains more significant for innovations targeted to large populations, such as AIDS prevention, smoking cessation, and so forth, the latter can especially help explain the diffusion of WAC in smaller, more self-contained social organi- zations such as colleges and universities. Likewise, mass media channels are more useful in creating knowledge about an innovation while inter- personal channels are more useful in changing attitudes about a new idea and subsequently changing behavior. Diffusion of Innovations reminds us that ìface to face exchange between two or more individuals is ex- tremely effective in persuading individuals to accept new ideasî (18). Accordingly, it is useful to note that when making innovation decisions, most people are not influenced as much by statistics or consequences as they are by word of mouth from others who have adopted the innovation (Rogers 18). In fact, a cursory survey of WAC scholarship bears out this observation; many initial successes of the movement can be attributed to the grassroots involvement of faculty. Nonetheless, beyond this attribu- tion, WAC research rarely seems to scrutinize this phenomenon. WAC leaders such as Elaine Maimon, Toby Fulwiler, and Art Young seemed to intuit what Walvoord examines most closely in In The Long Run and ìThe Future of WACî that, due in large part to their high autonomy, ìcolleague esteemî and ìsocializationî were especially essential to the innovation decisions of college faculty (ìFutureî 64). This emphasis on ìindividual
.. .changeî (63) through casual discussion groups, conferences, and the inimitable ìWAC workshopî helped the movement to flourish. Certainly, a less intuitive and more concrete awareness of the complexities operating within the interpersonal elements of diffusing an innovation such as WAC can only enhance its effectiveness and staying power. The interpersonal channels of any diffusion process are intimately connected to the social system through which the new idea moves, a system Rogers identifies as a ìset of interrelated units engaged in joint problem solving to accomplish a common goalî (23). Further, he suggests
26 Language and Learning Across the Disciplines
that gauging the characteristics and values of such a system and the degree to which the system may be, as a whole, favorable or unfavorable to new ideas is another essential consideration in diffusion theory. Such considerations may explain the relative ease with which WAC was dif- fused in Great Britain. David Russell notes that in the British educational system, teaching students to write in all disciplines was a ìlong tradition,î so reformers did not need to reinvent the wheel when introducing writing- across-the-curriculum, ìonly.. .modify the kinds of writing and its peda- gogical usesî (279). Thus, it would seem that as Rogers predicts and Great Britainís success exemplifies, the seeds of innovation more rapidly take root in a system that provides fertile rather than fallow ground. Perhaps the aspect of Rogersí theory WAC and other change advo- cates will find most apt to their purposes, however, is his discussion of the optimal role models for innovation diffusion within a system. For example, while it may appear common sense to recruit the most innovative members of a social system to model innovation adoption, many would be sur- prised to learn that research has found that such innovators are often perceived as extremists and eccentrics, which naturally detracts from their credibility among their peers and limits their effectiveness in the diffusion of new ideas. The most liberal faculty members at an institution, therefore, may not be the best first models of innovation. So who are the best models of innovation? Rogers calls them the ìopinion leaders,î key players in the interpersonal aspect of the diffusion process which also includes the change agent, or individual sent by a change agency to influence followers, and the various stages (early, middle, late) of adopters themselves. Rogersí characterizations of these leaders can help identify the best faculty allies in the pursuit of change. While opinion leaders have more credibility than their more innovative counter- parts, they remain more receptive to change than their conservative peers. They are usually recognized in social systems for their ìtechnical compe- tence, social accessibility, and conformity to the systemís normsî (27). In addition, compared to their followers, opinion leaders are generally ìmore exposed to external communicationî and ìmore cosmopoliteî (27). Walvoord classifies these leaders as horizontally-networked ìearly adopt- ersî in In The Long Run , those faculty who over the years of her study ì[came] to WAC partly because they like new ideas and are not averse to taking risks.. .that come to them through their broad social networksî (6) and additionally uses Rogers ìchange agentî label to describe the WAC advocate. In The Long Run , however, focuses much more closely (and in retrospect) on how faculty come to frame the meaning of their WAC expe- riences over time rather than how various categories of faculty adopters interact in the innovation process for optimal results. At a time when
28 Language and Learning Across the Disciplines
programs within the structure of the American university, much less for interdepartmental programs that incorporate writing î (298) [emphasis mine]. It is clear that as questions about the staying power of WAC arise once again in formal and informal discussion forums, the kind of re-envi- sioning of the writing-across-the-curriculum movement Walvoord advo- cates demands a paradigm shift away from the narrative, anecdotal em- phasis in the scholarship and towards a more balanced approach, inte- grating a structural basis for change that Diffusion of Innovations and other key social movement texts can provide. Three years after the publi- cation of ìThe Future of WACî and In The Long Run , the lack of refer- ences to social movement and innovation theory in the field reveals that few WAC advocates consciously utilize or even seem aware of the exist- ence of this rich resource. Diffusion research has the potential to not only inform the daily work of WAC advocates, but also to locate the narrative of writing-across-the-curriculum movement in the larger theoretical con- text of educational reform. At a very basic level, moreover, Rogersí work has the potential to inform the WAC field simply by acknowledging how challenging it is to introduce innovations into any system, an acknowledgement present in the first lines of the book, which state in no uncertain terms that ì[g]etting a new idea adopted, even when it has obvious advantages, is often very difficult. Many innovations require a lengthy period, often many years, from the time they become available to the time they are widely adoptedî (1). Thus, in addition to validating the resistance so frequently encountered by WAC advocates as an often ìnecessary evil,î^1 diffusion theory, especially the sheer volume Rogers synthesizes in Diffusion of Innovations , also reminds us that change is a highly complex process that might benefit from a more systematic frame- work. Consequently, if WAC is to survive the present academic climate well into the next century, its last best advocates would do well to take the lead from our colleagues in other disciplines for whom ìdiffusion theoryî is a common term and Everett Rogers a familiar voice and prick up their ears.
Works Cited
Benford, Robert. ìSocial Movements.î Encyclopedia of Sociology. New York: Macmillan, 1992. Kipling, Kim J. and Richard J. Murphy, Jr_. Symbiosis: Writing and An Academic Culture_. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1992. Palmer, Parker J. ìDivided No More: A Movement Approach to Educa- tional Reform.î Change Mar./Apr. 1992: 10-17. Rogers, Everett M. and F. Floyd Shoemaker. Communication of Innova- tions: A Cross-Cultural Approach. New York: Free Press, 1971.
Listening to Everett Rogers 29
Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. 4th^ ed. New York: Free Press,
Russell, David. Writing in the Academic Disciplines, 1870-. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1991. Surry, Daniel W. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Asso- ciation for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) 1997. http://www.hbg.psu.edu/bsed/intro/docs/diffusion/index.html Walvoord, Barbara E., Linda L. Hunt, H. Fil Dowling Jr. and Joan D. McMahon_. In the Long Run: A Study of Faculty in Three Writing- Across-the-Curriculum Programs_. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1997. Walvoord, Barbara E.îThe Future of WAC.î College English 58.1 (1996): 59-77.
Notes
(^1) For a discussion of ìresistanceî as natural and productive, see
also Jody Swilkyís article ìReconsidering Faculty Resistance to Writing Reform in WPA 16:1-2, and Deborah Swanson-Owenís ìIdentifying Natu- ral Sources of Resistance: A Case Study of Implementing Writing-Across- the-Curriculumî in Research in the Teaching of English , 20:1.
