Editing Diffusion of innovations (section)

== Role of social systems ==
{{See also|Christianization of the Roman Empire as diffusion of innovation}}
=== Opinion leaders ===

Not all individuals exert an equal amount of influence over others. In this sense [[Opinion leadership|opinion leaders]] are influential in spreading either positive or negative information about an innovation. Rogers relies on the ideas of Katz & Lazarsfeld and the [[two-step flow]] theory in developing his ideas on the influence of opinion leaders.<ref name="KatzLazarsfeld1970">{{cite book|first1=Elihu|last1=Katz|first2=Paul|last2=Lazarsfeld|title=Personal Influence, the Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications|url={{google books |plainurl=y |id=rElW8D0D8gYC}} |year=1970 |publisher=Transaction Publishers|isbn=978-1-4128-3070-6}}</ref>

Opinion leaders have the most influence during the evaluation stage of the innovation-decision process and on late adopters.{{sfn|Rogers|1962|p=219}} In addition opinion leaders typically have greater exposure to the mass media, more cosmopolitan, greater contact with change agents, more social experience and exposure, higher socioeconomic status, and are more innovative than others.

Research was done in the early 1950s at the University of Chicago attempting to assess the cost-effectiveness of broadcast advertising on the diffusion of new products and services.<ref>{{cite journal | doi = 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00871.x | title=Linking Innovation to Design: Consumer Responses to Visual Product Newness | journal=Journal of Product Innovation Management | date=2011 | volume=28 | issue=s1 | pages=208–220 | first=Scott K. | last=Radford}}</ref> The findings were that opinion leadership tended to be organized into a hierarchy within a society, with each level in the hierarchy having most influence over other members in the same level, and on those in the next level below it. The lowest levels were generally larger in numbers and tended to coincide with various demographic attributes that might be targeted by mass advertising. However, it found that direct word of mouth and example were far more influential than broadcast messages, which were only effective if they reinforced the direct influences. This led to the conclusion that advertising was best targeted, if possible, on those next in line to adopt, and not on those not yet reached by the chain of influence.

Research on [[Actor–network theory|actor-network theory (ANT)]] also identifies a significant overlap between the ANT concepts and the diffusion of innovation which examine the characteristics of innovation and its context among various interested parties within a social system to assemble a network or system which implements innovation.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=rpx_BAAAQBAJ&dq=carroll+A+Bureaucratic+View+of+Public+Service+Innovation&pg=PA115 Carroll, N. (2014). Actor-Network Theory: A Bureaucratic View of Public Service Innovation, Chapter 7, Technological Advancements and the Impact of Actor-Network Theory, pp. 115-144, Publisher IGI Global, Hershey, PA]</ref>

Other research relating the concept to [[public choice theory]] finds that the hierarchy of influence for innovations need not, and likely does not, coincide with hierarchies of official, political, or economic status.<ref>[http://www.vwl.tuwien.ac.at/hanappi/lehre/EvoEco/Wittpol.pdf Economic policy making in evolutionary perspective] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110920032258/http://www.vwl.tuwien.ac.at/hanappi/Lehre/EvoEco/Wittpol.pdf |date=2011-09-20 }}, by Ulrich Witt, Max-Planck-Institute for Research into Economic Systems.</ref> Elites are often not innovators, and innovations may have to be introduced by outsiders and propagated up a hierarchy to the top decision makers.

=== Electronic communication social networks ===

Prior to the introduction of the Internet, it was argued that social networks had a crucial role in the diffusion of innovation particularly [[tacit knowledge]] in the book ''The IRG Solution – hierarchical incompetence and how to overcome it''.<ref name="Andrews1984">{{cite book|first=David|last=Andrews|title=The IRG Solution: Hierarchical Incompetence and how to Overcome it|url={{google books |plainurl=y |id=CcSWpwAACAAJ}}|date=1 January 1984|publisher=Souvenir Press|isbn=978-0-285-62662-1}}</ref> The book argued that the widespread adoption of computer networks of individuals would lead to much better diffusion of innovations, with greater understanding of their possible shortcomings and the identification of needed innovations that would not have otherwise occurred. The social model proposed by Ryan and Gross{{sfn|Rogers|1962|p=79}} is expanded by Valente who uses social networks as a basis for adopter categorization instead of solely relying on the system-level analysis used by Ryan and Gross. Valente also looks at an individual's personal network, which is a different application than the organizational perspective espoused by many other scholars.<ref name="Valente, T.W. 1996 Pages 69">{{Cite journal | doi = 10.1016/0378-8733(95)00256-1| title = Social network thresholds in the diffusion of innovations| journal = Social Networks| volume = 18| pages = 69–89| year = 1996| last1 = Valente | first1 = T. W. | doi-access = free}}</ref>

Recent research by Wear shows, that particularly in regional and rural areas, significantly more innovation takes place in communities which have stronger inter-personal networks.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Wear|first1=Andrew|title=Innovation and community strength in Provincial Victoria|journal=Australasian Journal of Regional Studies|date=2008|volume=14|issue=2|page=195|url=http://anzrsai.org/assets/Uploads/PublicationChapter/264-Wear.pdf}}</ref>

=== Organizations ===

Innovations are often adopted by organizations through two types of innovation-decisions: collective innovation decisions and authority innovation decisions. The collective decision occurs when adoption is by consensus. The authority decision occurs by adoption among very few individuals with high positions of power within an organization.{{sfn|Rogers|2003|p=403}} Unlike the optional innovation decision process, these decision processes only occur within an organization or hierarchical group. Research indicated that, with proper initial screening procedures, even simple behavioral model can serve as a good predictor for technology adoption in many commercial organizations.<ref name="Li2020"/> Within an organization certain individuals are termed "champions" who stand behind an innovation and break through opposition. The champion plays a very similar role as the champion used within the efficiency business model [[Six Sigma]]. The process contains five stages that are slightly similar to the innovation-decision process that individuals undertake. These stages are: [[agenda-setting]], matching, redefining/restructuring, clarifying and routinizing.