'They hear "Africa" and they think that there can't be any good services'--perceived context in cross-national learning: a qualitative study of the barriers to Reverse Innovation.

Matthew Harris,Emily Weisberger,Diana Silver,James Macinko

doi:10.1186/s12992-015-0130-z

Abstract

BackgroundCountry-of-origin of a product can negatively influence its rating, particularly if the product is from a low-income country. It follows that how non-traditional sources of innovation, such as low-income countries, are perceived is likely to be an important part of a diffusion process, particularly given the strong social and cognitive boundaries associated with the healthcare professions.MethodsBetween September and December 2014, we conducted eleven in-depth face-to-face or telephone interviews with key informants from innovation, health and social policy circles, experts in international comparative policy research and leaders in Reverse Innovation in the United States. Interviews were open-ended with guiding probes into the barriers and enablers to Reverse Innovation in the US context, specifically also to understand whether, in their experience translating or attempting to translate innovations from low-income contexts into the US, the source of the innovation matters in the adopter context. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed thematically using the process of constant comparison.ResultsOur findings show that innovations from low-income countries tend to be discounted early on because of prior assumptions about the potential for these contexts to offer solutions to healthcare problems in the US. Judgments are made about the similarity of low-income contexts with the US, even though this is based oftentimes on flimsy perceptions only. Mixing levels of analysis, local and national, leads to country-level stereotyping and missed opportunities to learn from low-income countries.ConclusionsOur research highlights that prior expectations, invoked by the Low-income country cue, are interfering with a transparent and objective learning process. There may be merit in adopting some techniques from the cognitive psychology and marketing literatures to understand better the relative importance of source in healthcare research and innovation diffusion. Counter-stereotyping techniques and decision-making tools may be useful to help decision-makers evaluate the generalizability of research findings objectively and transparently. We suggest that those interested in Reverse Innovation should reflect carefully on the value of disclosing the source of the innovation that is being proposed, if doing so is likely to invoke negative stereotypes.

Highlights

Country-of-origin of a product can negatively influence its rating, if the product is from a low-income country
In the context of Reverse Innovation, exploration into individual perceptions of sources that may be considered to be non-traditional would seem to be important, given the strong social and cognitive boundaries associated with the healthcare professions, and yet there is little research that explores actors’ views of the innovation’s country of origin and whether it interferes positively or negatively with the adoption process
Data collection As exploratory research, with a focus on views and experiences, we used an open-ended interview style, loosely guided by some specific areas of interest, allowing for free-flowing conversation and examination of divergent themes [25]. These were to explore experiences of ‘Reverse Innovation’ in the US context, to identify the barriers and challenges from the informant’s point of view, and to enquire into whether perceptions of the innovator context are important in the adopter context

Summary

Introduction

Country-of-origin of a product can negatively influence its rating, if the product is from a low-income country It follows that how non-traditional sources of innovation, such as low-income countries, are perceived is likely to be an important part of a diffusion process, given the strong social and cognitive boundaries associated with the healthcare professions. The ideal innovation has relative advantage, is compatible with the norms of the adopter context, is perceived as uncomplicated with observable benefits and holds potential for reinvention. They note that the adopter context needs to be ready to change and be receptive to the innovation. Adopters must be willing and ready to accept a new idea

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion