The Diffusion of Social and Emotional Learning Interventions: Is Belief and Conviction Enough?

Introduction: Social and emotional learning (SEL) has become an international public health priority, leading to a proliferation in school-based interventions across Western countries. However, these interventions are characterized by low levels of implementation, inconsistent scale-up, and lack of routinisation (Greenberg, 2007).  Rogers (2003) provides a useful framework for understanding how these implementation problems emerge, by identifying five key stages involved in the diffusion of innovations: knowledge; persuasion; adoption; implementation and confirmation. Yet as Greenhalgh et al (2004) contend, this theory tends to treat the individual as the most relevant unit of analysis, and more work is required to understand the complexity of spreading and sustaining innovations in organizations.

Methods: This study was a formative process evaluation (Medical Research Council Phase-1 evaluation) of a school based SEL intervention in Welsh  secondary schools (age 11-16) called the Student Assistance Program (SAP). The intervention takes an ecological approach and comprises components addressing curriculum learning; school ethos; and community partnerships. Qualitative case-study research was conducted across four contrasting SAP school sites (Free School Meal (FSM) entitlement 10%-36%). Data sources drawn upon in this paper include in-depth interviews with programme stakeholders (n=15) and participant observation (n=31 sessions).

Results: Results suggest a key fracture in the diffusion process between adoption and implementation. This is because change agents rely on ‘belief’ and ‘conviction’ in order to ‘persuade’ senior managers as part of an authority innovation-decision. For example, change agents regularly draw upon religious and spiritual vernacular in their communication to these potential adopters. However whilst this persuasive language is effective in securing nominal adoption, it cannot support continued implementation because of a number of structural barriers: 1) staff members’ emotional detachment from interventionism due to the relentless ‘waves’ of new programmes 2) the incompatibility between the intervention and dominant educational discourse of the school 3) the peripheral role of SEL within educational policy. Together these system influences limit implementation of intervention components, with minimal programme activities beyond the direct control of the change agent being carried out. Through an organisation’s continued failure to implement the full SAP model, the change agent may become disillusioned and discontinuance may occur.

Conclusion:  This paper starts to draw out how system structures can militate against the implementation and confirmation of SEL interventions. Specifically it highlights the need for further theorisation of contextual influences that may support, mutate or rupture the diffusion process in order to develop an internationally relevant framework of organisational diffusion.