Diffusion – or delusion? Challenging an IS research tradition

Abstract

Purpose -This paper seeks to critique the notion of diffusionism. Design/methodology/approach -The notion of diffusionism provides a general way of understanding innovation and human progress. It is pervasive within IS research and practice. Generically, diffusionism denotes an asymmetrical view of innovation as originating exclusively in "progressive" centres, from which it spreads through an essentially passive recipient community. This model is pernicious, as it privileges an élite few over the majority, with the innovator/imitator dichotomy presented as natural, moral and inevitable. This paper analyses the notion of diffusionism in information systems (IS). Findings -The failure to find any empirical support for diffusionism reveals both its mythical character and its ideological rationale in lending moral legitimacy to colonialistic projects. Empirical examples demonstrate both the ubiquity of the diffusionist mindset in IS research and practice, and its linkage to pseudo-colonial activities in the home domain. Originality/value -The paper concludes by arguing for a more critical approach within IS research on innovation, the use of richer, process-based theories, and greater partnership with practitioners in order to close the research/practice gap.

Factors affecting educational innovation with in class electronic response systems

“…While some researchers have challenged the diffusion framework (McMaster & Wastell 2005), we have found it a useful model to explore the failure to adopt this technology. Future research with this and other models could also focus on the use of project team members selected on the basis of their adopter status, particularly if that was combined with a requirement for the majority of the project team to hold a change conception view of teaching.…”

“…size and organisational innovativeness) are additional factors to consider. The model is not without its critics, such as McMaster and Wastell (2005) who propose social constructivist models as more useful. Slappendel (1996;p.…”

An Analysis of Aid Information Management Systems (AIMS) in Developing Countries: Explaining the Last Two Decades

“…Many models including the technology acceptance model [25] based on the notion of 'diffusionism' and technology transfer, have been provided in recent years that aim at describing an optimal process of IS implementation in developing countries [25], [26]. However, these models have received criticism in terms of 1) their technologically deterministic views, 2) their a-contextual and universalistic views [27], [28], and 3) their prioritization of innovator over imitator [29].…”

The Rise of the Phoenix: Methodological Innovation as a Discourse of Renewal

“…Had there been a conscious, top-down initiative to build capacity, the outcome might well have been very different, with additional bureaucracy and a surfeit of resources stifiing, rather than stimulating, entrepreneurship, engendering sclerosis not resiliency. SPRINT itself is not a portable commodity: its efflorescence in Salford is inseparable from the unique historical processes of its development there; simply transplanting it would not, in itself, replicate the same capability (McMaster and Wastell 2005).…”