Frank Hilario's Infusion Of Innovations Is Touché

Today, I'm launching a revolution in the Diffusion of Innovations – I'm chucking it! 

At the very least I say:
Rogers' Diffusion Of Innovations Is Passé. Past.
Frank Hilario's Infusion Of Innovations Is Touché. Today.

Compare the main assumption behind the theory:
Diffusion of Innovations is saying, "Knowledge, diffuse thyself."
Infusion of Innovations is saying, "Share Knowledge!"

In the Age of Diffusion, knowledge is moved when it moves itself.
In the Age of Infusion, knowledge is moved by sharers.

That's only for starters.

What prompted this essay is that on his Facebook post, sharing the video "Peoples of the Philippines" linked to YouTube, Marc Lezaron is saying, "As I thought. We're more Pacific Islander. Shallow thinkers, Very traditional, slow adapters, and highly emotional." (Mr Marc, are you sorry you are a Filipino? I'm not; I'm happy to be one! In fact, I'm happy to just be me.)

In any case, I click the link and here I am at YouTube – I'm glad it has subtitles. So, the video enumerates these peoples of the Philippines: Negritos, Indigenous Austronesians, Igorots, Badjaos, Moros, Hispanics, Chinese Filipinos, Mestizos (Filipino-Spanish), Filipino-Americans, Afro-Filipino, Amerisians, Koreans, and Indians. Did you notice anything? The video does not include me – I'm Ilocano. Does not include you – you are Tagalog. And does not include the Gaddangs, Pangasinenses, Pampangos, Bicolanos, and so on and so forth. Despite that patent lack of scholarship, to be nice about it, that video serves my purpose this time, because of the comment of Marc, and I quote again:

I agree with Mr Marc and like his assertion that Filipinos are "very traditional" and "highly emotional"– I see the one is good for culture, the other for creativity. Even if you are highly traditional if you are highly emotional, you can be trained to be highly creative.

I disagree with Mr Marc and don't like "shallow thinkers" and "slow adapters"– or, I can explain.

Consider Philippine history. We Filipinos were under the Spanish conquistadores for 350 years or so; we were under the American colonialists for 50 years – if we are shallow thinkers, I must blame both the Spaniards and Americans as teachers and exemplars. Even then, we must continue to be traditional, to keep our cultures intact as much as possible.

I'd like to dwell more on us Filipinos being slow adapters of innovation or technology, where technology is either method, machine, software, hardware, or knowledge verified and possibly useful. Remember, it was the Americans who brought Science to the Philippines, formally starting when they founded the University of the Philippines, UP and set up on 06 March 1908 the very first UP unit, which was the UP College of Agriculture, which later graduated into the University that it is now, UP Los Baños. The American tutors knew only of the elementary grade Show & Tell in convincing the Filipinos to adopt a Technology; as it turned out, they were using a method that later came to be described in Everett Rogers' Theory of the Diffusion of Innovations, which he propounded in 1962 (Wikipedia): "Diffusion is the process by which an innovation is communicated over time among the participants in a social system." As simple as that.

But It's not as simple as that!

Invented in 1962 and reinterpreted in 2003, Everett Rogers' Theory of the Diffusion of Innovations is now out of place, and the invention of the information superhighway is only one reason why Rogers is out of date and out of breath.

Of Diffusion of Innovations, Wikipedia says (Wikipedia):

In the Diffusion of Innovations model, there is no one clearly assigned or definite Diffuser of Innovation at any time, nobody assigned the role of diffusing the innovation, whatever that term means. Except, according to ANN, "opinion leaders" who are supposed to "exert influence on audience behavior via their personal contact" (author not named, date not stated, University of Twente, utwente.nl). Except that those opinion leaders appear when they may.

In Roger's theory, both "mass media and interpersonal communication (channels are) involved in the diffusion process" (communicationtheory.org).

In the meantime (see diagram), the innovations wait and may as well be waiting for Godot – that is why many innovations lie by the wayside, waiting for the Godot Samaritan! If the innovation is for the public good or the government has spent money on it, we cannot wait for Godot.

More than the question of waiting for Godot, the way I look at Rogers' idea of the Diffusion of Innovations is that it is the Ivory Tower Approach – I know more than you do, so listen to me! Which of course is not correct, so why should I listen to you? I have to convince myself, not you.

What is Rogers' idea of communicating innovation? It seems he does notprescribe any.

From Wikipedia we learn that, according to Rogers there are early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggardsof technology. Ah, but Rogers is assuming that the way innovation is diffused is the correct one and is effective in varying degrees, whatever innovation, whatever channel, whatever time, whatever social system! Diffusion of Innovations follows the natural law, Laissez faire, which means to allow to do. No sweat.

And yes, Rogers is assuming that the people either adopt the innovation or perish from the Earth – the people have no options! That is what I call the Dictatorship of the Proliterati, those who know telling those who don't know exactly what they need and what they need to do! (See my essay, "Virgilio Almario, isn't that Dictatorship of the Proliterati?" 01 July 2013, Creative Thinkering, blogspot.co.id). Only the literate knows.

If you subscribe to the Theory of Diffusion of Innovations by Everett Rogers, then it's easy to understand why we Filipinos are "shallow thinkers" and "slow adapters"– our communicators neither encourage nor educate us on how to think deeply and how to be faster adapters.

In Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations, there is no transformation of knowledge while it is being transferred – by inference, it is transferred intact. It's always a take-or-leave-it thing. If you want adoption, that's where the problem begins. So you get early adopters and laggards etc. Rogers does not give importance to the knowledge sharers, or to their appropriate languages. He expects the innovation to sell itself over time!

In other words, Creative Thinking is what the American concept of Diffusion of Innovations completelyignores. Unfortunately, the Filipino concept of Development Communication follows the Diffusion of Innovations model – while it was new in the early 1970s, DevCom stopped growing at once because it considered only Critical Thinking and did not consider Creative Thinking.

I have always been creative. Some 50 years ago, when I was a student at the Rizal Junior College, RJC High School Department in the sleepy town of Asingan in Pangasinan, by accident I learned that I was a creative thinker – when I a native Ilocano won a Tagalog essay writing contest against native speakers of that language! Not a girl but I loved the RJC library because it was well stocked with reading materials, books and magazines like TIME and Newsweek. We don't associate it with creative thinking, but the Reader's Digest at the RJC library gave me so much reading pleasure. In one of the issues, it had a genius test and I took it, honestly – you know the rest of the story.

This genius learned to use the typewriter about 1957; he first learned to use the personal computer exactly on Innocents Day 1985. In the late 80s or early 90s, the Internet came into my life; in the early 21st century, I taught myself blogging and loved it – creative and recreative, that's what my blogging has turned out to be. Today, modesty aside, I claim online that I am "the world's most creative writer online, non-fiction"– check out my blog A Magazine Called Love (blogspot.com); since 2007, I have published in my many blogs more than 4,000 long essays of at least 1,000 words each. As you might suspect, blogging is now in my blood.

With the Internet and ever-present poverty of the people, among other things, for useful knowledge, what the world needs now is blog, sweet blog – and other blazing forms of data, information, fun & games – in the interest of the people rich and poor, but especially the poor. What's the information superhighway for?

Everett Rogers' Theory of the Diffusion of Innovations has been left behind. Time now for:

As according to Mr Marc, with Everett Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations, Filipinos are shallow thinkers and slow adapters – I hope not for long, as I have come up with my own theory, the concept and name being deliberately in contradistinction to and in pun with Rogers' Theory of the Diffusion of Innovations – I call it Theory of the Infusion of Innovations.

By infusion, I mean sharing. To understand the new theory, you must know where I'm coming from: The iKnowledge Sharing Process, iKSP, as shown in the image above. To repeat, the sharers are: Institution à Journal à Media à People. And the sharing goes this way: Science à Paper à News & Views à Data, Info, Fun & Games.

To explain now:

ScienceKnowledge comes from research conducted by an institution, the knowledge sharer, The research results are recorded, analyzed, and written up into manuscripts.

Paper                                                                                Ideally, each voluminous manuscript is written down into a paper of a maximum of 25 pages that is publishable in a technical journal. When the paper is published, knowledge passes from one technical person (journal author) to another technical person (journal reader) in its original form. Published or not, a paper may be presented in a seminar or conference of colleagues and peer, or exchanged expert to expert.

News & ViewsAgain ideally, the technical paper is transformed into popular language that is understandable by a layman or non-technical person. This is then infused via any one or a combination of traditional and/or modern media: radio, TV, print, video, sound, film, docu, blog, website.

Data, Info, Fun & GamesThe ultimate user of innovation are the people. The forms taken of the knowledge shared by media are any of the following: text, image, article, essay, story, drama, play, podcast, cartoon, presentation (or mixed).

With the explosion of knowledge such as in climate change, and of media such as Marshall McLuhan only imagined, the world needs hot Knowledge Sharing like never before, in forms that either inform or entertain or both, and bolder, and faster – and more convincingly. And reaching more people anytime. That's why I call it with a difference: the iKnowledge Sharing Process, iKSP (see image above), the small i to designate the role of the Internet in and to not forget the individual as the target of sharing knowledge.

Knowledge Sharing is what Everett Rogers much failed to value, even in 2003 when he did his 5th revision of his book, Diffusion Of Innovations with Nancy Singer Olaguera, even as the theory now "addresses the spread of the Internet, and how it has transformed the way human beings communicate and adopt new ideas" (en.wikipedia.org). Diffusion of Innovations remains cold to the prospects of hot science zipping along the information superhighway at blazing speed while being processed intensely along the way.

But first, we must consider: How do we communicate knowledge for change?

I have always been a wide reader – and a rebel in thought. Already, more than 40 years ago, in the late 1970s, I realized that Development Communication, conceived by Filipino thinker Nora Quebral, and/or Diffusion of Innovations, imagined by American thinker Everett Rogers, was inadequate, to say the least, in the matter of moving innovation, which is new or improved knowledge, from the minds of scientists to the minds of the people.

Consequently, I wrote and published a technical paper on the subject of "Communication for Development" or ComDev, the name I assigned deliberately to contrast with "Development Communication"  or DevCom – my paper appearing in the quarterly technical journal of forestry published by the Forest Research Institute, Sylvatrop, of which I was the Editor in Chief – even in disagreement, how could anyone object to its publication? My point then, as now: 

Communication is a part of any effort towards developmentandnot apartfrom it.

Precisely last Saturday, 22 July 2017, my concept of ComDev of 4 decades ago without warning transformed itself into my new Theory of Infusion of Innovations, which proceeds from my other new theory, invented the day earlier, the underlying concept that I call the iKSP (see image above).

That is to say, Infusion of Innovations is built on iKnowledge Sharing; this is what Diffusion of Innovations ignores. Diffusion, as explained by many experts, is not assisted but merely unprogrammed Knowledge Transfer, not deliberate Knowledge Sharing; Diffusion is not interpreting knowledge for the users at different levels, and does not require deliberate in-processing of what is known.

In Hilario's Infusion of Innovations, sharing of knowledge (from Science) is assumed right from the beginning, which emanates from the Institution, otherwise it is not to be shared. Knowledge here implies that the new or improved method or system, hardware or software, has been shown by Science to work as claimed – at the very least, the publication of the paper written on it, since it is peer-reviewed, is an assurance that it does contribute to the pool of new or improved knowledge.

When I say knowledge, I mean that which has been perceived, discovered, created, or learnedpreviously by and with some authority. In Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations, from the guru himself, I quote exactly: "Knowledge occurs when an individual... is exposed to the innovation's existence and gains some understanding of how it functions" (Rogers' Diffusion Of Innovations3rd edition, 1983, downloaded as pdf). That is to say, in Rogers' mind, Knowledge is not the Innovation itself but the awareness & understanding of the innovation. Since there is no designated Diffuser of that or any innovation, the understanding may vary and that may explain the variable speeds of adoption that Rogers put in 5 categories: Innovators, Early Adopters, Early Majority, Late Majority, and Laggards.

Even given exposure to the innovation, if there is no Understanding by the intended user, there is no Knowledge. That means that to Rogers, knowledge is only what the User senses, not what Science says makes sense and shares. When it comes to Knowledge, Hilario's Users have more faith in Science than Rogers' Users.

In my Infusion of Innovations, there are 4 knowledge handlers: the one being the generator of knowledge, which is the Institution, or the Scientist who is the researcher, and the three being the users of knowledge: (1) the Journal, which is used by the Author of the Paper to publish his findings; (2) the Media, which is composed of many forms that which publish News & Views; and (3) the People, who are the ultimate target recipients and users of the knowledge being shared along the path of sharing translated into the language that the receivers are familiar with, ultimately Data, Info, Fun & Games. (If you ask why Fun & Games, I ask why not? Knowledge can be transformed into fun or game that can be easily appreciated and assimilated by the people.)

The results of Science is Knowledge, and this is what is shared as interpreted through the Journal in technical language, shared as translated into 1 or 2 or more popular forms through the Media, and finally shared with the People in the language they are familiar with.

Intrinsically, iKnowledge Sharing is also iKnowledge Processing. From Science to Paper to News & Views to Data to Info, Fun & Games, the knowledge is transformed from technical to popular. What is translated is the same set of knowledge, but what is shared level to level is what is understandable at the next level. Knowledge Sharing is thereby Knowledge Understanding at different levels.

In the image above, the boxes are constructed so that they indicate sharing of content. I like it that the overlapping boxes grow bigger each time, and the biggest is People – after all, they are the targets of the Infusion of Innovations. Another thing, I love it that I can make the boxes stand individually, as you can see above, when I am explaining each individual box in a live lecture-demo! And of course I can make the boxes bigger.

What Everett Rogers' Theory of Diffusion of Innovations ignores is iKSP – if you look at my image above, the iKnowledge Sharing is almost self-explanatory:

From the above description of the iKSP, I now present not only Rogers' 4 – Innovations, Channel, Social System & Time – but Hilario's expanded 7 components that are involved in the Infusion of Innovations:

(1)     Innovations

(2)     Communication Media

(3)     Time

(4)     Social System

(5)     Infuser

(6)     Communication Campaign

(7)     Monitoring 

Note that my list is given not in any order, that all these parts make up the whole, and that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts – that's what the holistic image below is trying to say.

Innovations
An innovation is new or improved knowledge, soft or hard, immediately applicable by the knowledge user. It can be either hardware or software, technology or system, method or machine, design or device.

Communication MediaInstead of Rogers' simple Channel. Today, we have all kinds of communication media: radio, TV, print, visual, video, sound, film, docu, blog, website, Today, there is no reason why a communication campaign cannot be launched that is inexpensive – you don't need much the traditional media anymore: radio, TV, print – we can have podcasts, documentaries, blogs, websites.

TimeThis time, time is no longer of the essence, as over time, repetition of the Infusion of Innovations by the media can be programmed in any time format, and that is reachable anywhere in the world at any time.

Social SystemOf course the social system has to be considered, its stage of development, its needs versus its wants in terms of knowledge. You don't infuse knowledge into the system just because you have knowledge and the system is always there.

InfuserToday, with so many media forms, the person infuser of innovation is the key in designing and packaging a communication campaign for the innovation: scientist, paper author, and not simply the communicator or journalist.

Communication CampaignThis is the most neglected part of today's Diffusion of Innovations, which I see is the model of Development Communication, which was conceived by Nora Quebral of UP Los Baños in the 1970s yet. That is why, at UP Los Baños, the Diffusion of Innovations has suffered most because communication is looked upon as a separate discipline and is not necessarily in support of a campaign for development.

Everywhere, up to this time, even with the information superhighway, Roger's Diffusion of Innovations/Quebral's Development Communication stops at 2 stories at most, or a mention in the institution's own website or publication. Where there is no communication campaign, there are no follow-up stories – and hardly any adopter, early or laggard.

The reason for the absence of a communication campaign is that the Diffusion of Innovations is looked upon merely as Technology Transfer or Knowledge Transfer – people, you pay attention, or forget it! The tipping point of adoption happens when it is reached, period.

If there is no communication campaign, how can you pursue an AIDA campaign for your piece of knowledge? Awareness, Interest, Desire, Adoption. How can you influence the occurrence of a tipping point if you don't pursue the beauty of AIDA?

Almost all if not all innovation communication in the Philippines is only at the stage of Awareness, not progressing to igniting Interest to know more, not graduating to Desire of the target adopter of the innovation to try the innovation, and not going after the Adoption of the innovation. Even IRRI does not prescribe AIDA at any time, just plain transfer of knowledge – innocently, that is what its website at irri.org encourages. This is not a feature of the IRRI website alone; I don't know if they are aware or not, but all aggie websites in the Philippines assume that to the reader, watcher or listener, they are transferring knowledge, period.

Close to AIDA, Rogers has what is called a 5-step decision-making process: Awareness, Interest, Evaluation, Trial and Adoption. But these are supposed to occur over time without any clearly assigned sharer of innovation at every step, that it might as well not be there. The "opinion leaders" do not go around preaching innovation!

MonitoringExcept for a study or two, entirely neglected is the following-up and the measuring of impacts of communication, especially since it is not a campaign but almost always a one-shot deal.

In Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations or Technology Transfer, there is only hopeful critical thinking – you hope that the innovation will fit the requirements of the knowledge user. What it ignores completely is creative thinking. That is why Filipinos are "slow adapters" of technology or knowledge from science. Indirectly, Diffusion tells the user, "This is the solution" but it does not ask, "What is the problem?"

In my Infusion of Innovations, you will find both critical thinking and creative thinking embedded in the iKnowledge Sharing process. Ideally:

In the Institution doing Science, critical thinking is necessary to interpret the data collected into tables of numbers and graphs or charts, which are then written up to produce a full Report. The Report may be written down to produce a Paper to submit to a Journal.

In the Journal, critical thinking is necessary to judge a Paper as worthy of publication.

Between the Media and the Journal, and/or the Institution, critical thinking is necessary to transform technical knowledge to popular knowledge.

In the Media, now creative thinking is necessary to package knowledge to be infused to the people. In the Communication or Knowledge Campaign, creative thinking is necessary to come up with a package to market knowledge via the stages of AIDA: Awareness, Interest, Desire, Action (ideally, Adoption).

And more creative thinking is called for to attract the knowledge user to new or improved knowledge via any combination of media as called for in a communication or knowledge campaign.

With the People, the feedback may be in the form produced by critical thinking (criticism) or creative thinking (suggestion for improvement).

To produce more Knowledge, Science will have to be supported by more funds by government. Science will also have to source funds from foreign governments, local as well as international private partners and philanthropists.

To hasten up the iKnowledge Sharing, more journals will have to be published more often.

To be able to share knowledge intelligently, the communicators will have to be trained in critical thinking but more so in creative thinking.