Community change theory and processes were all the rage in the 1960’s. In this interactive workshop you will learn how that early theory applies to your community engagement work today. These tips and tools are beneficial for entering into and sustaining great relationships in communities, no matter what your background. Susan Erickson, PLaCE (Partnering Landscape and Community Enhancement) Program Coordinator at Iowa State University

1. Flashback to the 60's:
Tips and Tools for Building
Relationships
Upper Midwest Civic Engagement Summit (UMCES) 2013

2. Where were you?
Tim
Nancy
Susan
Lisa

3. Community Development
Process Models
• Historical Context
• Adoption Diffusion
• Social Action Construct
• Contemporary Models
• Strategic Planning – Community Visioning
• Asset Mapping
• Appreciative Inquiry

4. Adoption and Diffusion of
Innovation and Technology
• Started in Agricultural Education/Extension
• First researched in late 1940s and 1950s
• How do you get farmers to adopt better farming
techniques and innovation?
• Works with communities as well.
• Ever notice how new ideas and technologies
spread from community to community?

5. Adoption and Diffusion
(Key Roles and Concepts)
• Opinion Leaders: Often influence what is
accepted or rejected within a community.
• Early adopters: communities that risk early
adoption of new ideas and technologies often
reap the greatest benefits.
• Change Agent: person promoting change
• Communication networks… how a new idea or
technology is communicated
• Assumes community innovation follows a pattern

6. Adoption and Diffusion
(Examples)
• High Speed Internet, Cable Television,
• Economic development strategies
• Health and transportation systems
• What is a “good” community
• Fits a “best practice” model
• I-Phone

7. Adoption and Diffusion of
Innovation and Technology

8. Adoption Diffusion
Conclusion
• Well researched
• Applied for decades, especially by Extension
• Can utilize ideas and innovation from outside
• Communication networks (internal and external) are essential to
model
• Problems:
– Often ignores local knowledge (human capital)
– Assumes good communication and organization (social capital)
– Inherent risks to community (political and financial capital)

9. Social Action Construct
• Developed by George Beal and Joseph Bohlen
in the 1960s at ISU
• Incorporated the many concepts of Adoption and
Diffusion in a Social (Community) Action Process
• Focus is upon maximization of community
resources toward accomplishing a specific goal
• Extension Agent or Community Leader as
“Change Agent”

10. Social Action Construct
#1 Situational Analysis
#2 Problem Identification (Inside
community or outside?)
#3 Form Initiating Set (First small group
to get things started)

11. Social Action Construct
#4 Alternative course of action reviewed with
formal and informal “legitimizers”
(Power Actors)
#5 Garner diffusion sets (broader participation)
through drawing attention to issue or
problem & potential solutions

12. Social Action Construct
• How do you draw
attention?
• Through “diffusion”
techniques.
• Drawing attention to
the problem and
soliciting more
participation.

13. Social Action Construct
#6 Redefine Needs
#7 Get Commitments to Action
#8 Set Goals to resolve issue/problem
#9 Define means to achieve goals

14. Social Action Construct
#10 Create a Plan of Work
#11 Mobilize Resources
#12 Launch Program (Don’t Forget Publicity)
#13 Implement Action Steps
#14 Final (Summative) Evaluation

15. Social Action Construct
Conclusion
• Tried and true, almost linear process
• It is situational, but assumes community capitals
can be utilized if directed
• Seems to work best when community has local
resources (financial and human capital)
• Problems:
– It’s somewhat elitist
– Works less well in communities with great power
or class differential (haves and have nots)

16. Today’s Applications
• What goes around comes around
– Issues are the same but more complex
– Transformation through partnerships is still the goal
• Use technology to catalyze and sustain relationships and processes
• Use the power of tech hybrid
• Be aware of shorter attention spans
• Who are our change agents has changed
• Use adoption/diffusion concepts to enhance volunteer management
• Laggards are more quickly being left behind
• Social action steps often move more quickly than in the past and 14
steps are perceived as too much

17. References
• Byrson, John M. (1988) Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit
Organizations. Josey-Bass:San Francisco
• Green, Gary P. et.al. (2001) Vision to Action: Take Charge Too. ISU, North
Central Regional Center for Rural Development: Ames IA.
• Kretzman, John P. and John L. McKnight (1993) Building Com-munities From the
Inside Out. ACTA Publications: Chicago IL.
• Green, Gary P. and Anna Haines (2012) Asset Building and Community
Development. (3rd ed.) Sage Publications, Inc.
• Rogers, Everett M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations. (5th ed.) The Free Press:
New York
• Walzer, Norman (ed.) (1996) Community Strategic Visioning Programs. Praeger:
Westport, Conn.

18. PLaCE: Partnering Landscape
and Community Enhancements
Lessons Learned on
Building Relationships

19. Program overview
• Outreach and engagement from College of
Design
– In partnership with Community and Economic
Development Extension & Outreach
– Seven academic departments: Architecture,
Community & Regional Planning, Graphic
Design, Industrial Design, Integrated Studio
Arts, Interior Design, Landscape Architecture

20. Program Goal
• Partner with communities and nonprofit
organizations to promote learning
experiences for students and provide
development concepts for the community.

21. Lessons learned
• Extension provides entrée for faculty in
creating relationships in communities
• Research on impacts of the program in
community reveals…
– University involvement can be a (sometimes
powerful) catalyst for change,
• IF the community is ready, and
• IF relationships and communication are in place

22. A tale of two projects
Success
or
failure?

23. Example: Charles City
Planning Studio

25. Moving Forward
Utilizing community change
principles within pedagogy

26. Make A Difference Day:
– Faculty, Students, Community Partners
• Partnering outside the interior design discipline
• Utilization of outreach support system
• Projects / needs identified by the organization
“Can
design
students
use
crea.vity
to
make
daily
existence
be7er
for
their
community?”

27. House Of Hope

28. Groovy Activity
Celebrate and Share!

29. Questions
h5p://www.extension.iastate.edu/communi>es/ourfinestvintages