BACKGROUND
The word “Diffusion” simply means “spreading”,
or a process where there is movement of a substance from one area to another.
Diffusion of Innovation Theory, which
explains how a [new] product gets to spread or reach a group of people, was
propounded by Everett Rogers in 1962, in his book, “Diffusion of Innovations”.
The theory which among one of the
oldest, is not only useful to communication but other disciplines like
political science, history, technology and education.
According to Rogers, ‘Diffusion is the “process by which
an innovation is communicated through certain channels over a period of time
among the members of a social system”. An innovation is “an idea, practice, or
object that is perceived to be new by an individual or other unit of adoption”(Rogers,
1995).’
Personal simplifies the
definition by saying that:
Ø The adopters can be an individual, groups, or
organization at different levels of social system.
Ø The target is innovation
Ø The process is communication
Ø The means is communication channels
Ø The context of innovation is a social system
Ø It is a change over time.
·
The Innovation-Decision Process
Diffusion is the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system (5). Given that decisions are not authoritative or collective, each member of the social system faces his/her own innovation-decision that follows a 5-step process (162):
A person must first become
aware of an innovation and how it works (Knowledge),
second he forms an attitude towards the innovation and that could be a favorable
or unfavorable one. (Persuasion). Third,
the person deliberates (Decides) as
to whether it should be accepted or rejected. He puts it into use (Implementation), finally, after
assessment is done, the person confirms the innovation in question.
Rogers (2003) put adopters into categories and defined the adopter categories as “the classifications of
members of a social system on the basis of innovativeness” (p. 22). This
classification includes innovators, early adopters, early majority, late
majority, and laggards. In each adopter category, individuals are similar in
terms of their innovativeness: “Innovativeness is the degree to which an
individual or other unit of adoption is relatively earlier in adopting new
ideas than other members of a system” (Rogers, 2003, p. 22).
Braak
(2001) described innovativeness as “a relatively-stable, socially-constructed,
innovation-dependent characteristic that indicates an individual’s willingness
to change his or her familiar practices” (p. 144). For Rogers, innovativeness
helped in understanding the desired and main behavior in the
innovation-decision process. Thus, he categorizes the adopters based on
innovativeness.
Here,
personal, makes it short by giving other
names that best describe people who fall within the various categories:
Ø
Innovators (risk takers)
Ø
Early adopters (hedgers)
Ø
Early majority (waiters)
Ø
Late majority (skeptics)
Ø
Late adopters
(slowpokes)
Innovators
For Rogers (2003),
innovators were willing to experience new ideas. Thus, they should be prepared
to cope with unprofitable and unsuccessful innovations, and a certain level of
uncertainty about the innovation. Also, Rogers added that innovators are the
gatekeepers bringing the innovation in from outside of the system. They have
complex technical knowledge.
Early
Adopters
Compared to
innovators, early adopters are more limited with the boundaries of the social
system. Rogers (2003) argued that since early adopters are more likely to hold
leadership roles in the social system, other members come to them to get advice
or information about the innovation. Early adopters’ leadership in adopting the
innovation decreases uncertainty about the innovation in the diffusion process.
Finally, “early adopters put their stamp of approval on a new idea by adopting
it” (Rogers, 2003, p. 283).
Early Majority
Rogers (2003) claimed that
although the early majority have a good interaction with other members of the
social system, they do not have the leadership role that early adopters have.
However, their interpersonal networks are still important in the
innovation-diffusion process. As Figure 2.2 shows, the early majority adopts
the innovation just before the other half of their peers adopts it. As Rogers
stated, they are deliberate in adopting an innovation and they are neither the
first nor the last to adopt it. Thus, their innovation decision usually takes
more time than it takes innovators and early adopters.
Late Majority
Similar to the early majority,
the late majority includes one-third of all members of the social system who
wait until most of their peers adopt the innovation. Although they are
skeptical about the innovation and its outcomes, economic necessity and peer pressure
may lead them to the adoption of the innovation. To reduce the uncertainty of
the innovation, interpersonal networks of close peers should persuade the late
majority to adopt it. Then, “the late majority feel that it is safe to adopt”
(Rogers, 2003, p. 284).
Laggards
As Rogers (2003) stated, laggards
have the traditional view and they are more skeptical about innovations and change
agents than the late majority. As the most localized group of the social
system, their interpersonal networks mainly consist of other members of the
social system from the same category. Moreover, they do not have a leadership
role. Because of the limited resources and the lack of awareness-knowledge of
innovations, they first want to make sure that an innovation works before they
adopt. Thus, laggards tend to decide after looking at whether the innovation is
successfully adopted by other members of the social system in the past. Due to
all these characteristics, laggards’ innovation-decision period is relatively
long.
In addition to these five
categories of adopters, Rogers (2003) further described his five categories of
adopters in two main groups: earlier
adopters and later adopters.
Earlier adopters consist of innovators, early adopters, and early majority,
while late majority and laggards comprise later adopters.
It used to be assumed that the mass media had direct,
immediate, and powerful effects on the mass audience (284). But diffusion theory argues that, since opinion
leaders directly affect the tipping of an innovation, a powerful way for change
agents to affect the diffusion of an innovation is to affect opinion leader
attitudes.
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. Diffusion of innovation theory predicts that media as well as
interpersonal contacts provide information and influence opinion and judgment.
Studying how innovation occurs, E.M. Rogers (1995) argued that it consists of
four stages: invention, diffusion (or communication) through the social system,
time and consequences. The information flows through networks. The nature of
networks and the roles opinion leaders play in them determine the likelihood
that the innovation will be adopted.
Limitations of Diffusion of Innovation Theory
There
are several limitations of Diffusion of Innovation Theory, which include the
following:
- Much of the evidence for this
theory, including the adopter categories, did not originate in public
health and it was not developed to explicitly apply to adoption of new
behaviors or health innovations.
- It does not foster a
participatory approach to adoption of a public health program.
- It works better with adoption
of behaviors rather than cessation or prevention of behaviors.
- It doesn't take into account an individual's resources or social support to adopt the new behavior (or innovation)
SOURCES:
- Braak, J.V. (2001). Individual characteristics
influencing teachers’ class use of computers. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 25(2), 141-157.
- Rogers, E.M. (1976). New Product Adoption and Diffusion. Journal of Consumer Research, 2 (March), 290 -301.
- Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th edition). The Free Press. New York.
No comments:
Post a Comment