Diffusion of Innovations

Diffusion of innovations of innovations took off in the subfield of rural sociol- 100 ogy in the midwestern United States in the 1920s and 1930s. Agriculture technology was advancing rapidly, and researchers started to examine how independent 75 Market share % share Market farmers were adopting hybrid seeds, equipment, and techniques.[5] A study of the adoption of hybrid corn seed 50 in Iowa by Ryan and Gross (1943) solidified the prior work on diffusion into a distinct paradigm that would [5][6] 25 be cited consistently in the future. Since its start in rural sociology, Diffusion of Innovations has been ap- 0 plied to numerous contexts, including medical sociology, Innovators Early Early Late Laggards communications, marketing, development studies, health 2.5 % Adopters Majority Majority 16 % 13.5 % 34 % 34 % promotion, organizational studies, knowledge manage- ment, and complexity studies,[7] with a particularly large The diffusion of innovations according to Rogers. With succes- impact on the use of medicines, medical techniques, and sive groups of consumers adopting the new technology (shown health communications.[8] In organizational studies, its in blue), its market share (yellow) will eventually reach the sat- basic epidemiological or internal-influence form was for- uration level. In mathematics, the yellow curve is known as the mulated by H. Earl Pemberton,[9] who provided examples logistic function. The curve is broken into sections of adopters. of institutional diffusion[10] such as postage stamps and standardized school ethics codes. Diffusion of innovations is a theory that seeks to ex- In 1962 Everett Rogers, a professor of rural sociol- plain how, why, and at what rate new ideas and technology ogy, published his seminal work: Diffusion of Innova- spread through cultures. Everett Rogers, a professor tions. Rogers synthesized research from over 508 dif- of communication studies, popularized the theory in his fusion studies across the fields that initially influenced book Diffusion of Innovations; the book was first pub- the theory: anthropology, early sociology, rural sociol- lished in 1962, and is now in its fifth edition (2003).[1] ogy, education, industrial sociology and medical soci- Rogers argues that diffusion is the process by which ology. Using his synthesis, Rogers produced a theory an innovation is communicated through certain channels of the adoption of innovations among individuals and over time among the participants in a social system. The organizations.[11] Diffusion of Innovations and Rogers’ origins of the diffusion of innovations theory are varied later books are among the most often cited in diffu- and span multiple disciplines. Rogers proposes that four sion research. His methodologies are closely followed main elements influence the spread of a new idea: the in- in recent diffusion research, even as the field has ex- novation itself, communication channels, time, and a so- panded into, and been influenced by, other method- cial system. This process relies heavily on human capital. ological disciplines such as social network analysis and The innovation must be widely adopted in order to self- communication.[12][13] sustain. Within the rate of adoption, there is a point at which an innovation reaches critical mass. The categories of adopters are: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards.[2] Diffusion manifests it- 2 Elements self in different ways in various cultures and fields and is highly subject to the type of adopters and innovation- The key elements in diffusion research are: decision process. 2.1 Characteristics of innovations 1 History Studies have explored many characteristics of innova- The concept of diffusion was first studied by the French tions. Meta-reviews have identified several characteris- sociologist Gabriel Tarde in late 19th century[3] and by tics that are common among most studies.[21] These are German and Austrian anthropologists such as Friedrich in line with the characteristics that Rogers initially cited Ratzel and Leo Frobenius.[4] The study of diffusion in his reviews.[22] 1 2 4 DECISIONS Potential adopters evaluate an innovation on its relative 2.3 Characteristics of organizations advantage (the perceived efficiencies gained by the innovation relative to current tools or procedures), its com- Organizations face more complex adoption possibilities patibility with the pre-existing system, its complexity or because organizations are both the aggregate of its in- difficulty to learn, its trialability or testability, its poten- dividuals and its own system with a set of procedures tial for reinvention (using the tool for initially unintended and norms.[32] Three organizational characteristics match purposes), and its observed effects. These qualities inter- well with the individual characteristics above: tension act and are judged as a whole. For example, an innovation for change (motivation and ability), innovation-system fit might be extremely complex, reducing its likelihood to (compatibility), and assessment of implications (observ- be adopted and diffused, but it might be very compatible ability). Organizations can feel pressured by a tension for with a large advantage relative to current tools. Even with change. If the organization’s situation is untenable, it will this high learning curve, potential adopters might adopt be motivated to adopt an innovation to change its for- the innovation anyway.[22] tunes. This tension often plays out among its individual Studies also identify other characteristics of innovations, members. Innovations that match the organization’s pre- existing system require fewer coincidental changes and but these are not as common as the ones that Rogers [33] lists above.[23] The fuzziness of the boundaries of the are easy to assess are more likely to be adopted. The innovation can impact its adoption. Specifically, inno- wider environment of the organization, often an indus- vations with a small core and large periphery are eas- try, community, or economy, exerts pressures on the or- ier to adopt.[24] Innovations that are less risky are eas- ganization, too. Where an innovation is diffusing through the organization’s environment for any reason, the orga- ier to adopt as the potential loss from failed integra- [25] tion is lower.[25] Innovations that are disruptive to rou- nization is more likely to adopt it. Innovations that are intentionally spread, including by political mandate or di- tine tasks, even when they bring a large relative advan- [34][35] tage, might not be adopted because of added instabil- rective, are also likely to diffuse quickly. ity. Likewise, innovations that make tasks easier are likely to be adopted.[26] Closely related to relative complexity, knowledge requirements are the ability barrier 3 Process to use presented by the difficulty to use the innovation. Even when there are high knowledge requirements, sup- port from prior adopters or other sources can increase the Diffusion occurs through a five–step decision-making chances for adoption.[27] process. It occurs through a series of communication channels over a period of time among the members of a similar social system. Ryan and Gross first identified adoption as a process in 1943.[36] Rogers’ five stages (steps): awareness, interest, evaluation, trial, and adoption are integral to this theory. An individual might re- ject an innovation at any time during or after the adoption 2.2 Characteristics of individual adopters process. Abrahamson examined this process critically by posing questions such as: How do technically inefficient innovations diffuse and what impedes technically effi- Like innovations, adopters have been determined to have cient innovations from catching on? Abrahamson makes traits that affect their likelihood to adopt an innova- suggestions for how organizational scientists can more tion. A bevy of individual personality traits have been comprehensively evaluate the spread of innovations.[37] In explored for their impacts on adoption, but with little later editions of Diffusion of Innovation, Rogers changes agreement.[28] Ability and motivation, which vary on his terminology of the five stages to: knowledge, persua- situation unlike personality traits, have a large impact sion, decision, implementation, and confirmation. How- on a potential adopter’s likelihood to adopt an innova- ever, the descriptions of the categories have remained tion. Unsurprisingly, potential adopters who are moti- similar throughout the editions. vated to adopt an innovation are likely to make the ad- justments needed to adopt it.[29] Motivation can be im- pacted by the meaning that an innovation holds; innovations can have symbolic value that encourage (or dis- 4 Decisions courage) adoption.[30] First proposed by Ryan and Gross (1943), the overall connectedness of a potential adopter Two factors determine what type a particular decision is: to the broad community represented by a city.[6] Potential adopters who frequent metropolitan areas are more likely to adopt an innovation. Finally, potential adopters who • Whether the decision is made freely and imple- have the power or agency to create change, particularly mented voluntarily in organizations, are more likely to adopt an innovation than someone with less power over his choices.[31] • Who makes the decision. 3 6 Adopter categories Rogers defines an adopter category as a classification of individuals within a social system on the basis of inno- vativeness. In the book Diffusion of Innovations, Rogers suggests a total of five categories

Load more