Strang and Meyer (1993)

Below is a summary of and my comment about David Strang and John W. Meyer (1993), "Institutional Conditions for Diffusion, " Theory and Society, 22 (4), 487-511. JSTOR

Summary

This theoretical paper tries to suggest how institutional conditions affect the rate and form of diffusion. Contrary to dominant diffusion research focusing on connectedness among adopters, they emphasize the influence of theorized accounts of practices (innovation) and those adopters.

This paper points out the feature and weakness of prevailing theory of diffusion, which is generally reviewed by Everett Rogers. It can be summarized in three. First, they suppose “sociological realism,” paying attention to mapping direct contacts between prior and potential adopters. Actors are considered as purposive and rational, and they and their network relations are understood as jointly providing a sufficient basis for the explanation of social behavior. Second, their model is relational. The of rates of diffusion should vary with levels of interaction between prior and potential adaptors. Many analyses treat diffusion as a spatial process, where probability of transmission is some function of geographical distance. Third, rationalities are emphasized. Practices are adopted to the extent that they appear more effective or efficient than the alternative.

The authors insist that rapid and unstructured diffusion observed in modern world system such as educational practices among American states cannot be predicted with the prevailing theory. and that we need adopt new theoretical framework. As an alternative model, the authors present the concept of “theorization.” Theorization means “the self-conscious development and specification of abstract categories and the formulation of patterned relationship such as chains of cause and effect” (p. 492). Diffusion is accelerated and redirected by their theorization. Among the examples they show, most striking is the one that Marxist theorization of world-history hasten the diffusion of socialist revolution.

Theorization prompts diffusion in three ways. First, by proposing homogeneities within populations of adopters, theorization motivate them to acquire practices. They predict that similar practices can be adopted by all members of a theoretically defined population, with similar effects. Second, by abstracting properties of practices and specifying the outcomes they produce, theorization make it easier to perceive and communicate about the practice to potential adopters. Also, theorization documents the many virtues involved in practices, in terms of standardized notions of efficacy or justice or progress. These two theorization are jointed in many cases. As an example, the authors indicate that Simonean information processing theory and organizational practice/structure are interpenetrated. Third, theorists themselves become central conduits of diffusion, as Harvard economists was active in bringing Keynesian fiscal policy to Washington.

When theorization shapes diffusion, what flows is not a copy of some practice existing elsewhere, but the theoretical model of the diffusing practice. Theorization facilitates communication between strangers by providing a language that does not presume direct shared experience. Theorized diffusion is also likely to be relatively unconstrained by relational structure. Theorization permits the actor to see through the confusing evidence of others’ mixed successes and detect the “true” factors at work. In short, theorization may be regarded as turning diffusion into rational choice.

The authors consider diffusion as modern phenomenon. Many previous diffusion research have studied marginally modern peoples exposed to modern practices. But in the contemporary world, both practices and adopters are likely to be modern.

Comment

I think this paper has two strength. One is that they introduced discourse ("theorization" in this paper) about the diffusing innovation ("practices" in this paper) into the analytical framework of diffusion research. This make it possible to analyze what Giddens called dualities of structure. In modern society, everybody is a theorist. We, from individual to organization to nation state, try to understand and explain rationally what we see, hear, and experience. Professionals and/or mass media provide tools for constructing our explanations. This tool is exactly "theorization" Strang and Meyer explained. For example, to understand the dynamic process of fads in fashion industry, we must consider not only the diffusion process of fashion item but also the discourse about it. Because there is not clear criteria such as efficiency and effectiveness to evaluate products in fashion, the influence of discourse prevailed in mass media (e.g. magazines) cannot be ignored to analyze the diffusion process.

Another strength of this paper is that they pointed out the features of dominant diffusion research clearly. In total, they raised four points. First three can be called as 3Rs (realism, rationality, and rationality). Although these points are sharp enough, the forth, the assumption about the laggardness of potential adopters, is more important. In modern world, adopters are not so ignorant as those in premodern world who adopted boiled drinking water introduced by advanced countries. By finding this tacit assumption, I realized for the first time why the framework summarized by Rogers explain the phenomenon of fads and fashion observed in Japan (or US) partially and insufficiently.

Contrary to the sharp theoretical analysis, the discussion about the methodology to grasp theorization is not enough, I think. How can theorization be operationalized? To understand the interpenetration process of discourse and behavior explained by them, we must compare the data sets of the two. Making the data of the behavior is relatively easy, but analyzing discourse, mostly text data, is very completed and time consuming. Discourse should be analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively. To use quantitative analysis, the technique of content analysis and text mining should be elaborated. In this point, Eric Abrahamson's analysis of management fashion is very useful.