Social Capital and the Diffusion of Innovations within Organizations: Application to the Implementation of Computer Technology in Schools

Abstract

Although the educational community has learned much about better educational practices, less is known about processes for implementing new practices. The standard model of diffusion suggests that people change perceptions about the value of an innovation through communication, and these perceptions then drive implementation. But implementation can be affected by more instrumental forces. In particular, members of a school share the common fate of the organization and affiliate with the common social system of the organization. Thus they are more able to informally access each others’ expertise and more likely to respond to social pressure to implement an innovation, regardless of their own perceptions of the value of the innovation. Here we characterize informal access to expertise and responses to social pressure as manifestations of social capital. Using longitudinal and network data in a study of the implementation of computer technology in six schools, we find the effects of perceived social pressure and access to expertise through help and talk were at least as important as the effects of traditional constructs. By implication, change agents should attend to local social capital processes related to the implementation of educational innovations or reforms. keywords: diffusion of innovation, implementation of innovation, computer technology, social capital within organizations Although we are learning about better educational practices, we know little about how to implement those practices (Bryk and Schneider 2002). Lost in our focus on producing new curricula and training teachers is that schools are fundamentally social organizations. As such, schools implement reform and innovations through localized social processes (Cuban 1990; Cohen 1995; Fullan 1991). This manuscript is about how social processes within schools affect the implementation of innovation, in particular the implementation of computer technology. Educational researchers have identified an array of factors that potentially affect educational outcomes, ranging from constructivist teaching (Cohen McLaughlin and Talbert 1993; Lave and Wenger 1991; Prawat 1989) to directed teaching (Delpit 1988; Slavin and Madden 2001), from the inequities of tracking (Alexander and Pallas 1985; Oakes 1985) to the market potential of schools of choice (Chubb and Moe 1990; Friedman and Friedman 1980; Greene 2001). For each new understanding there is a corresponding new reform or policy. Teachers should be retrained, schools should be reorganized, students should be able to choose which schools they attend. As complex social organizations, schools typically draw on informal processes to implement innovations or reforms. Thus, implementation of these reforms potentially places competing demands on the social structure of the school. But little is known about the relative importance of the social structure or the specific mechanisms through which social structure affects implementation. In order to quantify and understand how social structure within schools affects diffusion we apply the theory of social capital, operationalized as the potential to access resources through social relations. Thus the basic research question addressed in this manuscript is “To what extent does a teacher’s implementation of an innovation depend on the teacher’s access and response to social capital?” If teachers do draw on social capital to implement innovations then reformers and innovators must consider the distribution of social capital in any school in which they seek to implement change. Is there enough social capital to implement the innovation? How does the distribution of social capital in a given school differ from exemplar or pilot schools? What other 2 reforms are on the horizon that will draw on the same stores of social capital? This turns existing tendencies to ask questions about the distribution of financial capital (is there enough money ...?) or physical capital (do we have the materials and space ...?) or human capital (are our teachers trained ...?) to comparable questions about social capital. As we develop our theory, we note that schools are representative of well-bounded social systems in which social processes are critical to functioning (Bidwell 2000; Singh, House and Tucker 1986; Wilkins and Ouchi 1983). Not surprisingly, many organizational theories have been applied to schools (see Bidwell and Kasarda 1987; Bolman and Heller 1995, and Perrow 1986, for reviews) from control theory (Callahan 1962) to contingency theory (e.g., Greenfield 1975) and new institutionalism (Meyer and Rowan 1977; Rowan 1995). Thus findings from our study of schools should have implications for other organizations. We will focus on computer innovations (e.g., internet, educational software, digital camera, etc) because there is currently a strong press on schools to implement such innovations (Budin 1999; Cuban 1999; Loveless 1996; President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology 1997). This makes computer technology a valuable innovation for schools to implement, either because it enhances productivity or because of strong institutionalized legitimacy (Rowan 1995). Previous research on the diffusion of computers in schools has traditionally focused on the effects of three sets of factors on the adoption of computers. First, access to functional and reliable hardware and software and technical support was critical to implementation (Collins 1996; Cuban 1999; Loveless 1996; Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon, and Byers 2002). Second, institutional factors such as scheduling and types of school leadership affect teachers’ use of computers(Collins 1996; Cuban 2001; Hodas 1993; Loveless 1996; Sandholtz and Ringstaff 1996; Zhao et al. 2002). Third and perhaps most frequently cited were characteristics of the individual teacher, including willingness and ability to use technology as well as pedagogical styles(Becker 2000; Burns 2002; Gilmore

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 91 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.