DIFFUSION OF INNOVATIONS THEORY

the adoption of new ideas, media, etc.(or: Multi-step flow theory) History and OrientationDiffusion research goes one step further than two-step flow theory. The original diffusion research was done as early as 1903 by the French sociologist Gabriel Tarde who plotted the original S-shaped diffusion curve. Tardes' 1903 S-shaped curve is of current importance because "most innovations have an S-shaped rate of adoption" (Rogers, 1995). Core Assumptions and StatementsCore: 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. Innovation diffusion research has attempted to explain the variables that influence how and why users adopt a new information medium, such as the Internet. Opinion leaders exert influence on audience behavior via their personal contact, but additional intermediaries called change agents and gatekeepers are also included in the process of diffusion. Five adopter categories are: (1) innovators, (2) early adopters, (3) early majority, (4) late majority, and (5) laggards. These categories follow a standard deviation-curve, very little innovators adopt the innovation in the beginning (2,5%), early adopters making up for 13,5% a short time later, the early majority 34%, the late majority 34% and after some time finally the laggards make up for 16%.Statements: 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”. “Communication is a process in which participants create and share information with one another to reach a mutual understanding” (Rogers, 1995).Conceptual Model

Diffusion of innovation model.Source: Rogers (1995)Favorite MethodsSome of the methods are network analysis, surveys, field experiments and ECCO analysis. ECCO, Episodic Communication Channels in Organization, analysis is a form of a data collection log-sheet. This method is specially designed to analyze and map communication networks and measure rates of flow, distortion of messages, and redundancy. The ECCO is used to monitor the progress of a specific piece of information through the organization. Scope and ApplicationDiffusion research has focused on five elements: (1) the characteristics of an innovation which may influence its adoption; (2) the decision-making process that occurs when individuals consider adopting a new idea, product or practice; (3) the characteristics of individuals that make them likely to adopt an innovation; (4) the consequences for individuals and society of adopting an innovation; and (5) communication channels used in the adoption process. ExampleTo be added.ReferencesKey publicationsRogers, 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.Pijpers, R.E., Montfort, van, K. & Heemstra, F.J. (2002). Acceptatie van ICT: Theorie en een veldonderzoek onder topmanagers. Bedrijfskunde, 74,4.

See also: Two Step Flow TheorySee also Communication and Information Technology

Diffusion of Innovations Communications Theory

This theory comes from the communications discipline. Everett Rogers describes the process that members of a society go through as they decide to embrace new ideas and innovations. The innovator is generally ahead of his/her time and will not influence others to participate in a new "far-out" invention or innovation. Many times, the innovator is mocked for being involved in something that will "never take off." People who choose to use an innovation at the earliest stages are those referred to as early adopters. They enjoy being ahead of the game, but don't necessarily influence people in the main stream. Once the innovation has taken hold, the early majority embraces it and he/she act as a change agent. I believe we are at this point in education. Many of our teachers are a part of this early majority. We still have many others who are skeptical about the value of technology in education. They may have the desire to wait and see if this technology is really of any benefit to students before they decide to try to use the innovation in the classroom. Of course, we will have a group of educators who will remain unconvinced that using technology in education has any value for students. Dr. Rogers calls them "laggards."

I believe that what Dr. Rogers says concerning what it takes for someone to try an innovation is helpful to educators who are going to be training teachers to use technology in the classroom. Applying his ideas to education - teachers must decide there is some educational advantage to using technology. The way the technology can be used must be compatible with a person's teaching style. Many of our teachers feel that computing is too complex for them to understand so they need to begin with a type of technology they can comprehend and use immediately. I believe that the World Wide Web is one of the easiest places for teachers to begin. They need to be able to try out a technology without someone leaning over their shoulder criticizing them for their lack of skills. They need to have time to experiment, explore, and be "hands-on" with the technology. Also, they need to observe technology being used successfully in educational settings. Observing students who are actively engaged in learning through the tools of technology can be a great influence on teachers who are reluctant to take the time to learn the technology because they question its value in education.

Diffusion of Innovations Communications Theory

HONORS: COMMUNICATION CAPSTONE SPRING 2001 THEORY WORKBOOK

INTERPERSONAL CONTEXT Click Here to Go Back to Interpersonal Context Page

Communication Competence   

KNOWLEDGE- SKILLS- MOTIVATION

Explanation of Theory:

Communication competence is the ability to choose a communication behavior that is both appropriate and effective for a given situation. Interpersonal competency allows one to achieve their communication goals without causing the other party to lose face. The model most often used to describe competence is the component model (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984) which includes three components: 1) knowledge, 2) skill, and 3) motivation. Knowledge simply means knowing what behavior is best suited for a given situation. Skill is having the ability to apply that behavior in the given context. Motivation is having the desire to communicate in a competent manner.

Theorist: Spitzberg & Cupach

Date: 1984

Primary Article:

     Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1984). Interpersonal communication competence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Individual Interpretations:

The component model's three parts requires that a communicator be able to 1) recognize what communication practice is appropriate (knowledge), 2) have the ability to perform that practice (skill), and 3) want to communicate in an effective and appropriate manner (motivation).

Critique:

The component model of competence is not a theory about communication, but rather a model that sets the framework for what makes someone a competent communicator. The component model has been used as the basis for many other models of competence because of its breadth. The model can be easily applied to the criteria of effectiveness and appropriateness that make up a competent communicator.

Ideas and Implications:

Specifically there is a new focus on this idea of competence that is concerned with how the dyad creates competency rather than the focus on the individual competency. In this model a dyad's 

communication can be competent in that within the relationship it is both effective and appropriate, but to those outside of the group, it might seem incompetent.

Example:

In order to be a competent communicator, one must be able to recognize which skills are necessary in a particular situation, have those skills, and be properly motivated to use those skills.

Relavant Research:

     Beach, W. A., & Metzger, T. R. (1997). Claiming insufficient knowledge. Human Communication Research, 23,  562-89.

     Cooper, L. O. (1997). Listening competency in the workplace: A model for training. Business Communication Quarterly, 60,  75-85.

     Duran, R. L., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1995). Toward the development and validation of a measure of cognitive communication competence. Communication Quarterly, 43,  259-86.    

Location in Eight (8) Primary Communication Theory Textbooks:

     Anderson, R., & Ross, V. (1998). Questions of communication: A practical introduction to theory (2nd ed.). New York: St. Martin's Press.  N/A

     Cragan, J. F., & Shields, D.C. (1998). Understanding communication theory: The communicative forces for human action. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. N/A

     Griffin, E. (2000). A first look at communication theory (4th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. N/A

     Griffin, E. (1997). A first look at communication theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. N/A

      Infante, D. A., Rancer, A. S., & Womack, D. F. (1997). Building communication theory (3rd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. N/A

      Littlejohn, S. W. (1999). Theories of human communication (6th ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. N/A

      West, R., & Turner, L. H. (2000). Introducing communication theory: Analysis and application. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.N/A

       Wood, J. T. (1997). Communication theories in action: An introduction. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. N/A