INNOVATORS OR LAGGARDS: SURVEYING

DIFFUSION OF INNOVATIONS BY PUBLIC RELATIONS PRACTITIONERS

A Thesis

Presented to

The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts

Carol A. Savery

August, 2005

ii ABSTRACT

Everett M. Rogers’ diffusion of innovations theory was used as a framework to study 116 chapter members of the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) in a

Midwestern state. A web-based survey and paper-based survey were both used to collect the self-reporting data.

According to Rogers (1986), “Diffusion is the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over a period of time among members of a social system” (p. 117). Public relations practitioners are the members of the social system that were studied. Rogers defined an innovation as, “an idea, practice, or object that is perceived to be new by an individual or other unit of adoption” (p. 117).

Diffusion research centers on the conditions which increase or decrease the likelihood that a new idea, product or practice will be adopted by members of a given culture. A literature review of diffusion of innovation showed no research applying Rogers’ theory to public relations. It is hoped that this thesis research will to add to the body of knowledge about diffusion of innovation in public relations by helping to identify the perceived innovation attributes, influences, obstacles and relative advantage of innovations by public relations practitioners. This could assist public relations agencies in weighing the pros and cons of future decisions and strategies for implementing innovations.

iii DEDICATION

This graduate school experience would have been impossible without the love and encouragement provided by my husband, Dr. John R. Savery and my sons

Dylan and Eden. I also dedicate this thesis to the memory of my mother, father, and infant son Nathan.

iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank the supportive thesis committee that included my faculty advisor, Dr. David Ritchey, Dr. Andrew S. Rancer, and Dr. Dudley B. Turner. Dr.

Heather Walter was a valuable faculty resource and mentor. The University of Akron staff, Anthony W. Serpette of Application Systems Services and Cathy Kodish of

Learning Technologies and School Services guided me through training and questions about the online survey tool, 2WAY. The wisdom that all these people shared so generously will forever influence my understanding of communication and researching.

I would also like to thank the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) chapters and members who participated in the online and paper-based surveys. Their contribution and time validated and enhanced the learning experience of this student researcher.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge Everett M. Rogers who passed away on

October 21, 2004. His remarkable career as a scholar, writer, teacher, and pioneer of diffusion of innovations theory continues to inspire new students in communication.

v TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF FIGURES ………………………………………………...………………… ix

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION …………………………………………...……………………… 1

II. LITERATURE REVIEW ………………………………..…………………………. 4

Theoretical Framework …………………………………...……………………. 15

Five Adoption Category Traits ………………………………………………… 16

Five Stages in the Innovation Decision Process ……………………..………… 18

Research Questions ……………………………………………………………...19

III. METHODOLOGY …………………………………………...………………….. 23

Participants …………………………………………………………………….. 26

Procedures ………………………………...……………………………………. 26

The Survey ……………………………………………………………………... 27

Research Phases …………….………………………………………………….. 27

IV. RESULTS …………………………………………………...……………………. 32

Participants …………………………………………………………………….. 32

Response Rates ………………………………………………………………… 33

Demographics …………………………………………………………….……. 33

Gender …………………………………………………………………...…. 33

vi Age …………………………………………………………………………. 34

Number of Years Working in PR ……………………..……………………. 34

Size of PR Department or Group …………………………………….…….. 34

Types of PR Performed by Practitioners ...... 34

Results of the Research Questions …………………………………………….. 35

Characteristics ………………………………………………………………… 35

Total-Innovation of Participants ………………………………………..….. 35

Individual Innovation Characteristic Types ………………………..………. 35

Innovators ………………………………………………………………… 35

Early Adopters ………………………….………………………………… 36

Early Majority …………………….……………………………………… 36

Late Majority ……………………………………………..……………… 36

Laggards ……………………………..…………………………………… 37

Question 13 Influences ………………………………………………...………. 37

Question 14 Organizational Influences ………………………………………… 38

Question 15 Influences by Individuals ……………………………………….... 38

Obstacles ………………………………………….……………………………. 39

Innovations Adopted ………………………………………..………………….. 40

Perceptions About Using Innovations …………………………………………. 41

V. CONCLUSION ……………………………………………….……………………. 45

Limitations of the Study …………………………….………….……………… 47

Suggestions for Future Research …………………………..……….………….. 48

REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………………… 51

vii APPENDICES …………………………………………………………………………. 56

APPENDIX A ………………………………….………….………………………….. 57

SURVEY QUESTIONS (Q1 – Q 32) ………….…………………………..……… 58

APPENDIX B …………………..…………………………………………………….. 64

IRB APPROVAL (ASSIGNED 20050219) ………..……………………………….. 65

APPENDIX C …………………………………………….…….…………………….. 66

IRB APPROVED E-MAIL TO PARTICIPANTS ………………………………….. 67

APPENDIX D …………………………..…………………………………………….. 68

E-MAIL REQUEST TO PRSA CHAPTERS ……..………………………………… 69

APPENDIX E ……………..………………………………………………………….. 70

“WELCOME” SCREEN SHOT ON 2WAY ONLINE SURVEY ……………..…… 71

APPENDIX F ………………………………………………………………………… 72

E-MAIL APPROVAL FROM IRB FOR ADDING A PAPER-BASED SURVEY ………………………..…………...…………………………………….....73

APPENDIX G …………………...……………………………………………………. 74

PARTICIPANT INTRODUCTION LETTER TO THE PAPER-BASED SURVEY ……….…………………………………………………………………… 75

APPENDIX H …………….………………………………………………..…………. 76

“SURVEY CLOSED” SCREEN SHOT ON 2WAY ONLINE SURVEY ………..... 77

APPENDIX I ………………………………………………………………………… 78

TABLES …………………………………………………………………………….. 79

APPENDIX J ……….………………………………………………………………… 94

FIGURE 2 …………..………………………………………………………………. 95

viii LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Diffusion curve (Rogers, 1995)…………………………..……………………. 16

2 Dates surveys were submitted or received ……….……………………………. 95

ix CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The field of public relations is currently in a period of great innovation largely due to the widespread use of both the Internet and new communication options.

These innovations allow public relations practitioners to target their publics directly, without the intervention of editors and reporters who can act as both gatekeepers and censors of information. I was introduced to Everett Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations theory in a graduate communication class in 2004 at The University of Akron’s School of

Communication. As I pondered this theory, I became aware that the seminal book,

Diffusion of Innovations, was in its fifth edition (Rogers, 2003) -- this theory had obviously stood the test of time since it was first published in 1962. In a review of the fifth edition of Rogers’ book (1995), Stanford professor Orr (2003) stated that the book,

“has become the standard textbook and reference on diffusion studies…comprehensive and even-handed…an insightful explanation of the conditions that indicate that an innovation will reach the much-hyped tipping point” (p. 1). The focus of my graduate studies was in public relations. I was surprised when I found that scant research had been done linking public relations and diffusion of innovations. The impact of technology was cited by Cutlip, Center, and Broom (2000) in research done by The Institute for Public

Relations Research and Education (Wright, 1998), “Intranets and Internets make two-way communication possible as never before…new media landscape is changing

1 rapidly…technology makes it possible to distribute and capture more data and information than ever before” (pp. 285-287). In my own career in the field, I knew that public relations practitioners had to keep abreast of new innovations to keep up with the speed and demands of communication. A gap in the research suggests a fruitful area for additional investigations (A. S. Rancer, personal communication, March 17, 2004). I had discovered a gap in the diffusion of innovations research in public relations and started to plan my thesis using Rogers’ theory as a framework. I was curious about public relations practitioners’ perceptions about their personal innovation characteristics, perceived obstacles to adopting innovations, the innovation influences, the change agents, the opinion leaders, perceptions about using innovations in their work, and what innovations were currently being used.

The University of Akron had a site license for the web-based survey tool,

2WAY Interactive System from Modern Mind (2WAY), that could be installed on any computer type and used for projects related to The University of Akron, including thesis research (A. W. Serpette, personal e-mail communication, November 2, 2004). The name of the online survey tool linked metaphorically to two-way communication -- an important principle of effective interaction in public relations. Two-way communication’s importance to public relations was put forward by Jerry A. Hendrix

(2004):

Two-way communication was once considered a linear process involving the transmission of a message from a source through a channel to a receiver. Today, however, the PR practitioner must program two-way communication activities that permit audience response – or feedback. (p. 40)

2 The name of the online survey tool, 2WAY, also represented a metaphor linking the tool and the two-step flow theory to diffusion of innovations. Both the two- step flow theory (Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1955) and Rogers’ diffusion of innovations theory use opinion leaders who pass information along to others through informal, interpersonal communication. Infante, Rancer and Womack (2003) described the evolution of two-step theory:

Finally, while Katz and Lazarsfeld argue the need for a two-step model, the process of media dissemination and audience behavior can involve more steps. Thus, the two-step flow theory gave way to the concept of multi-step flow, often used to describe the diffusion of innovations. (p. 268)

2WAY would allow me to reach the public relations practitioners through an innovative channel. This combined my ongoing interest in communication technologies with learning a new innovation. I would also be transferring the diffusion of two way information between myself and the research participants by using an innovation to study diffusion of innovation.

3 CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

In my literature review, I could not find direct links to diffusion of innovations theory and public relations. This was further corroborated by a communication scholar from Ohio University, Dr. A. Singhal (personal e-mail communication, April 18, 2005) “I am unaware of a diffusion study with this population.

It sounds like you will have a good spectrum of quantitative results on various diffusion concepts...and have an able committee to guide you in the process.”

Rogers (2004) gave a personal glimpse into the number of students that contacted him by e-mail about diffusion of innovations,

Each day in recent years I receive one or two e-mail messages about diffusion research from students or young scholars in a variety of academic disciplines and from various countries. It seems that today, scholarly research on the Diffusion of Innovations knows almost no boundaries. This fact is a kind of affirmation that the generalizability of the diffusion model has been born out by history since 1962. (p. 18)

Rogers (1962) observed that, “More than five hundred publications on the diffusion of innovations are reviewed here” (p. vii). By 1992 when Rogers gave a keynote address for the NATO Advanced Research Workshop (Rogers, 1993) that provided a glimpse into the scope and ongoing focus of research literature on diffusion, written from a variety of disciplines, “more than 4,000 diffusion research publications

4 have appeared, authored by scholars in each of the social science disciplines” (p. 9).

Rogers (1993) keynote speech points out the history of diffusion:

The prototype early diffusion study is the Ryan and Gross 1943 investigation of the spread of hybrid corn among Iowa farmers. The hybrid corn study, more than any other diffusion study, influenced the methodology, theoretical framework and interpretations of later diffusion scholars…the study is credited with launching 15 of the 18 most widely used intellectual innovations in the rural sociology diffusion research. By any measure, the Ryan and Gross study was a landmark. (p. 10)

Rogers (1962) provided historical perspective about diffusion of innovations done by Tarde (1843-1904), a French sociologist and social psychologist, who in 1903 proposed several pioneering concepts that have been developed and tested by later diffusion researchers. According to Rogers (1962), “Tarde suggested that the adoption of new ideas followed a normal S-shaped distribution over time…Tarde’s greatest contribution was his insights into the process by which the behavior of opinion leaders is imitated by other individuals” (p. 29). Rogers (1995) noted:

Tarde was far ahead of his time in thinking about diffusion. Although he used slightly different concepts from those employed in his book…“imitation” is today called the “adoption” of an innovation, this sociological pioneer was onto several of the main research issues that were pursued by diffusion scholars in later decades, using less intuitive and more quantitative approaches. (p. 41)

In a retrospective article on diffusion of innovation Rogers (2004) gives an estimate of, “about 5,000 studies…conducted on over the past six decades” (p. 13). In studies of diffusion of innovations over the past 60 years the diffusion model has not waned, “Unlike most models of human behavior that begin to fade after some years of use, the diffusion model continues to attract strong interest from scholars” (p. 19).

Rogers (2004) describes the additions that have been made since the publication of his first diffusion book (1962):

5 The critical mass, defined as the point which enough individuals have adopted an innovation that further diffusion becomes self-sustaining. A focus on networks as a means of gaining further understanding of how a new idea spreads through interpersonal channels. Re-invention, the process through which an innovation is changed by its adopters during the diffusion process. (p. 19)

Rogers and Singhal (1996) discussed research (Coleman, Katz, & Menzel,

1966) that expanded on the diffusion of innovations theory begun by Ryan and Gross

(1943). Coleman, Katz, and Menzel (1966) studied diffusion of a single drug,

Tetracycline, by focusing on the use of social networks that led to the adoption of the new drug among physicians. According to Rogers and Singhal (1996), Coleman, Katz, and Menzel’s research found that, “the most innovative medical doctors [the early adopters] were cosmopolite, making numerous out-of-town trips to medical specialty meetings…doctors who were linked in more interpersonal networks adopted the innovation more rapidly than did more isolated doctors” (p. 417). Recognizing these social networks established the opinion leaders in this specialized medical field.

Recent diffusion of innovations research has focused on technological advances such as a review about using diffusion of innovation to assimilate new technologies into business and marketing programs (Alexander, McCorkle & Reardon,

2001). Their study highlighted “opinion leaders in the guise of technology champions”

(p. 13) and showed that the use of opinion leaders is important to the success of diffusing technological advances among higher education faculty. Alexander, McCorkle, and

Reardon (2001) suggested that:

Rather than introducing discipline specific technologies in a disorganized and inefficient way, a practical solution requires that such technological support first be provided to departmental faculty innovators, who then are required participants in the diffusion of new technologies to other faculty. (p. 23)

6 The connection between perception of an innovation and actual adoption is addressed in a study exploring factors that influence the formation of user’s perceptions with a Decision Support Systems (DSS) software innovation (Chiasson & Lovato, 2001).

Chiasson and Lovato’s (2001) study acknowledged Rogers’ (1995) work on perceived characteristics of an innovation including relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability and observability, clearly outlined:

Relative advantage is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being better than the idea it supersedes. It is often expressed as economic profitability, social prestige, or other specified benefits, thus highlighting its basis in both individual and social networks. Compatibility is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as consistent with the existing values, past experiences, and perceived goals of the user. Complexity is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being difficult to understand and use. Trialability is the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with, on a limited basis. Observability is the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others. (pp. 18-19)

Rogers’ diffusion of innovation was used to examine factors that influence the adoption of electronic newspapers in Taiwan (Sarrina, 2003). A telephone survey was used to collect data from 1,006 participants; 311 (31%) were adopters, 431 (43%) were likely adopters, and the remaining 263 (26%) were non-adopters. Four factors were identified as being significant: technology ownership, innovativeness, demographic composition, and mass media use.

Using a theoretical foundation for everyday practice is another helpful public relations tool commonly overlooked, according to Grunig, a leading researcher in public relations, and Repper (1992) “the diffusion of innovations, is familiar to most public relations practitioners, although few apparently use the concept in research” (p. 141).

Diffusion of innovations theory is just one of many theoretical concepts that could further the success of public relations practices -- if utilized. Several aspects of the diffusion of

7 innovations theory assist in improving the adoption of innovations in public relations, such as recognizing the importance of individual and organizational opinion leaders.

Grunig (1983) studied the connection between communication, attitudes, and behavior. This situational theory acknowledges “that the individual sometimes controls his own behavior and that sometimes the constraints of his environment, controls his behavior” (p. 9). Grunig (1983) used the terms “latent…aware…active” (p. 11) to describe the levels of involvement by publics. Newsom, Turk and Kruckeberg (2004) link Grunig’s characteristics of processing information to Rogers’ diffusion of innovations:

James E. Grunig has considered publics along a spectrum from active to inactive and characterized their behavior toward information in each category to predict what type of person would be seeking information or just processing it…Those that need to get information are “latent,” “aware,” and “latent aware” publics because they are not likely to seek information but will be responsive to it, that is very similar to the adoption characteristics of Rogers’ a six phase “diffusion cycle” in a public’s response to persuasive information that requires a behavioral change that includes awareness, information, evaluation, trial, adoption, and reinforcement. (p. 142)

Tisdell (2003) studied the communication concepts behind promoting a brand name as being essential to the successful adoption of that innovation. This research linked diffusion of innovations theory, branding, and marketing innovation by exploring the name change of a higher education institution. The adoption of the University of

Louisiana at Lafayette’s new name by its alumni was studied by analyzing the campaign post-name change and by gathering background information on previous diffusion of innovations research and the importance of brand names to products, specifically higher education institutions. This study had a marketing (branding) focus as opposed to a

8 public relations concentration (even though marketing and public relations can be viewed as integrated disciplines).

The discipline of public relations often relies on anecdotal experiences and practical tips to share information. Coombs (1999) suggests that this type of data is a valid starting point, but relying on untested assumptions weakens the field and verifiable research is needed in this rapidly growing field.

I broadened my research in public relations to include articles on new technologies. The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial of the drug Finasteride was given two mandates by Congress to communicate health information to the public, and to establish methods to reach the public directly (Croker, Ryan, Morzenti, Cave, Maze-

Gallman & Ford, 2004). Public relations and social marketing strategies and tactics were used by the National Cancer Institute in an effort to reach media, professional societies, and advocacy groups through messages in a large variety of ways including the Web.

The power of the Web was studied in a national e-mail survey of 432 public relations practitioners about how the Web impacted their decision-making power in their organizations (Porter & Sallot, 2005). The researchers found that practitioners’ web use seems to be positively related to power.

Delio (2005) explored the advantages and disadvantages of corporate blogs

(individual opinions shared on the Web) and wikis (allowing other people to edit each other’s words on a blog). The advantage is to assist in the interactive exchange of information (two-way communication) in creating customized and user friendly data archives. Delio (2005) described companies such as Cisco, Disney, General Motors,

Intel, and Nokia who are turning blogs and wikis into collaboration tools that create

9 direct interaction for readers unlike that found in traditional press releases. Delio (2005) warns that blogs can create potential organizational public relations problems by providing direct contact with employees who have been protected by public relations handlers. Hiebert (2004) presented a global public relations political perspective when he suggested that new communication technologies have the power to save democracy by restoring interactive communication in the public area by using public relations for two- way communication rather than propaganda and hype. Government public information officers are taking advantage of new technology to get their messages out to the media and the public (Moore, 2004). Moore’s (2004) article discussed how technology has made the government more open than ever before – digital systems are changing democracy. Moore (2004) points out that technologies such as web casting, Internet audio and video feeds are now available from 69 of the 99 legislative chambers today.

Even one-person public information shops are acquiring the know-how to distribute

Video News Releases (VNRs) using the Internet. Media technology tools can be used for recording an event or statement with digital or video cameras, gathering sound bites, using mini-disc recorders, and using software for image editing. By using the capabilities of the media, there is an increase in the likelihood of the information being used so that citizens will get their legislative news faster. A national survey of 4,000 public relations practitioners investigated how the World Wide Web and practitioners’ roles and status are linked (Porter & Sallot, 2003). The research found that managers used the Web more than the technicians for research and evaluation and more than internals for communication. Managers and internals used the Web more than technicians for

10 productivity and efficiency. In general, practitioners were not viewed as laggards in their adoption of the Web.

Shine and Cameron (2003) surveyed 225 public relations practitioners and journalists in South Korea regarding offline source-reporter interactions. The interactions included telephone contact, fax/mail/wire/courier press releases, interviews, press conferences, private meetings and online source-reporter interactions: e-mail news releases, multimedia, organizational homepages, Web site press rooms, and online discussion forums. In all types of source-reporter relationships both parties disagreed and inaccurately predicted the other’s view. Respondents expect that online media relations offers promise, with both groups predicting less conflict in online source-reporter relationships.

The attitudes of 109 American public relations practitioners working in for- profit and not-for-profit organizations about using the Web were measured (Ryan, 2003).

The results found that public relations practitioners perceived that they had the skills needed to use the Web. The biggest organizational problem was teaching others the parts of a good website. The biggest departmental problem was acquiring technical and conceptual training.

A short comparative study of Australian and American public relations firms looked at the influence of technology on communication (Howell, 2002). Technology has provided advancement in communications in Australia and the United States. The most popular forms of communication are e-mail and the Internet for information dissemination and research. The collection of information in the Australian PR world has an international concept. In small budget PR firms, print news releases are sent out via

11 the Web and this technology is seen as an instantaneous means of communication which in turn benefits credibility. According to Howell (2002), “the phrase ‘public relations’ was introduced in Australia by the American General, Douglas MacArthur, who maintained a staff to promote his image and war policy” (p. 5).

The challenges and opportunities for PR firms in a digital world were discussed in an article about how the new PR audiences (publics) are becoming more diverse in a global economy that is enhanced by Internet interactivity (Ihator, 2001). The author discusses new Internet feedback, evaluation and the concept of virtual storytelling that is extending PR outreach. New technologies are providing enhanced information delivery systems, which discourages PR practitioners from keeping the one-way communication model. A new communication landscape is emerging that affects communication channels, corporate audience identification, methods of communication, message content and form, and feedback. The Internet is seen as a medium which provides unique opportunities for a new generation of message dispersion through images, graphics, video, audio and other visual displays that are not like the traditional printed PR messages. Ihator (2001) believes that there is a need to review traditional PR and communication models and that there is a substantial lag between new information technology creation and the theories and models that match this rapidly evolving communication technology reality. He suggests,

The new communication trends could be compared with the impact of the printing press invention – the first mass communication – on the widespread diffusion of knowledge and the social change that followed. (p. 17)

The need for caution concerning the proliferation of computers, Internet, websites, and new technologies that have changed the public relations practice, was

12 offered by Ryan, (2000). Technology can create cost effective options for personal communication between organizations and its publics. Ryan warned that public relations practitioners must continuously monitor new technical applications so that they do not

“contribute to negative impressions about companies and organizations” (p. 23). Ryan suggests that, “The application and surveillance of new technologies must not be left to non-practitioners. Practitioners are trained to communicate effectively and they must bring this training to bear in using new technologies” (p. 23).

Thirteen PR practitioners who work in an organization utilizing a web site were studied for their perceptions about the value of the web as a communication tool and how it fits into PR communication (Hill & White, 2000). Human subject interviews were used to gather the information. Practitioners viewed web sites as a symbol of an organization’s competitiveness, enhancement of an organization’s image, and increasing the practitioner’s personal sense of professionalism. Problems cited include: responsibility for the web site is often without additional resources to maintain it, skepticism about its value, inefficient evaluation methods, and control of the site.

A survey of 960 PR professionals (334 responses) was conducted by an independent Los Angeles-based public relations agency, The Bohle Company (1998).

The results showed that technology was being used more than ever and that the Internet is seen as an integral part of the day-to-day operations. The communication tools highlighted were considered innovative at the time and showed usages of: 95% e-mail,

82% Internet access, 77% voice mail, 4% other, 3% PC speakerphones and 0% video conferencing.

13 The distribution of information to agencies and departments by PR firms in the

US and the media preferences to receive this information (Cantelmo, 2001) was studied.

Despite the availability of web casting and CDs, most public relations agencies and departments continue to use print press kits even when they have electronic versions.

Thousands of press releases are distributed every day to more than 50,000 media outlets in the US. In addition, printed releases are sent with photos, slides, product samples and premium freebies; in some fashion and cosmetic industries, giveaways are viewed as a must. The reality is that media do not have the resources to collect the amount of paper information that practitioners provide. The survey consistently showed that the media prefer to receive unsolicited PR material (that is not urgent) as follows: via mail (90%), via fax (60%), and via e-mail (30%). Broadcast faxes are transmitted to editors and reporters by name and editorial beat. Reporters do not like getting news releases via E- mail – faxes are preferred. The survey also showed a marked preference among editors for short e-mail messages (100 words or less) that hyperlink to the full text on a server.

Seventeen semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted to study how use of communication technologies can affect public relations roles (Johnson, 1997). The following were reviewed: practitioner challenges with diffusing new technologies; practitioner perceptions of technology, organizational status; and how PR professionals are using new technologies to improve communication in their organizations. This article looked at a variety of technologies available in 1997 that were interactive and computer or satellite-mediated including: electronic mail, electronic bulletin boards, interactive floppy diskettes, interactive video discs, CD-ROM, Web pages, online data, online media monitoring systems, satellite teleconference and virtual reality. The results of the study

14 showed that the practitioners were taking small steps towards gathering knowledge through trade journals, seminars, and educating management and target publics. The most immediate benefits discussed from computer and telecommunication-mediated technologies are online research, evaluation, and productivity/efficiency gains.

Although Rogers (1993) contended that innovation diffusion has emerged as one of the most multidisciplinary research topics in the social sciences today, his opinion was, “the promising areas for diffusion inquiry are in the diffusion of new technologies of an interactive nature” (p. 22).

Theoretical Framework

According to Rogers and Singhal (1996), “Diffusion is the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system” (p. 409). Rogers’ psychological/sociological theory, diffusion of innovations, explores the communication aspects about the ways innovations are adopted.

There are several well-defined features about innovation diffusion research, including lack of prior knowledge about the innovation and the importance of attitude change and decision-making. Because an innovation is a new concept to the targeted audience, there is a “high degree of uncertainty in seeking information about, and deciding to adopt and implement an innovation” (Rogers & Singhal, 1996, p. 410).

Interpersonal communication can also come into play with several steps leading to the adoption of an innovation. Bass’s 1969 model (Bass, Mahajan & Muller,

1990) identified mass media and word-of-mouth as the two main influential components of innovation adoption. Although mass media can play a large role in the initial awareness stage of diffusion, interpersonal communication often happens during the

15 decision-making process (Rogers & Singhal, 1996), “A person evaluates a new idea and decides whether or not to adopt it on the basis of discussions with peers who have already adopted or rejected the innovation” (p. 410). This dependence on peers shows the importance of opinion leaders in the innovation diffusion process. Opinion leaders have more credibility with decision-makers because of an established relationship. Although, mass media may be used as a tool, more direct and personal communications may be used to reach opinion leaders, who in turn influence the decision makers.

Rogers (1995, p. 281) illustrated that the way groups face an innovation follows a natural curve – a diffusion curve (see Figure 1) (Image retrieved May 17, 2005 from http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~dmjacobs/phd/rogers_curve.GIF):

Figure 1: Diffusion curve (Rogers, 1995)

Five Adoption Category Traits

Adoption category traits were outlined by Rogers (1995):

1. Innovators: venturesome visionaries (2.5%). According to Rogers (1995, p. 263),

Innovators have a keen interest in new ideas that leads them out of a local group of

peers and into a more “cosmopolite” social group. They play an important role in

launching a new innovation initiative. Innovator characteristics include the ability to

understand complex technical information, an ability to cope with uncertainty about

16 innovations at the time of adoption, and being able to accept setbacks when an

innovation proves unsuccessful.

2. Early Adopters: respected opinion leaders who are viewed as technology evangelists

(13.5%). Early Adopters are part of the local social systems. Innovators are

“cosmopolites” and Early Adopters are “localites.” They are considered the ones to

confer with before using an innovation (Rogers 1995, p. 264).

3. Early Majority: ahead of the curve and willing to make safe business investments

(34%). Early Majority adopt new ideas before the average adopter. They frequently

interact with peers but seldom are opinion leaders who lead (Rogers, 1995, p. 265).

4. Late Majority: skeptical but eventually adopt (34%). Late Majority adopt new ideas

after the average number of members do out of organizational necessity or increasing

peer pressure (Rogers, 1995, p. 265).

5. Laggards: traditional, few opinion leaders, isolated in their group, suspicious of

change agents, and resistant to innovations (16%). Laggards are the most “localite”

in their outlook about innovations and are suspicious of innovations and change

agents. It should be noted that some individuals may be Laggards with one

innovation and Innovators or Early Adopters in others (Rogers, 1995, p. 265-266).

Rogers and Singhal (1996) point out that only a few innovators are willing to adopt the innovation early on. When these innovators begin to communicate about the innovation to their peers, it leads to an increased rate of adoption. After this accelerated growth, diffusion tapers off to include a small number of late adopters (Rogers &

Singhal, pp. 412, 418).

17 Five Stages in the Innovation Decision Process

Rogers (1995, pp. 169, 199) described five stages in the innovation-decision process and the conditions that influence a new idea, product or practice to be adopted.

These stages can be related to the new technologies that public relations practitioners are required to adopt. The five stages an innovation passes through on its way to being adopted include: knowledge (exposure and understanding); persuasion (forming an attitude); decision (commitment to adoption); implementation (use) and confirmation

(reinforcement because of positive outcomes).

According to Infante, Rancer, and Womak (2003):

Diffusion research has focused on five elements: (1) the characteristics of an innovation; (2) the decision-making process; (3) the characteristics of individuals that make them likely to adopt an innovation; (4) consequences for individuals and society of adopting an innovation; and (5) communication channels. (p. 268)

A unique part of diffusion is the degree of “heterophily” or “homophily” present in communication channels (Rogers, 2003), “Heterophily is the degree to which two or more individuals who interact are different in certain attributes such as beliefs, education, social status, and the like” (p. 36). The opposite of “heterophily” is

“homophily” (Rogers, 2003) “the degree to which two or more individuals who interact are similar in certain attributes” (p. 37). A generalization made by Rogers (2003) is that,

“Interpersonal diffusion networks are mostly homophilous” (p. 307). Rogers’ (2003) cautions that, “Homophily can act as an invisible barrier to the flow of innovations within a system…elite individuals interact mainly with one another” (p. 306).

Rogers (1995) described how an innovative member’s role in a system is often very limited by, “(1) opinion leaders (informal influence over the behavior of

18 others); (2) change agents (positively influence innovation decisions between their change agency and the relevant group); and (3) change aides (complement the change agent by having more contact with clients)” (p. 26).

Using Rogers’ innovation roles in the context of this research study of public relations practitioners, both organizational and individual influences will be investigated.

Research Questions

RQ 1: How do public relations practitioners perceive their degree or level of innovativeness?

Rogers’ (1986) innovativeness and adopter category descriptions were used to create specific survey questions addressing the classifications of the public relations practitioners. Rogers’ five categories include innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. Special care was taken to incorporate many of the precise words that Rogers used (1962, 1986, & 1995) in innovation characterization descriptions

(e.g., venturesome, eager, suspicious, and resistant). The adopter categories in the survey were questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 using a 4-Point Likert forced answer scale

(1-Strongly Disagree, 2-Disagree, 3-Agree, and 4-Strongly Agree).

RQ 2: What influences public relations practitioners to adopt innovations?

Public relations practitioners were asked for influences regarding their adoption of innovations such as: clients’ expectations, competition, speed, global market opportunities, industry credibility, personal credibility, enhancement of their career, organizational efficiency and influences that participants suggest. Organizations that influence adoption of innovations were explored such as: PRSA, PR Newswire,

Microsoft, service providers and others that participants suggest. Individuals who

19 influence adoption of innovations will be studied including: opinion leaders, change agents, and technology champions within their organizations, clients, PRSA members, other public relations practitioners, community leaders, and participants were given the opportunity to suggest others. The multiple choice questions regarding influences to adoption included question 13, 14 (organizational influences) and 15 (individuals who influence).

RQ 3: What are the obstacles to adopting new innovations?

Obstacles or challenges to adoption of innovations were studied such as: cost to implement, need for technical support, support by upper management, training, new versions, privacy issues, security issues, clients’ technology limitations, stress for the practitioner, and participants were given the opportunity to suggest others. The multiple choice question regarding obstacles to innovations was question 15.

RQ 4: What innovations are being adopted by public relations practitioners?

Specific innovations adopted in their work as a public relations practitioner were explored: e-mail, transmitting photos digitally to media contacts, video news releases (VNRs), audio news releases (ANRs), online press kits, broadcast faxes to target specific recipients, broadcast e-mails to target specific recipients, online meetings using web conferencing or video conferencing, web-based survey tools, and participants were given the opportunity to suggest others. The multiple choice question regarding types of innovations used was Question 11.

RQ5: What are public relations practitioners’ perceptions about using innovations?

20 Rogers’ (1995) described the important characteristics of an innovation that included relative advantage (the degree to which it is perceived to be better than what it supersedes; compatibility (consistency with existing values, past experiences, and needs; complexity (difficulty of understanding and use); trialability (the degree to which it can be experimented on); and observability (visibility of results). Rogers’ five innovation characteristics were used to create questions regarding public relations practitioner perceptions about: the relative advantage (Q16), existing values/needs (Q17), complexity to learn (Q18), training time before implementation (Q19), visibility to others in their organization (Q20), visibility to others outside of their organization (Q21), enhancing practitioner image status or image at work (Q22), using individual innovations to communicate with other public relations practitioners (Q23), using individual communication innovations to communicate with a variety of individuals outside of their organization such as media, government agencies, grassroots organizations, or lobbyists

(Q24), using interpersonal communication innovations to communicate with others offsite such as employees, clients, or business partners (Q25), their comfort in completing online surveys (Q26), and their preference for completing paper-based surveys (Q27).

Perceptions about innovations included questions 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25,

26, and 27 using a 4-Point Likert forced answer scale (1-Strongly Disagree, 2-Disagree,

3-Agree, and 4-Strongly Agree).

Demographic questions (28, 29, 30, 31, and 32) requested gender (Q28), participant age (Q29), number of years working as a public relations practitioner (Q30), size of the public relations group/group the participant works in (Q31), and the types of

21 public relations clients the group/organization works with (Q32: (a) international, (b) national or (c) regional/local).

22 CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Meyer (2004) discussed diffusion methodology that is characterized by the collection of quantitative data and proposed alternative methodological approaches to broaden the diffusion knowledge base. Alternatives discussed include panel studies, longitudinal studies, point-of adoption studies using data gathered at the time respondents adopt innovations, the use of archival records, quasi-experimental designs and integrated qualitative methods. Meyer (2004) cites a proposed quasi-experimental research design

(Dearing, 2003), “on-going interviews with opinion leaders might be integrated into the design to more fully understand the extent and nature of communication with potential adopters” (p. 67). Myer (2004) also points out that the methodology of Ryan and Gross

(1943) has dominated diffusion of innovations research and points to an observation made by Rogers (1995):

The research paradigm created by the Ryan and Gross investigation became the academic template that was to be mimicked, first by other rural sociologists in their agricultural research, and then by almost all other diffusion traditions (whether they knew it or not). (p. 54)

Studies on the comparison of web-based versus traditional paper-based surveys provided valuable insights. This research highlighted some of the reasons I had chosen an innovative survey tool, 2WAY. The Web certainly provides a convenient

23 way of doing research with special populations that regularly uses the Internet (Couper,

Traugott & Lamias, 2001). According to Cobanoglu, Warde, and Moreo (2001), several advantages of using the web-based surveys include cost savings associated with eliminating the printing and mailing of a survey instrument, increased numbers of surveys that can be transmitted in minutes, rather than days, faster completion by respondents, and automatic coding of responses for the researcher (instead of manual coding).

When a decision was being considered to augment the 2WAY online survey with a mailed paper-based survey, a European research study was referred to that addressed ways researchers can influence mail survey response behaviors to increase response rates (Cabugsgil & Elvey-Kirk, 1998). Six motivating factors were studied: net individual benefit, societal outcome from the information provided, commitment to respond (e.g., establishing a cutoff date), novelty (e.g., envelope types to capture attention, personalized cover letter, and including a postage paid return envelope), convenience (e.g., convenience of completing the survey), and expertise (e.g., identifying participants as an informed population).

Differences in response rates for Web surveys and mail surveys could be due to less time devoted to motivating tools to increase online survey responses, compared to tools used in mail surveys such as personalizing letters, follow-up reminders, and incentives (Kaplowitz, Hadlock & Levine, 2004). The Kaplowitz, Hadlock, and Levine study (2004) found that web-based surveys achieved the same response rate to paper- based surveys when both were given advance mail notification and reminder mail notifications did not produce higher response rate to the web-based surveys.

24 The effectiveness of web-based versus paper-based surveys was explored with a focus on response rates, speed of responses, sampling bias, and differences in responses by three methods of survey distribution: paper-based distributed by mail, web- based survey announced by mail, and a Web survey announced by e-mail (Hayslett &

Wildemuth, 2004). Results of this study (Hayslett & Wildemuth, 2004) showed rates for the Web survey were not as forthcoming as traditional survey methods, responses to the

Web survey were returned more quickly, e-mail notices were more effective for promoting the web survey than paper notices, and no sampling bias was discovered in the content of responses. Hayslett and Wildemuth (2004) caution researchers, “Although the advantages of Web survey administration are alluring, researchers must use carefully designed follow-up procedures and avoid technology-related implementation problems to match the effectiveness of traditional paper surveys” (p. 73).

A study comparing electronic surveys by e-mail and the Web (Brawner,

Felder, Allen, Brent & Miller, 2001) had 361 faculty members, randomly assigned, and filled out identical surveys using either a Web link or e-mail. The results showed that faculty members asked to respond by e-mail were more likely to return the survey (29% versus 16%) and full professors were extremely unlikely to use the Web. According to the researchers (Brawner et al, 2001), “Web surveys are attractive since they allow for automatic tabulation and analysis of responses, but there is a concern that the additional effort they require of respondents could lead to a severe reduction in response rates” (p.

1).

25 Participants

One hundred and sixteen chapter members of the professional organization,

Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), from Ohio, participated in this quantitative study. Midwestern state chapter members were chosen because it was thought that participation rates would be more positive if the PRSA chapters and individual members were asked to take part in the research survey of a Midwestern graduate student in communication and a member of the Public Relations Student Society of America

(PRSSA).

For the purposes of this study, influential individual opinion leaders will include upper management, key management person (a boss), or technology champions of a public relations agency/department, clients, Public Relations Society of America

(PRSA) chapter members, other public relations practitioners, and community leaders.

Organization change agents or change aides will include professional organization such as PRSA and groups selling new technology innovations such as PR Newswire,

Microsoft, or service providers. Rogers’ adopter categories include: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards. These adoption categories will assist in identifying and assessing innovation adoption by public relations practitioners.

Procedures

By initially deciding to use the innovative web-based survey took, 2WAY, implicit in this research study was an assumption that the participants have the ability to respond to e-mail messages, could access the link to the online survey, and had familiarity and skills with technology. The decision to use an online survey was to boost the response rate by eliminating the need to mail the response back to the researcher and

26 to reduce the cost of distributing the survey to participants by the researcher. The results would also be input into a format that was compatible with SPSS, thus reducing input time for analysis.

The Survey

A decision was made early in the planning stages of this thesis not to define innovation in any of the information or survey questions distributed to the research participants. A self-report survey (see Appendix A) provided participants with a list of innovations while also giving them with an opportunity to include innovations they used in their work as a public relations practitioner. I did not want to bias the participants with a preconceived definition of innovations that might stifle their own input. I based this decision on a clear definition of innovation provided by Rogers and Shoemaker (1971):

An innovation is an idea, practice, or object perceived as new by the individual. It matters little, so far as human behavior is concerned, whether or not an idea is objectively new as measured by the lapse of time since the first use or discovery. It is the perceived or subjective newness of the idea for the individual that determines his reaction to it. If the idea seems new to the individual, it is an innovation. (p. 19)

A decision was also made to incorporate forced choice options on the 4-Point

Likert scale questions that would not include any neutral answers (1-Strongly Disagree,

2-Disagree, 3-Agree, and 4-Strongly Agree).

Research Phases

Phase One: creating the PR Practitioners’ Survey questions (Appendix A) using Rogers’ diffusion of innovations theory as a framework. A 32-item survey was created that was comprised of ten multiple choice questions and twenty two Likert-scale questions (1-Strongly Disagree, 2-Disagree, 3-Agree and 4-Strongly Agree). It should be noted a 4-Point Likert scale with a forced response form was employed that would not

27 include “Neither Agree nor Disagree” as an option. The decision forced participants to make a specific negative or positive choice.

Phase Two: learning the online survey tool, 2WAY, and designing the survey questions in this environment. The survey was published so that the survey’s

Internet address, Uniform Resource Location (URL), could be documented on my research protocol application for consent and provided to participants. The URL was automatically generated by 2WAY when I published my survey

(http://survey.uakron.edu:2929/2wYL4CJ/Link.html).

Phase Three: filling out the research protocol application for The University of Akron’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) for their consent. The completed application forms were sent in on February 17, 2005 to the Office of Research Services and Sponsored Programs. Approval (see Appendix B & Appendix C) was received on

February 25, 2005, along with approval for a waiver of documentation of informed consent (due to the survey being a web-based survey).

Phase Four: conducted a limited beta test to determine whether the survey link could be accessed from local and offsite computers. One of the off- site tests immediately had access problems with a MAC computer. It was later determined that 2

Way does not support MAC. A disclaimer was added to the online survey and the survey was re-published.

Phase Five: E-mailed an introduction letter to Midwestern PRSA Chapter

Presidents on March 3, 2005 (see Appendix D). An introductory e-mail (Appendix D) outlined the purpose of the study (new technology innovation adoption in PR agencies), guaranteeing anonymity, introduced the student researcher as a member of PRSSA, the

28 affiliation to The University of Akron’s School of Communication, and requested their support in distributing an online survey to their Chapter’s e-mail distribution list of PRSA members. Potential participants were asked to reply by a specific date March 11, 2005, requested that they include the number of chapter members in their e-mail distribution list, a specific contact name to forward the online survey link and participant introduction letter.

Phase Six: e-mailed the IRB approved participants’ introduction letter to the

PRSA chapter contact of the participating chapters (see Appendix C). This introduction included the 2WAY survey link (http://survey.uakron.edu:2929/2wYL4CJ/Link.html) to the designated chapter contact who would then forward it to their chapter’s distribution list by e-mail. It became very apparent that the PRSA chapters interested in participating in this research survey would not forward an e-mail to their chapter members. An alternative was suggested by the four PRSA chapters who agreed to participate that they would put the participant introduction letter (that included the link to the survey) into their upcoming newsletters. These chapters also advised the researcher that not all of their chapter members had provided e-mail addresses for this newsletter distribution. A deadline date for participating in the online survey would be provided in the letter to the subjects.

Phase Seven: Technical problems emerged such that potential participants could not access the survey link, even when using a non-MAC computer. It was suggested that participants copy and paste the survey link into the participant’s web browser as a possible solution. The access problems continued. As the URL address of the online survey contained the numbers 2929, it was revealed that it that might be

29 blocked by corporate servers. Most corporate servers have blocked all ports that would have access to their servers for purposes of insuring security against computer hackers and unlawful access (A. Serpette and John Savery, personal communication March 17,

2005). With technological issues mounting and response rates low, it was decided that a paper-based survey would be employed.

Phase Eight: required getting approval from IRB to send a paper-based survey to the participating chapter members due to technology problems with the online survey tool. Due to the cost of this distribution method the thesis committee agreed to limit the number of paper-based surveys to 300 random chapter members of the participating Midwestern state (this would include 300 surveys, introduction letters, addressed envelopes to participants and stamped returned envelopes for the participants to return to me. Approval was given by The University of Akron’s IRB (S. McWhorter, personal e-mail communication, March 21, 2005) (see Appendix F). A copy of the letter that would accompany the paper-based survey was sent to The University of Akron’s

IRB.

Phase Nine: copying, addressing and stuffing 300 new introduction letters, surveys, and return envelopes. This introduction letter (see Appendix G) specifically instructed participants that if the participant had already completed the survey online they were not to fill out and send in the paper-based survey, copying the survey, including a postage-paid envelope addressed to the researcher (at the School of Communication at

The University of Akron), and addressing 300 envelopes to randomly chosen PRSA chapter members in the Midwestern chapters that had originally agreed to participate in the online survey. The most current PRSA directory, The Blue Book (2004), published

30 by PRSA containing members’ addresses and business affiliations was used. As The

Blue Book (2004) had the names of chapter members in one location and the contact information in a different alphabetical directory location, each of the 300 random choices needed to be cross referenced and matched with their name and address to send the paper-based survey to them. These 300 surveys (with postage-paid, return envelopes) were sent out on March 29, 2005, by regular first class mail. The introduction letter requested that the surveys be returned by April 22, 2005.

Phase Ten: inputting all data information into the program Statistical

Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for analysis to study the five thesis research and the demographic questions. The final paper-based survey was received on May 4, 2005.

The last online survey was completed on April 3, 2005 and the online survey was made inaccessible (blocking any future submissions) on April 22, 2005 (see Appendix H).

31 CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

Participants

A total of 116 public relations practitioners responded to the online and paper-based surveys. The response rate to the online survey was 28 (online n=28 completed online surveys). Technology problems surfaced very quickly associated with participants’ access to the survey, due to computer network firewalls and participants’ computer spam and pop up security/privacy blockers. A decision was made to mail 300 paper-based surveys to the four participating PRSA chapter members by mail along with a new introduction letter. This new distribution mode was approved by The University of

Akron’s IRB on March 21, 2005 and a copy of the new introduction letter to participants was filed in my IRB file (see Appendix G). Eighty-eight paper-based surveys were completed and returned, (n=88 completed paper-based surveys) with a return rate of

29.33%).

A decision was made that the two types of surveys (online surveys 28 submitted and paper-based surveys 88 returned; for a total of n=116) would be combined for the data analysis. To achieve a comparable response rate to the paper-based survey, it would be critical that the 2WAY survey tool be free of technical accessing problems by participants and that information distributed by the PRSA chapters not be buried in newsletters that could be easily deleted or ignored by potential public relations

32 practitioners. The subject line that was originally e-mailed to the PRSA chapter presidents or administrators, contained the phrase, “Help a PRSSA grad student” (see

Appendix D). PRSSA refers to the Public Relations Students Society of America, the student affiliate of PRSA. If the e-mail had been forwarded to chapter members e-mail distribution list, this subject line may have invoked a more positive response by the potential survey participants -- busy public relations practitioners in the Midwest.

Response Rates

Survey responses were received from March 8, 2005, to May 4, 2005 (see

Figure 2 in Appendix J). The first responses to the online survey were submitted March

8, 2005, and the last response was received on April 3, 2005. The first usable responses to the paper-based survey were received four days after they were mailed on March 29,

2005. The last paper-based survey was received on May 4, 2005. Figure 2 shows a spike in the number of paper-based surveys received on April 6 and 8. The fact that the population for this is made up of busy public relations practitioners could mean that they wanted to get the survey back to me before the deadline (April 22) and clear their desks.

Demographics

Gender

Combined frequency analysis of the participants’ gender (n=115) (see Table

1 in Appendix I) showed that 38 men (32.8%) completed the combined surveys and 77 females (66.4%) filled out the combined surveys (one person who submitted an online survey did not provide their gender). The online survey gender was: five males and 22 females. The paper-based survey gender was: 32 males 56 females.

33 Age

Combined frequency analysis (see Table 2 in Appendix I) showed that 19% of respondents to both surveys were in the age range 31-36; 18.1% were 26-30; 17.2% were 51-59; 15.5% were 36-44; 15.5% 45-50; and 6% were 20-25 years old.

Number of Years Working in PR

Combined frequency analysis (n=115) (Table 3 & Figure 5) showed that

27.6% of respondents had over 20 years of experience working in public relations; 19% had 6-10 years experience; 17.2% had 11-15 years experience; 14.7% had 16-20 years experience; 13.8% had 3-5 years; 5.2% had 1-2 years; and 1.7% had less than one year.

Size of PR Department or Group

Combined frequency analysis (n=116) of the size of departments or groups that the public relations practitioners worked in showed (see Table 4 in Appendix I): 56% with less that 5 employees; 19% with 11-29 employees; 16.4% with 5-10 employees;

5.2% with 30-49 employees; 2.6% with 50-99 employees; and 0.9% with over 100 employees. The majority of practitioners work in departments or groups of less than five employees.

Types of PR Performed by Practitioners

Combined frequency analysis (n=116) showed that 79.3% work in regional or local public relations (Table 7 in Appendix I); 54.3% work in national public relations

(Table 6 in Appendix I); and 27.6% work in international public relations (see Table 5 in

Appendix I).

34 Results of the Research Questions

Characteristics

Total-Innovation of Participants

RQ 1: How do public relations practitioners perceive their level of innovativeness?

A total-innovation score was created, by recoding (in SPSS) Questions 3, 4,

5, 8, 9, and 10, so that these questions could then be combined with Questions 1, 2, 6, and

7 to create a total innovation analysis of the combined participants (n=108). A 4-point

Likert scale was used for these questions (1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Agree, and 4=Strongly Agree). The combined Mean was 2.76; Median was 2.80; Mode was

2.80; Standard Deviation was 0.35; and the Range was 1.60. The combined frequency analysis (see Table 8 in Appendix I) show: 13.8% had Means of 2.80; 10.3% had Means of 2.70; 8.6% had Means of 2.90 and 2.40; 7.80% had Means of 3.20 and 3.30. The total innovation results show that 43% of the public relations practitioners have frequency

Means from 2.50 to 2.90; 29.5% have frequency Means from 3.00 to 3.50; and 20.6% have frequency Means from 2.00 to 2.40. This total innovation analysis shows public relations practitioners perceive themselves as being positive towards innovations.

Individual Innovation Characteristics Types

Innovators

Innovation characteristics combined Questions1 and 6 (n=114) using a 4- point Likert scale (see Appendix A). Table 9 (see Appendix I) illustrates that 49% of the public relations practitioners perceived themselves as Innovators; while 49.2% do not

35 perceive themselves as Innovators. The Mean is 2.68; Median is 2.75; Mode is 3.00;

Standard Deviation is 5.77; and Range is 2.50.

Early Adopters

Early Adopter characteristics combined Questions 2 and 7 (n=109) using a 4- point Likert scale (see Appendix A). The Mean was 2.87; Median was 3.00; Mode was

3.00; Standard Deviation was 0.48; and Range was 2.00. The frequency results (see

Table 10 in Appendix I) show that 64.6% of public relations practitioners perceived themselves as Early Adopters while 29.3% do not perceive themselves as Early Adopters.

Early Majority Innovators

Early Majority characteristics combined Questions 3 and 8 (n=112) using a 4- point Likert scale (see Appendix A). The Mean was 2.63; the Median was 2.50; the

Mode was 2.50; the Standard Deviation was 0.32; and the Range was 1.50. The frequency analysis (see Table 11 in Appendix I) illustrates how public relations practitioners describe their tendency as Early Majority Innovators. Thus, 33.6% perceived themselves as Early Majority Innovators while 62.9% do not describe themselves as Early Majority Innovators.

Late Majority

Late Majority characteristics combined questions 4 and 9 (n=114) using a 4- point Likert scale (see Appendix A). The Mean was 2.33; Median was 2.50; Mode was

2.00; Standard Deviation was 0.55; and Range was 2.50. Frequency analysis (see Table

12 in Appendix I) showed that 24.1% perceived themselves as Late Majority Innovators while 74.1% do not describe themselves as Late Majority Innovators.

36 Laggards

Laggard characteristics combined questions 5 and 10 (n=113) using a 4-point

Likert Scale (see Appendix A). The Mean was 1.7743; Median 2.00; Mode 2.0; Standard

Deviation was 0.59; and Range was 3.00. Frequency analysis (see Table 13 in Appendix

I) showed that 4.3% perceived themselves as Laggards while 93.1% do not perceive themselves as Laggards.

RQ 2: What influences public relations practitioners to adopt innovations?

Question 13 Influences

Frequency analysis was used to study the influences to innovation in a multiple choice Question 13 (n=115) (see Appendix A). In rank order, the results show:

(1) 81.9% agreed that innovations added to their organization’s efficiency (see Table 21 in Appendix I); (2) 73.3% agreed that speed of transmitting information was an influence

(see Table 16 in Appendix I); (3) 48.3% agreed that clients’ expectations were an important influence (see Table 14 in Appendix I); (4) 44% agreed that industry credibility was an influence (see Table 18 in Appendix I); (5) 43.1% agreed that personal credibility was an influence (see Table 19 in Appendix I); (6) 37.1% agreed that innovations enhanced their public relations career (see Table 20 in Appendix I); (7) 32.8% agreed that competition by other companies was an influence (see Table 15 in Appendix I); and (8)

15.5% agreed that global market business opportunities were an influence (see Table 17 in Appendix I).

Participants were given the option of suggesting their own influences at the end of Question 13 (Other). “Other” participant comments included: language; department goals and my own expectations; cut clutter; target audience adopters; ability

37 to be effective in a complex world; profitability; easing my job; target audience needs; convenience; and ease of transmitting information.

Question 14 Organizational Influences

Frequency analysis looked at organizations that influence innovation (change agents) in multiple choice Question 14 (see Appendix A) (n=115). The ranked results showed: a tie for the first ranked organizational influence (1) 47.4% perceived PRSA as an influence (see Table 22 in Appendix I) and 47.4% viewed service providers as an organizational influence on innovation (see Table 25in Appendix I); (2) 37.1% perceived

Microsoft as an influence (see Table 24 in Appendix I); and (3) 25.9% perceived PR

Newswire as an influence (see Table 23 in Appendix I). Participants were given the opportunity to provide their own organizational influences at the end of question 14

(Other). “Other” comments included: my work environment; my industry associations; corporate PR committee; self-generated; colleagues; cell phone company; no organizational influences; we approach it from a need to communicate and what is the best tool/format; none; PR vendors; media; industry organizations; AVA; clients’ business; web-based technologies like New Media Gateway; myself out of my need to do my job; other companies; and survey of media.

Question 15 Influences by Individuals

Using SPSS frequency analysis, I analyzed the individuals (opinion leaders) who influence innovation in multiple choice Question 15 (n=116) (see Appendix A).

Frequency analysis, in rank order showed: (1) 55.2% agreed that technology champions in their organization were an influence (see Table 28 in Appendix I); (2) 54.3% agreed that other public relations practitioners were an influence (see Table 31 in Appendix I);

38 (3) 51.7% agreed that their boss was an individual who influenced their adoption of innovations (see Table 26 in Appendix I); (4) 41.4% agreed that clients were an influence

(see Table 29 in Appendix I); (5) 36.2% agreed that upper management was an influence

(see Table 27 in Appendix I); and (6) 23.3% agreed that community leaders were an influence (see Table 32 in Appendix I); and (7) 18.1% agreed that PRSA chapter members were an influence (see Table 30 in Appendix I).

Participants were given an opportunity in Question 15 to provide their own suggestions for individuals who influence their adoption of innovations (Other). “Other” suggestions included: President Bush; peers; members of other associations; media; my son and wife who is a computer programmer; none; agency and media contacts; my husband; financial industry services peers; journalists I serve; staff; me; competitors; a good idea from anyone; my adoption of innovations has always been driven by what it will do; competitors; and my staff who are younger and more knowledgeable about the latest technology.

Obstacles

RQ 3: What are the obstacles to adopting new innovations?

The obstacles to innovation were analyzed in multiple choice Question 12

(n=115) (see Appendix A). Frequency analysis in rank order showed: (1) 75% perceived that the cost to implement innovations was an obstacle (see Table 33 in Appendix I); (2)

71.6% agreed that the need for technical support was an obstacle (Table 34 in Appendix

I); (3) 42.2% agreed that keeping up with new versions was an obstacle (Table 37 in

Appendix I); (4) 42.2% agree that their clients’ technology limitations are an obstacle

(Table 40 in Appendix I); (5) 37.1% agreed that training requirements were an obstacle

39 (Table 36 in Appendix I); (6) 33.6% agreed that support by upper management was an obstacle (Table 35 in Appendix I) and was tied with 33.6% agreed that security issues are an obstacle (Table 39 in Appendix I); (7) 26.7% agree that privacy issues are an obstacle

(Table 38 in Appendix I); and (8) 23.3% agreed that added stress was an obstacle (Table

41 in Appendix I).

Participants were given the opportunity to add their own obstacle suggestions to this multiple choice question (Other). “Other” suggestions included: layoffs; vendor’s technology limitations; subject matter; spamming; logistics—good e-mail lists; target audience readiness; media technology limits; media that still prefer faxed releases to e- mail; support from clients; cost; client psychological limitations; company technology limitations; none; lack of research to become familiar with use of innovations; and media tech savvy not always up to the newest innovations. The suggestions show an awareness of media needs and spamming as a new obstacle to computer innovations.

Innovations Adopted

RQ 4: What innovations are being adopted by public relations practitioners?

Frequency analysis looked at the innovations being adopted by public relations practitioners in their work in multiple choice Question 11 (n=114) (see Appendix A).

The rank order of innovations adopted by participants in their work as public relations practitioners showed: (1) 96.6% use e-mail (see Table 42 in Appendix I); (2)

89.7% transmit photos digitally to media contacts (see Table 43 in Appendix I); (3)

73.3% use broadcast e-mails to target specific target audiences (see Table 48 in Appendix

I); (4) 61.7% use web-based survey tools (see Table 50 in Appendix I); (5) 57.8% use broadcast faxes to target specific target audiences (see Table 47 in Appendix I); (6)

40 50.9% use online press kits downloadable to journalists, media, stockholders, etc. (see

Table 46 in Appendix I); (7) 42.2% utilize online meetings using web conferencing or video conferencing services (see Table 49 in Appendix I); (8) 27.6% utilize Video News

Releases (VNRs) (see Table 44 in Appendix I); and (9)15.5% utilize Audio News

Releases (ANRs) (see Table 45 in Appendix I).

Respondents were given the opportunity to suggest innovations that were not included in the multiple choice question 11 (Other). “Other” suggestions included: blogs; software to place dollar value on media placements; online media directories; online placement search services; Bacon’s online databases; DVD/CD based media; pod casts; online newsroom; Intranet; e-newsletters; digitized footage as B-Roll; online clipping and monitoring through Baron’s and PRLink; website personalization; online editorial calendar services; video cassettes; online bulletin boards; MP3 technology. The emergence of blogs (web-based opinion sites) could be used in future studies to analyze the significance of this type of innovation on two-way communication by public relations practitioners.

Perceptions About Using Innovations

RQ5: What are public relations practitioners’ perceptions about using innovations?

Rogers’ perceived attributes for innovations were used for Questions 16-22

(see Appendix A): relative advantage (Question 16); compatibility with the existing values and needs (Question 17); complexity (Question 18); trialability (Question 19); and observability (Questions 20, 21, and 22). Questions 23, 24, and 25 explored perceptions of individual and interpersonal communication channels consistent which Rogers’ (2003)

41 definitions of homophily and heterophily (p. 19). Questions 26 and 27 asked for perceptions about using online or paper-based survey formats.

Frequency analysis looked at the relative advantage of innovation using a 4- point Likert scale in Question 16 (see Appendix A) (n=115). Results show that 79.3% agree and 19.0% strongly agree that innovations they use have a relative advantage and are better than what was used before (see Table 51 in Appendix I).

Frequency analysis looked at whether innovations used are consistent with existing values and needs, using a 4-point Likert scale in Question 17 (see Appendix A)

(n=115): 81% agree and 14.7% strongly agree (see Table 52 in Appendix I).

Frequency analysis examined whether innovations are difficult and complex to learn using a 4-point Likert scale in Question 18 (see Appendix A) (n=114): 10.3% strongly disagree; 67.2% disagree; 18.1% agree; and 2.6% strongly agree (see Table 53 in

Appendix I).

Frequency analysis examined whether more time is needed to experiment or train with new innovations in Question 19 using a 4-point Likert scale (see Appendix A)

(n=113): 3.4% strongly disagree; 37.1% disagree; 50.9% agree; and 6.0% strongly agree

(see Table 54 in Appendix I).

Frequency analysis examined whether the results of using innovations are visible to others in their organization in Question 20 using a 4-point Likert scale (see

Appendix A) (n=111): 1.7% strongly disagree; 17.2% disagree; 65.5% agree; and 11.2% strongly agree (see Table 55 in Appendix I).

Frequency analysis examined whether using innovations are visible to others outside of their organizations in Question 21 using a 4-point Likert scale (see Appendix

42 A) (n=114): 15.5% disagree; 72.4% agree; and 9.5% strongly agree (see Table 56 in

Appendix I).

Frequency analysis examined if using innovations has enhanced their image or status at work in Question 22 using a 4-point Likert scale (see Appendix A) (n=114)):

3.4% strongly disagree; 38.8% disagree; 46.6% agree; and 9.5% strongly agree (see

Table 57 in Appendix I).

Frequency analysis examined if individual communication innovations (such as e-mails) were used as “homophily” channels to communicate with other PR practitioners inside and outside their organization in Question 23 using a 4-point Likert scale (see Appendix A) (n=116): 9.5% disagree; 43.1% agree; and 46.6% strongly agree

(Table 58 in Appendix I).

Frequency analysis looked at whether individual communication innovations

(such as e-mails or web conferences) were used as “heterophily” channels to communicate with a variety of individuals outside of their organization in Question 24

(see Appendix A) (n=116): 6.0% disagree; 48.3% agree; and 44.0% strongly agree

(Table 59 in Appendix I).

Frequency analysis explored whether interpersonal communication innovations such as video conference calls are used as “homophily” channels to communicate with others such as offsite employees, clients, or business partners in

Question 25 (see Appendix A) (n=112): 12.9% strongly disagree; 35.3% disagree;

37.9% agree; and 10.3% strongly agree (see Table 60 in Appendix I).

Frequency analysis was used to explore whether participants were comfortable completing online surveys in Question 26 (see Appendix A) (n=116): 2.6%

43 strongly disagree; 43.1% agree; and 53.4% strongly agree (see Table 61 in Appendix I).

This population is comfortable completing online surveys.

Frequency analysis examined if participants would have preferred completing a survey in a paper-based format in Question 27 (see Appendix A) (n=116): 31% strongly disagree; 53.4% disagree; 8.6% agree; and 6.0% strongly agree (see Table 62 in

Appendix I). According to the survey results, this population is embracing the use of online surveys.

44 CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION

This exploratory research study examined diffusion of innovations by public relations practitioners, using Rogers’ (1962) model as a framework. The value of this current research is that it examines a gap in the research with this unique and understudied population. If public relations organizations and departments want their PR employees to utilize innovative technologies, knowledge of the practitioners’ characteristics, perceptions, influences, and obstacles may assist in a more successful transition.

The top three perceived influences on public relations practitioners’ adoption of innovations included: organizational efficiency, speed of transmission, and client expectations. The top two organizational innovation influences (change agents) for this sample were equal: PRSA and service providers. The three top individuals (opinion leaders) who influence adoption of innovations included: technology champions in their organizations, other public relations practitioners, and their boss.

According to this data, public relations practitioners are motivated to adopt innovations into their work but are grappling with the issues that arise with their adoption such as the cost to implement, the need for technical support, keeping up with new versions, clients’ technology limitations, and training requirements. Innovations that are being adopted by public relations practitioners include e-mail, transmitting digital photos 45 to media contacts, broadcast e-mails to contact and target specific recipients, and web- based survey tools. Web and video conferencing are emerging as innovations being utilized. E-mail, transmitting photos digitally and the use of broadcast e-mails have been adopted and diffused successfully within the organizations and communities that practitioners communicate with. These three diffused innovations may be examples of what Zwart (1993) refers to as, “integral to its user community…part of the everyday life of its users…become background, enabling technologies, unnoticed, and embodied in other tasks and processes” (p. 195).

The respondents to these surveys perceived their degree or level of innovativeness as: Innovators (49%), Early Adopters (64.6%), Early Majority (33.6%),

Late Majority (24.1%), and Laggards (4.3%). This research showed that they agree that innovations have a relative advantage over what was used before; innovations are consistent with their existing values and needs; the results of using innovations are visible to others in their organizations; the results of using innovations are visible to others outside of their organizations; and innovations have enhanced their image or status at work. While participants disagreed that innovations are difficult and complex to learn they agreed that more time is needed to experiment or train with innovations before they are implemented (Table 54 in Appendix I). This “trialability” issue could be an important key to enhancing adoption rates of innovations by public relations practitioners within their organizations.

A majority of public relations practitioners perceive that they use individual communication innovations to communicate with other PR practitioners both inside and outside of their organizations (“homophily” communication channels). A larger majority

46 perceive that they use individual communications innovations to communicate with a variety of individuals outside of their organizations (“heterophily” communication channels). Public relations practitioners are evenly split about their use of face-to-face communication innovations (such as video conference calls) to communicate with others such as offsite employees, clients, or business partners (“homophily” communication channels). This interpersonal communication channel could be further enhanced if the adoption of video and web conferencing is embraced by public relations practitioners.

Limitations of the Study

Inherent in all exploratory research are a few limitations. As all participants came from one Midwest state, these results may not be able to be generalized to a larger population of public relations practitioners. The first limitation concerns the access problems of using online survey tool, 2WAY. The decision to rely on the PRSA chapters to disseminate the link to my online survey was rife with logistical problems that included: having the link included in PRSA chapter newsletters rather than forwarded as a single e-mail to the chapters’ e-mail distribution lists, lack of control for making sure that the information was actually forwarded to chapter members, inactive e-mail addresses, and the inability to give gentle reminders through e-mails to prospective participants. The network firewall blocking issues with office computers and security issues with home computers were not anticipated, and did reduce responses to the online survey. Although participants were overwhelmingly comfortable with completing online surveys and did not prefer paper-based formats to the electronic version, the response rates to the online survey were disappointing. As the reliability of online survey distribution process increases, the technology problems inherent in this study may

47 disappear. Using an innovation to study innovation thus may have overly complicated the survey distribution and collection processes

Another concern is the decision to combine the online responses with the paper-based survey results. Three hundred paper-based surveys were mailed out after the low response rates to the online survey were acknowledged. The number was based on the cost of paper, envelopes, copying, and postage (including 300 pre-addressed return envelopes with postage). A larger, and more geographically diverse sample of participants may be needed in future studies.

The possibility also exists regarding errors in lexical terminology employed in the survey. That is, a conceptual definition of innovation was not provided to participants. This may have caused participants to interpret some questions in different ways.

Suggestions for Future Research

More research needs to be explored about the difference between the two survey methods (online and paper-based) from the participants’ perspective. Adding some interviews to the study might have enhanced my own understanding of diffusion of innovations with this population. This was suggested by Singhal (personal e-mail communication, April 18, 2005). This was an exploratory research thesis and a larger population is needed.

Hurt, Cook, and Joseph (1977) designed a self-report innovativeness scale that measured an individual’s willingness-to-change. Utilizing this 20-item scale to identify persons who are more willing to change could help to predict adoption of

48 innovations. Future investigations would profit from using this scale to expand the innovation characteristics of public relations practitioners.

Future studies could include a narrower focus on the social networks of public relations practitioners considered “cosmopolite” or “isolated.” Rogers’ (2003) contends, “the structure of a social system can facilitate or impede the diffusion of innovations” (p. 25). A study of how the system structure of public relations could affect innovation diffusion and adoption could be valuable in understanding this population.

Based on the present study’s findings, future investigations could focus on a specific emerging innovation used by public relations practitioners, such as “blogs” (an innovation suggested by several respondents in my study). Future investigations could assess approaches that could best assess or define “blog” diffusion.

A new model for combining communication research was proposed as a basis for mediated communication technology adoption research (Lin, 2003). Information technology tools are social tools used to transfer, manipulate, store and retrieve human symbols, cognitive products and interactive relations. Lin suggests ways of predicting adoption tendencies: restrictiveness in regulations and policies; openness in technological culture; diversity in industry trends; intensity in market competition; strength of opinion leadership; speed of reaching a critical mass; significance of media symbolism; audience innovative traits; audience innovativeness need; audience technology self-efficacy; belief and attitudes about technology; perceived technology innovation; perceived technology social presence; perceived technology media richness; perceived technology fluidity; adopters’ external/internal barriers; frequency of technology reinvention; user gratification; user expectancy; and perceived communication flow. Lin’s model was not

49 utilized for this thesis but could be incorporated in future studies within the communication discipline of public relations.

The Technology Adoption Model (TAM) (Davis, 1989) describes user behavior in a wide variety of computing technologies and user populations. TAM indicates a connection between behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs that influence technology acceptance. TAM was not used in this thesis but future studies in diffusion of innovations by public relations practitioners could incorporate aspects of TAM with diffusion of innovations. Vishwanath and Goldhaber (2003) provide similarities and differences between TAM and diffusion of innovations:

Both diffusion of innovations and TAM are similar in the importance of beliefs and external variables on the decision to adopt a technology. However, TAM differs in the inclusion of individual attitudes towards the decision. According to TAM, the decision to accept technology is determined primarily by attitudes towards the decision, which in turn mediate the impacts of beliefs and external variables on acceptance behavior. (p. 547-548)

50 REFERENCES

Alexander, J., McCorkle, D., & Reardon, J. (2001). Integrating business technology and marketing education: Enhancing the diffusion process through technology champions. Journal of Marketing Education, 1, 16-24.

Bass, F., Mahajan, V., & Muller, E. (1990). New product diffusion models in marketing: A review. Journal of Marketing, 1, 1-26.

Brawner, C. E., Felder, R. M., Allen, R. H., Brent, R., & Miller, T. K. (2001). A comparison of electronic surveying by e-mail and web. Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Abstract retrieved March 2, 2005 from http://www.ohiolink.edu/

Cantelmo, D. P. (2001). How pr people distribute – and the media prefer to receive – news releases and other public relations information: The myths vs. the reality. Public Relations Quarterly, 46, 15-18.

Cavusgil, S. T., & Elvey-Kirk, L. A. (1998). Mail survey response behavior. European Journal of Marketing, 32, 1165-1193.

Chiasson, M., & Lovato, C. (2001). Factors influencing the formation of a user’s perceptions and use of a DSS software innovation. Database for Advances in Information Systems, 32, 16-35.

Cobanoglu, C., Warde, B., & Moreo, P. J. (2001). A comparison of mail, fax, and web survey methods. International Journal of Market Research 43, 441-452.

Coleman, J. S., Katz, E., & Menzel, H. (1966). Medical innovation: A diffusion study. New York, NY: Bobbs-Merrill.

Coombs, W. T. (1999). Information and compassion in crisis responses: A test of their effects. Journal of Public Relations Research, 11, 125-142.

Couper, M. P., Traugott, M. W., & Lamias, J. J. (2001). Web survey design and administration. Public Opinion Quarterly 65, 230-253.

51 Croker, K. S., Ryan, A., Morzenti, T., Cave, L., Maze-Gallman, T., & Ford, L. (2004). Delivering prostate cancer prevention messages to the public: How the National Cancer Institute (NCI) effectively spread the word about the Prostate Cancer Preventil Trial (PCPT) results. Urologic Oncology, 22, 369-377.

Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H., & Broom, G. M. (2000). Effective public relations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13, 319–40.

Delio, M. (2005). The enterprises blogosphere. Infoworld, 27, 42-48.

Grunig, J. E. (1983). Communication behaviors and attitudes of environmental publics: Two studies. Journalism Monographs, 81, 1-16.

Grunig, J. E., & Repper, F. (1992). Excellence in public relations and communication management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hayslett, M. M., & Wildemuth, B. M. (2004). Pixels or pencils? The relative effectiveness of web-based versus paper surveys. Library and Information Science Research, 26, 73-93.

Hendrix, J. A. (2004). Public relations cases (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Learning.

Hiebert, R. E. (2004, July 2). Commentary: New technologies, public relations, and democracy. Keynote speech delivered at the 11th International Public Relations Research Symposium, in Bled, Slovenia.

Hill, L. N., & White, C. (2000). Public relations practitioners’ perceptions of the world wide web as a communications tool. Public Relations Review, 26, 31-501.

Howell, K. C. (2002). A comparative study of Australian and American public relations. Public Relations Quarterly, 47, p. 1-7.

Hurt, H. T., Joseph, K., & Cook, C. D. (1977). Scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Human Communication Research, 4, 58-65.

Ihator, A. (2001). Corporate communication: Challenges and opportunities in a digital world. Public Relations Quarterly, 46, 15-19.

Infante, D. A., Rancer, A. S., & Womack, D. F. (2003). Building communication theory (4th ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

52 Jacobsen, D. M. (1998). Adoption patterns of faculty who integrate computer technology for teaching and learning in higher education. Proceedings of the ED-MEDIA AND ED-TELECOM 98: World Conference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia & World Conference on Educational Telecommunications, Freiburg, Germany, June 20-25. Retrieved May 17, 2005, from the University of Calgary, ACS Web site: www.acs.ucalgary.ca/.../ phd/phd-results.html).

Johnson, M.A. (1997). Public relations and technology: practitioner perspectives. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9, 213-236.

Kaplowitz, M. D., Hadlock, T. D., & Levine, R. (2004). A comparison of web and mail survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68, 94-101.

Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P.F. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communication. New York, NY: Free Press.

Lin, C. A. (2003). An interactive communication technology adoption model. Communication Theory, 13, 345-365.

Meyer, G. (2004). Diffusion methodology: Time to innovate? Journal of Health Communication, 9, 59-69.

Moore, N. C. (2004). All star pr. State Legislatures, 30, 26-30.

Newsom, D., Turk, J. V., & Kruckeberg, D. (2004). This is pr: The realities of public relations (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Watsworth/Thompson Learning.

Orr, G. (2003). Diffusion of innovations, by Everett Rogers (1995). Retrieved January 21, 2005 from http://www.stanford.edu/class/symbsys205Diffusion%20Innovat

PRSA Chapters (n.d.). Retrieved January 3, 2005 from http://www.prsa.org/_Chapters/find/index.asp?ident=chpt2).

Porter, L. V., & Sallot, L. M. (2003). The Internet and public relations: Investigating practitioner’s roles and World Wide Web use. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 80, 603-623.

Porter, L. V., & Sallot, L. M. (2005). Web power: A survey of practitioners’ world wide web use and their perceptions of its effects on their decision-making power. Public Relations Review, 31, 111-120.

PR Newswire Services (2004). Retrieved November 1, 2004 from http://www.prnewswire.com/services

Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: The Free Press.

53 Rogers, E. M. (1993). The diffusion of innovations model: Keynote address. In I. Masser & H.J. Onsrud (Eds.), Diffusion and use of geographic information technologies (pp. 9-24). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovation (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

Rogers, E.M., & Shoemaker, F.F. (1971). Communication of innovations: A cross cultural approach. New York, NY: Free Press.

Rogers, E. M., & Singhal, A. (1996). Diffusion of innovations. In M. Salwen & D. Stacks (Eds.). An integrated approach to communication theory and research (p. 409). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ryan, B., & Cross, N.C. (1943). The diffusion of hybrid seed corn in two Iowa communities. Rural Sociology, 8, 15-24.

Ryan, M. (2000). Monitor technologies carefully: ‘Poor applications can drive clients and customers to competitors.’ Public Relations Quarterly, 45, 20-23.

Ryan, M. (2003). Public relations and the web: Organizational problems, gender, and institution type. Public Relations Review, 29, p. 335-350.

Sarrina, L. (2003). Electronic newspaper and its adopters: Examining the factors influencing the adoption of electronic newspapers in Taiwan. Telematics and Informatics, 20, 35-49.

Savery, C. A. (2005). PR practitioners’ survey. Retrieved March 3, 2005 from http://survey.uakron.edu:2929/2wYL4CJ/Link.html

Shin, J. J., & Cameron, G. T. (2003). The potential of online media: A coorientational analysis of conflict between PR professionals and journalists in South Korea. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 80, 583-602.

The Bohle Company (1998). Public relations agencies getting ‘wired’ and equipped: Survey results. Public Relations Quarterly, 43, 26-28.

The Blue Book (2004). New York, NY: PRSA.

Tisdell, E., J. (2003). A diffusion of innovations approach to investigate the brand name change of a higher education institution. Master’s thesis. Retrieved November 11, 2004 from http://www.ohiolink.edu/

54 Wright, D. K. (Principal Investigator). (1998). Corporate communications policy concerning the Internet: A survey of the nation’s senior-level corporate public relations officers. Gainesville, FL: The Institute for Public Relations Research and Education.

Vishwanath, A., & Goldhaber, G.M. (2003). An examination of the factors contributing to adoption decisions among late-diffused technology products. New Media & Society, 5, 547-572.

Zwart, P. R. (1993). Embodied GIS: A concept for GIS diffusion. In I. Masser & H.J. Onsrud (Eds.), Diffusion and use of geographic information technologies (pp. 195- 204). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

55

APPENDICES

56

APPENDIX A

SURVEY QUESTIONS (Q1 – Q 32)

57 PR PRACTITIONERS’ SURVEY

1. I am venturesome and eager to be the first to try new innovations.  Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly Agree

2. I adopt innovations and influence others to do so.  Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly Agree

3. I am willing to follow the lead of others in adopting innovations.  Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly Agree

4. I need to be convinced of the advantage of innovations by peers.  Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly Agree

5. I am suspicious of innovations.  Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly Agree

6. I am always looking for innovations.  Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly Agree

7. My opinion about innovations is respected by peers.  Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly Agree

58 8. I will adopt innovations but do not attempt to influence others to do so.  Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly Agree

9. I go along with innovations out of necessity.  Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly Agree

10. I am resistant to change.  Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly Agree

11. Indicate the innovations you have adopted into your work as a public relations practitioner. (Please select all that apply.)  E-mail  Transmitting photos digitally to media contacts.  Video News Releases (VNRs)  Audio News Releases (ANRs)  Online Press Kits downloadable to journalists, media, stockholders, etc.  Broadcast Faxes to contact and target specific recipients.  Broadcast E-Mails to contact and target specific recipients.  Online meetings using web conferencing or video conferences services (e.g., WebEx or NetMeeting).  Web-Based survey tools.  Other: Please specify:

12. Indicate the obstacles or challenges to your adoption of new innovations. (Please select all that apply.)  Cost to implement.  Need for technical support.  Training requirements.  Keeping up with new versions.  Privacy issues.  Security issues.  Clients’ technology limitations.  Added stress for me.  Other: Please specify:

59 13. Indicate the influences to your adoption of new innovations (Please select all that apply.)  Clients’ expectations.  Competition by other companies.  Speed of transmitting information.  Global market business opportunities.  Industry credibility.  Personal credibility.  Enhancement of my public relations career.  Organizational efficiency.  Other: Please specify:

14. Indicate the organizations that influence your adoption of innovations. (Please select all that apply.)  Public Relations Society of America (PRSA)  PR Newswire  Microsoft  Service Providers  Other: Please specify:

15. Indicate the individuals who influence your adoption of innovations. (Please select all that apply.)  My boss.  Upper management.  Technology champions in my organization.  Clients.  PRSA chapter members.  Other public relations practitioners.  Community leaders.  Other: Please specify:

16. Innovations I use have a relative advantage and are better than what I used before.  Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly Agree

17. Innovations I use are consistent with my existing values and needs.  Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly Agree

60 18. Innovations are difficult and complex to learn.  Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly Agree

19. I need more time to experiment with innovations before they are implemented.  Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly Agree

20. The results of using innovations are visible to others in my organization.  Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly Agree

21. The results of using innovations are visible to others outside of my organization (e.g., clients or contacts).  Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly Agree

22. Using innovations has enhanced my image or status at work.  Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly Agree 23. I use individual communication innovations (such as e-mails) to communicate with other PR practitioners inside or outside my organization. (Please select one.)  Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly Agree

24. I use individual communication innovations (such as e-mails or web conferences) to communicate with a variety of individuals outside of my organization (such as media, government agencies, grass roots organizations, or lobbyists.) (Please select one.)  Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly Agree

61 25. I use interpersonal communication innovations (such as video conference calls involving face-to-face exchanges) to communicate with others such as offsite employees, clients or business partners. (Please select one.)  Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly Agree

26. I am comfortable completing surveys online.  Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly Agree

27. I would prefer completing surveys in a paper-based format.  Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly Agree

28. Gender  Male  Female

29. Age:  20-25  26-30  31-36  37-44  45-50  51-59  60 or above

30. Number of years I have worked as a public relations practitioner. (Please select one.)  Less than one year  1-2 years  3-5 years  6-10 years  11-15 years  16-20 years  Over 20 years

62 31. The size of my public relations department or group. (Please select one.)  Less than 5 employees  5-10 employees  11-29 employees  30-49 employees  50-99 employees  Over 100 employees

32. The types of PR clients my organization works with. (Please select all that apply.)  International  National  Regional

Survey Legend: Adopter Categories (Questions 1-10) Innovators (Questions 1 & 6) Early Adopters (Questions 2 & 7) Early Majority (Questions 3 & 8) Late Majority (Questions 4 & 9) Laggards (Questions 5 & 10) Innovations adopted (Question 11) Obstacles to adoption (Question 12) Influences to adoption (Question 13) Organizations that influence (Question 14) Individuals who influence (Question 15) Perceptions about innovations (Questions 16-27) Demographics (Questions 28-32)

63

APPENDIX B

IRB APPROVAL (ASSIGNED 20050219)

64 65

APPENDIX C

IRB APPROVED E-MAIL TO PARTICIPANTS

66 67

APPENDIX D

E-MAIL REQUEST TO PRSA CHAPTERS

68 TO: PRSA Chapter Presidents in Ohio Subject: Help a PRSSA grad student

I am a graduate student at The University of Akron in the School of Communication, conducting a research project for my master’s thesis on diffusion of innovations in public relations. I am also a member of the PRSSA student chapter. I need your help!

The survey tool I will be utilizing is an online, web-based tool called 2WAY. It is important for the validity of my research that people working in public relations are the ones that actually receive the link to this online survey.

I am requesting that your PRSA Ohio Chapter act as a distribution channel by forwarding the survey link I will send you in a separate e-mail to your chapter members’ using your e-mail distribution list. The privacy of your chapter members will be maintained because they will not receive a direct e-mail solicitation from me. The results of this research could assist public relations organizations in weighing the pros and cons of future decisions and strategies for implementing innovations.

Participation in this online survey is voluntary. Responses will be kept anonymous and confidential. I will not be revealing firms or individual responses in any report of the results. This project has been approved by The University of Akron’s Institutional Review Board. Please contact the Institutional Review Board if you have any questions about your chapter members’ rights as research subjects at 330-972-7666. Dr. David Ritchey is my faculty advisor at The University of Akron. You may contact him by e-mail at [email protected].

If your chapter is willing to participate please contact me by e-mail ([email protected]) with your decision by March 11, 2005. Do not forward this e-mail to your distribution list.

If your chapter agrees to facilitate this research, I will need the following information:

1. The number of public relations chapter members in your distribution list. 2. A contact person in your chapter for me to e-mail my research description and survey link. 3. Whether you would like to receive results of my research when it is completed.

Please accept my sincere thanks for your time and consideration. Your assistance is vital to the success of this research.

Yours truly,

Carol A. Savery Graduate Student at The University of Akron

69

APPENDIX E

“WELCOME” SCREEN SHOT ON 2WAY ONLINE SURVEY

70 71

APPENDIX F

E-MAIL APPROVAL FROM IRB FOR ADDING A PAPER-BASED SURVEY

72 Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 09:58:06 -0500 From: "McWhorter,Sharon" To: Carol Savery Subject: RE: RE: IRB 20050219 Carol: Since this protocol received exempt approval, and this change does not affect the risk level of the study, you do not need to submit an application for revision. However, please send a copy of the revised letter/consent that will be mailed to potential participants. I will put this in your IRB file. Thank you.

73

APPENDIX G

PARTICIPANT INTRODUCTION LETTER TO THE PAPER-BASED SURVEY

74 SUBJECT: PR Practitioners’ Paper-Based Survey

I am a University of Akron graduate student in the School of Communication conducting a research project for my master’s thesis on diffusion of innovations by public relations practitioners. I have enclosed a survey that will ask 32 questions about your perceptions and experiences with innovations.

This survey was also available as an online survey earlier in March, 2005. Some participants experienced problems accessing this online survey due to computer network firewall issues. That is why I am following up with a paper-based survey by mail to get as much feedback as possible from public relations practitioners. If you were able to complete the electronic version, please do not complete this paper-based survey.

Your participation is voluntary but vital! All responses will be anonymous and confidential. The results of this research could assist public relations organizations in weighing the pros and cons of future decisions and strategies for implementing innovations.

Your submission of the survey will serve as your consent to participate. This project has been approved by The University of Akron’s Institutional Review Board. If you have any questions about your rights as a research subject, please contact the Institutional Review Board at 330-972- 7666. You can also contact me directly at [email protected]

Results of this research will be made available to your Ohio PRSA chapter so they can distribute the results to their members.

Please fill out the enclosed survey and return it in the self-addressed stamped return envelope I have provided by April 22.

Thank you for supporting a PRSSA graduate student from Ohio.

Carol A. Savery Graduate Student The University of Akron School of Communication

:cas Enclosure

75

APPENDIX H

“SURVEY CLOSED” SCREEN SHOT ON 2WAY ONLINE SURVEY

76 77

APPENDIX I

TABLES

78 Table 1: Gender of participants. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Male 38 32.8 33.0 33.0 Female 77 66.4 67.0 100.0 Total 115 99.1 100.0 Missing System 1 .9 Total 116 100.0

Table 2: Age of participants. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 20-25 7 6.0 6.0 6.0 26-30 21 18.1 18.1 24.1 31-36 22 19.0 19.0 43.1 37-44 18 15.5 15.5 58.6 45-50 18 15.5 15.5 74.1 51-59 20 17.2 17.2 91.4 60 or 10 8.6 8.6 100.0 above Total 116 100.0 100.0

Table 3: Number of years working in PR. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Less than one 2 1.7 1.7 1.7 year 1-2 years 6 5.2 5.2 7.0 3-5 years 16 13.8 13.9 20.9 6-10 years 22 19.0 19.1 40.0 11-15 years 20 17.2 17.4 57.4 16-20 years 17 14.7 14.8 72.2 Over 20 years 32 27.6 27.8 100.0 Total 115 99.1 100.0 Missing System 1 .9 Total 116 100.0

Table 4: Size of PR department or group. Frequenc Valid Cumulative y Percent Percent Percent Valid Less than 5 65 56.0 56.0 56.0 employees 5-10 19 16.4 16.4 72.4 employees 11-29 22 19.0 19.0 91.4 employees 30-49 6 5.2 5.2 96.6 employees 50-99 3 2.6 2.6 99.1 employees Over 100 1 .9 .9 100.0 employees Total 116 100.0 100.0

79 Table 5: Participants working in International PR. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 84 72.4 72.4 72.4 Yes 32 27.6 27.6 100.0 Total 116 100.0 100.0

Table 6: Participants working in National PR. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 53 45.7 45.7 45.7 Yes 63 54.3 54.3 100.0 Total 116 100.0 100.0

Table 7: Participants working in Regional or Local PR.

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 24 20.7 20.7 20.7 Yes 92 79.3 79.3 100.0 Total 116 100.0 100.0

Table 8: Combined Total Innovation. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 2.00 3 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.10 2 1.7 1.9 4.6 2.20 7 6.0 6.5 11.1 2.30 2 1.7 1.9 13.0 2.40 10 8.6 9.3 22.2 2.50 5 4.3 4.6 26.9 2.60 7 6.0 6.5 33.3 2.70 12 10.3 11.1 44.4 2.80 16 13.8 14.8 59.3 2.90 10 8.6 9.3 68.5 3.00 9 7.8 8.3 76.9 3.10 9 7.8 8.3 85.2 3.20 6 5.2 5.6 90.7 3.30 6 5.2 5.6 96.3 3.40 2 1.7 1.9 98.1 3.50 1 .9 .9 99.1 3.60 1 .9 .9 100.0 Total 108 93.1 100.0 Missing System 8 6.9 Total 116 100.0

80 Table 9: Innovator (combining Q1 & Q6) Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 1.50 3 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.00 29 25.0 25.4 28.1 2.50 25 21.6 21.9 50.0 3.00 41 35.3 36.0 86.0 3.50 12 10.3 10.5 96.5 4.00 4 3.4 3.5 100.0 Total 114 98.3 100.0 Missing System 2 1.7 Total 116 100.0

Table 10: Early Adopter (combining Q2 & Q7) Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 2.00 15 12.9 13.8 13.8 2.50 19 16.4 17.4 31.2 3.00 58 50.0 53.2 84.4 3.50 13 11.2 11.9 96.3 4.00 4 3.4 3.7 100.0 Total 109 94.0 100.0 Missing System 7 6.0 Total 116 100.0

Table 11: Early Majority (combining Q3 & Q8) Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 2.00 11 9.5 9.8 9.8 2.50 62 53.4 55.4 65.2 3.00 37 31.9 33.0 98.2 3.50 2 1.7 1.8 100.0 Total 112 96.6 100.0 Missing System 4 3.4 Total 116 100.0

Table 12: Late Majority (combining Q4 & Q9) Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 1.00 2 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.50 14 12.1 12.3 14.0 2.00 36 31.0 31.6 45.6 2.50 34 29.3 29.8 75.4 3.00 24 20.7 21.1 96.5 3.50 4 3.4 3.5 100.0 Total 114 98.3 100.0 Missing System 2 1.7 Total 116 100.0

81 Table 13: Laggards (combining Q5 & Q10). Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 1.00 24 20.7 21.2 21.2 1.50 31 26.7 27.4 48.7 2.00 39 33.6 34.5 83.2 2.50 14 12.1 12.4 95.6 3.00 2 1.7 1.8 97.3 3.50 2 1.7 1.8 99.1 4.00 1 .9 .9 100.0 Total 113 97.4 100.0 Missing System 3 2.6 Total 116 100.0

Table 14: Influences: Clients’ expectations. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 59 50.9 51.3 51.3 Yes 56 48.3 48.7 100.0 Total 115 99.1 100.0 Missing System 1 .9 Total 116 100.0

Table 15: Influences: Competition by other companies

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 77 66.4 67.0 67.0 Yes 38 32.8 33.0 100.0 Total 115 99.1 100.0 Missing System 1 .9 Total 116 100.0

Table 16: Influences: Speed of transmitting information.

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 30 25.9 26.1 26.1 Yes 85 73.3 73.9 100.0 Total 115 99.1 100.0 Missing System 1 .9 Total 116 100.0

82 Table 17: Influences: Global market business opportunities

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 97 83.6 84.3 84.3 Yes 18 15.5 15.7 100.0 Total 115 99.1 100.0 Missing System 1 .9 Total 116 100.0

Table 18: Influences: Industry credibility. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 64 55.2 55.7 55.7 Yes 51 44.0 44.3 100.0 Total 115 99.1 100.0 Missing System 1 .9 Total 116 100.0

Table 19: Influences: Personal credibility. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 65 56.0 56.5 56.5 Yes 50 43.1 43.5 100.0 Total 115 99.1 100.0 Missing System 1 .9 Total 116 100.0

Table 20: Influences: Enhancement of PR career. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 72 62.1 62.6 62.6 Yes 43 37.1 37.4 100.0 Total 115 99.1 100.0 Missing System 1 .9 Total 116 100.0

Table 21: Influences: Organizational Efficiency. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 20 17.2 17.4 17.4 Yes 95 81.9 82.6 100.0 Total 115 99.1 100.0 Missing System 1 .9 Total 116 100.0 83 Table 22: Organizational Influences: PRSA

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 60 51.7 52.2 52.2 Yes 55 47.4 47.8 100.0 Total 115 99.1 100.0 Missing System 1 .9 Total 116 100.0

Table 23: Organizational Influences: PR Newswire.

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 60 51.7 52.2 52.2 Yes 55 47.4 47.8 100.0 Total 115 99.1 100.0 Missing System 1 .9 Total 116 100.0

Table 24: Organizational Influences: Microsoft.

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 72 62.1 62.6 62.6 Yes 43 37.1 37.4 100.0 Total 115 99.1 100.0 Missing System 1 .9 Total 116 100.0

Table 25: Organizational Influences: Service Providers.

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 59 50.9 51.8 51.8

Yes 55 47.4 48.2 100.0

Total 114 98.3 100.0

Missing System 2 1.7

Total 116 100.0

84 Table 26: Individual Who Influence: My Boss.

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 56 48.3 48.3 48.3 Yes 60 51.7 51.7 100.0 Total 116 100.0 100.0

Table 27: Individuals Who Influence: Upper Management.

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 74 63.8 63.8 63.8 Yes 42 36.2 36.2 100.0 Total 116 100.0 100.0

Table 28: Individuals Who Influence: Technology Champions in my organization.

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 52 44.8 44.8 44.8 Yes 64 55.2 55.2 100.0 Total 116 100.0 100.0

Table 29: Individuals Who Influence: Clients.

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 68 58.6 58.6 58.6 Yes 48 41.4 41.4 100.0 Total 116 100.0 100.0

Table 30: Individuals Who Influence: PRSA Chapter Members.

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 95 81.9 81.9 81.9

Yes 21 18.1 18.1 100.0

Total 116 100.0 100.0

85 Table 31: Individuals Who Influence: Other PR Practitioners.

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 53 45.7 45.7 45.7 Yes 63 54.3 54.3 100.0 Total 116 100.0 100.0

Table 32: Individuals Who Influence: Community Leaders. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 88 75.9 76.5 76.5 Yes 27 23.3 23.5 100.0 Total 115 99.1 100.0 Missing System 1 .9 Total 116 100.0

Table 33: Obstacles: Cost to implement. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 28 24.1 24.3 24.3 Yes 87 75.0 75.7 100.0 Total 115 99.1 100.0 Missing System 1 .9 Total 116 100.0

Table 34: Obstacles: Technical support.

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 32 27.6 27.8 27.8 Yes 83 71.6 72.2 100.0 Total 115 99.1 100.0 Missing System 1 .9 Total 116 100.0

Table 35: Obstacles: Support by upper management.

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 76 65.5 66.1 66.1 Yes 39 33.6 33.9 100.0 Total 115 99.1 100.0 Missing System 1 .9 Total 116 100.0

86 Table 36: Obstacles: Training requirements.

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 72 62.1 62.6 62.6 Yes 43 37.1 37.4 100.0 Total 115 99.1 100.0 Missing System 1 .9 Total 116 100.0

Table 37: Obstacles: Keeping Up with new versions.

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 66 56.9 57.4 57.4 Yes 49 42.2 42.6 100.0 Total 115 99.1 100.0 Missing System 1 .9 Total 116 100.0

Table 38: Obstacles: Privacy issues.

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 84 72.4 73.0 73.0 Yes 31 26.7 27.0 100.0 Total 115 99.1 100.0 Missing System 1 .9 Total 116 100.0

Table 39: Obstacles: Security issues.

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 76 65.5 66.1 66.1 Yes 39 33.6 33.9 100.0 Total 115 99.1 100.0 Missing System 1 .9 Total 116 100.0

87 Table 40: Obstacles: Clients’ technology limitations. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 66 56.9 57.4 57.4 Yes 49 42.2 42.6 100.0 Total 115 99.1 100.0 Missing System 1 .9 Total 116 100.0

Table 41: Obstacles: Added stress. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 88 75.9 76.5 76.5 Yes 27 23.3 23.5 100.0 Total 115 99.1 100.0 Missing System 1 .9 Total 116 100.0

Table 42: Innovations Adopted: E-mail Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 2 1.7 1.8 1.8 Yes 112 96.6 98.2 100.0 Total 114 98.3 100.0 Missing System 2 1.7 Total 116 100.0

Table 43: Innovations Adopted: Transmitting photos digitally to media contacts. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 11 9.5 9.6 9.6 Yes 104 89.7 90.4 100.0 Total 115 99.1 100.0 Missing System 1 .9 Total 116 100.0

Table 44: Innovations Adopted: Video News Releases (VNRs).

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 83 71.6 72.2 72.2 Yes 32 27.6 27.8 100.0 Total 115 99.1 100.0 Missing System 1 .9 Total 116 100.0

88 Table 45: Innovations Adopted: Audio News Releases (ANRs).

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 97 83.6 84.3 84.3 Yes 18 15.5 15.7 100.0 Total 115 99.1 100.0 Missing System 1 .9 Total 116 100.0

Table 46: Innovations Adopted: Online press kits downloadable to journalists, media, stockholders, etc.

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 56 48.3 48.7 48.7 Yes 59 50.9 51.3 100.0 Total 115 99.1 100.0 Missing System 1 .9 Total 116 100.0

Table 47: Innovations Adopted: Broadcast Faxes.

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 48 41.4 41.7 41.7 Yes 67 57.8 58.3 100.0 Total 115 99.1 100.0 Missing System 1 .9 Total 116 100.0

Table 48: Innovations Adopted: Broadcast E-mails.

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 30 25.9 26.1 26.1 Yes 85 73.3 73.9 100.0 Total 115 99.1 100.0 Missing System 1 .9 Total 116 100.0

89 Table 49: Innovations Adopted: Online meetings using web conferences or video conferencing (e.g., WebEx or Net Meeting).

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 66 56.9 57.4 57.4 Yes 49 42.2 42.6 100.0 Total 115 99.1 100.0 Missing System 1 .9 Total 116 100.0

Table 50: Innovations Adopted: Web-based survey tools.

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 44 37.9 38.3 38.3 Yes 71 61.2 61.7 100.0 Total 115 99.1 100.0 Missing System 1 .9 Total 116 100.0

Table 51: Innovation Perceptions: Relative advantage

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Strongly 1 .9 .9 .9 Disagree Agree 92 79.3 80.0 80.9 Strongly Agree 22 19.0 19.1 100.0 Total 115 99.1 100.0 Missing System 1 .9 Total 116 100.0

Table 52: Innovation Perceptions: Consistent with existing values

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Strongly 1 .9 .9 .9 Disagree Disagree 3 2.6 2.6 3.5 Agree 94 81.0 81.7 85.2 Strongly Agree 17 14.7 14.8 100.0 Total 115 99.1 100.0 Missing System 1 .9 Total 116 100.0 90 Table 53: Innovation Perceptions: Complexity and difficulty.

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Strongly 12 10.3 10.5 10.5 Disagree Disagree 78 67.2 68.4 78.9

Agree 21 18.1 18.4 97.4 Strongly Agree 3 2.6 2.6 100.0

Total 114 98.3 100.0

Missing System 2 1.7

Total 116 100.0

Table 54: Innovation Perceptions: More time needed to experiment or train.

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Strongly 4 3.4 3.5 3.5 Disagree Disagree 43 37.1 38.1 41.6 Agree 59 50.9 52.2 93.8 Strongly Agree 7 6.0 6.2 100.0

Total 113 97.4 100.0 Missing System 3 2.6 Total 116 100.0

Table 55: Innovations Perceptions: Results visible to others in my organization.

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Strongly 2 1.7 1.8 1.8 Disagree Disagree 20 17.2 18.0 19.8

Agree 76 65.5 68.5 88.3

Strongly Agree 13 11.2 11.7 100.0

Total 111 95.7 100.0

Missing System 5 4.3

Total 116 100.0

91 Table 56: Innovation Perceptions: Results visible to others outside my organization.

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Strongly 1 .9 .9 .9 Disagree Disagree 18 15.5 15.8 16.7 Agree 84 72.4 73.7 90.4 Strongly Agree 11 9.5 9.6 100.0 Total 114 98.3 100.0 Missing System 2 1.7 Total 116 100.0

Table 57: Innovation Perceptions: Enhanced image or status at work.

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Strongly 4 3.4 3.5 3.5 Disagree Disagree 45 38.8 39.5 43.0

Agree 54 46.6 47.4 90.4

Strongly Agree 11 9.5 9.6 100.0

Total 114 98.3 100.0

Missing System 2 1.7

Total 116 100.0

Table 58: Innovation Perceptions: Individual communication with other PR practitioners inside or outside my organization.

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Strongly 1 .9 .9 .9 Disagree Disagree 11 9.5 9.5 10.3 Agree 50 43.1 43.1 53.4 Strongly 54 46.6 46.6 100.0 Agree Total 116 100.0 100.0

92 Table 59: Innovation Perceptions: Individual communication with a variety of individuals outside of my organization. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Strongly 2 1.7 1.7 1.7 Disagree Disagree 7 6.0 6.0 7.8 Agree 56 48.3 48.3 56.0 Strongly 51 44.0 44.0 100.0 Agree Total 116 100.0 100.0

Table 60: Innovation Perceptions: Interpersonal communication involving face-to-face exchanges with offsite employees, clients, or business partners. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Strongly 15 12.9 13.4 13.4 Disagree Disagree 41 35.3 36.6 50.0 Agree 44 37.9 39.3 89.3 Strongly Agree 12 10.3 10.7 100.0 Total 112 96.6 100.0 Missing System 4 3.4 Total 116 100.0

Table 61: Innovation Perceptions: Comfort completing online surveys. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Strongly 3 2.6 2.6 2.6 Disagree Disagree 1 .9 .9 3.4 Agree 50 43.1 43.1 46.6 Strongly 62 53.4 53.4 100.0 Agree Total 116 100.0 100.0

Table 62: Innovation Perceptions: Prefer paper-based survey format. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Strongly 36 31.0 31.3 31.3 Disagree Disagree 62 53.4 53.9 85.2 Agree 10 8.6 8.7 93.9 Strongly Agree 7 6.0 6.1 100.0 Total 115 99.1 100.0 Missing System 1 .9 Total 116 100.0

93

APPENDIX J

FIGURE 2

94

95