Hey, i often get this question- what is the difference between adoption and scaling? And isn't scaling just large adoption?
What would be your response?
Adoption is behaviour change at the actor level. Scaling is aggregated adoption. So yes, scaling is just widespread adoption, but if you want to look at reasons for scaling or not scaling, then there's a bit more to it. To me, scaling implies developing or evaluating a strategy for widespread adoption. So while for adoption we'd be looking at the reasons each actor changed (or didn't change) behaviour. For scaling we'd be looking beyond the actors in whom we seek adoption, and analysing in aggregate at the provision of change resources in the system.
Adoption corresponds to the change or modification of individual behavior towards innovations while scaling can have a double meaning. It can mean replication/expansion/transfer of technology/innovations i.e. scaling out. It can also mean institutionalization, transition, transformation of innovations i.e. scaling up.
My response would be that adoption when a known group of people (farmers), who have been exposed to a (new) innovation are adapting and using the innovation consistently, over multiple years/season. In this case, the number of farmers exposed is known and the innovation is being promoted by one or a few organisations, that are often funded to promote the innovation. Scaling is more than adoption at scale, because scaling implies that the innovation has become part of a larger system of actors, that have engaged with the innovation, have internalized and often adapted the innovation to fit their needs and motives and are promoting an innovation by their own initiative. In this sense, an innovation becomes part of a larger "landscape" and is known and shared by a wide set of actors. It also implies that the number of exposed farmers becomes less and less known, because more actors are promoting the innovation independently from the source. Please see below a paper that talks about use (and early adoption) with the intention of scaling.
Dear All, great contributions- both terms "adoption" and "scaling" are confusing but the following resonates a lot with me: adoption is an individual decision by the end-user whereas scaling requires an entire value chain of individuals to "adopt" and create a reinforcing loop for more people to adopt. In the context of agricultural adoption/scaling
- Adoption of innovation: refers to the individual decision of Jorge/Miriam/ Ali to “adopt” the innovation and is hence determined by 1) the attributes of the innovation as described by Rogers (better than alternatives, observable, etc) and 2) the personal conditions of Miriam (willingness/ability to pay accessible, capacity to operate, etc) . This process plays at the FARM level, at individual decision making level.
• Scaling of innovations: the adoptability of the innovation is important, maybe even a starting point, but when talking about scaling we look beyond the farm – are there intermediaries able to create awareness, do intermediaries have a business interest, and distribution channels, is there finance for the manufacturing, distribution, etc of the innovation; service providers that can provide training, is there evidence that show the innovation may be interstig for Fatima, Issa, etc , etc. (at CIMMYT we use the 10 scaling ingredients https://www.researchgate.net/project/The-Scaling-Scan-A-practical-tool-to-determine-the-strengths-and-weaknesses-of-your-scaling-ambition to “model” what is required to go to scale Here the focus on the intermediaries or service providers that adopt supporting innovations or new ways of working to get the innovation to people LIKE Miriam in a sustainable way, beyond the project.
I appreciate also the point on in/out of project adoption, that some call artificial adoption as it is made possible through an artificial system of projects that pay for adoption...
Thanks COmmunity, lets keep the discussion going
Great to see the discussion continuing! I'm not sure that so far I see the advantage of defining adoption as being only by the end user. Lennart I think you show in your comment that we still want to use the term 'adopt' for all the other behaviour changes needed in the system, or else we need a new term to discuss these. Probably either is ok so long as we are clear. My preference is to keep terms consistent across actor types and behaviour changes.
So for any behaviour change by any actor, the definitions would be as follows:
Adopt comprises any individual actor adopting Behaviour Change A. At the actor level the focus is on whether Behaviour Change A happens. System level behaviour changes are an aggregation of the behaviour changes of the actors in the system.
Adapt comprises any other behaviour changes, made by that same actor, that support their own adoption of Behaviour Change A.
Expand aggregates Adopt to the function level, where the focus is on how much of the Behaviour Change A is happening. It should be emphasised that Expand is Adopt, just seen in the context of the wider function rather than any one individual actor.
Respond like Adapt, comprises any other behaviour changes that support Behaviour Change A. At the system level the focus is on behaviour changes by actors in other functions. We are not interested in what caused those changes, only that they produce change resources that support Adopt.
These definitions are from AA|ER framework, linked below. Returning to the original discussion point, 'scaling' would correspond to 'expand', with 'respond' encompassing all the other actor behaviour changes needed to support widespread adoption.
Technical Report AAER Revisited: from systemic change narrative to systemic c...
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Biochemistry
- Biochemical Techniques
- Analytical Chemistry
- pH