Grounded Theory Methodology

Document Sample
Grounded Theory Methodology Powered By Docstoc
					Consequences of
    Innovations
  Diffusion of Innovations
      Everett M. ROGERS


            Roberta Campos
                  May 2008
 Innovation-Development Process




Needs /                  Development      Diffusion and
Problems                                  Adoption
           Research
            (Basic and         Commercialization
              Applied)                                    Consequences
 Innovation-Development Process




Needs /                  Development      Diffusion and
Problems                                  Adoption
           Research
            (Basic and         Commercialization
              Applied)                                    Consequences
Consequences of Innovations

Definition:


 Changes to an individual or a community
     (social system) as a result of the
  adoption (or rejection) of an innovation.
Consequences:
Tomato-harvesting example
   Before the                   After the
    technology (1962):            technology (1971)
       4,000 farmers                600 farmers
       50,000                       1,152 machines
        farmworkers, mostly           and 18,000
        Mexican men                   workers (80%
        immigrants                    women / a few
       Soft tomatoes                 Mexican)
        (bruises easily in           Hard tomatoes (do
        mechanical                    not bruise easily)
        harvesting)                   – fewer vitamins
Weakenesses of data on
consequences
   Rare and « soft »
   Mainly case studies
   Difficult to generalize or predict future
    consequences for current innovations
   Change agents: pro-innovation bias
   Bias prevent agents to recognize their
    responsability on consequences
The snowmobile revolution in
the artic (p. 406 – 408)
   Designed for winter recreation in the 50’s
   Skolt Lapps, of Northern Finland: a reindeer-
    herding people
   Innovation adoption investigated through
    ethnography by an anthropologist: Pertti Pelto.
   Snowmobile: class of innovation that shifts
    energy resources from local and autonomous
    (reinder slads) to external and dependent
    sources (oil).
The snowmobile revolution in
the artic (p. 406 – 408)
   Reindeer role:
       Meat: main food
       Reinder sleds: main means of transportation
       Reinder hides: clothing and shoes
       Surplus meat: traded for cash (flour, sugar, tea, etc)
       Reindeers-herding activity: prestige for the herder
       « First tooth reindeer » and « name-day reindeer »:
        for kids
       Wedding gift: small herd of animals
The snowmobile revolution in
the artic (p. 406 – 408)
   Lapp society: egalitarian system
   Each family had an equal number of reindeers.
   1961: Ski-Doo displayed on the capital
   Schoolteacher bought for recreational activities
   Lapps begin using it for reindeer herding
   Rapid rate of adoption
   1971: almost all households had at least one
    snowmobile.
The snowmobile revolution in
the artic (p. 406 – 408)

  ADVANTAGES        DISADVANTAGES
                       Noise and
                         smell
  Faster travel:
                      Oil dependent
 from 3 days to 5
      hours
                           Bad
                      performance
                      on rocky land
Snowmobile consequences
   Fewer calves
   Herd per HH dropped from 52 to 12 in ten years
   2/3 HH stopped reindeers raising
   One family early adopter: become a large herder
    (1/3 of all the reindeers)
   Meat was need more than ever to buy
    snowmobiles, gasoline and spare parts.
   « Cash dependecy, debts and unemployement »
    (p. 408)
Snowmobile consequences
   Why Lapps did not resist the innovation?
   For Pelto, the Lapps were not « technically able
    to anticipate the far-reaching consequences of
    the snowmobile » (p. 408)


   The culture of Skolt Lapps was clearly affected
    and disrupted.
       Motocycles
       Helicopters
The study of consequences
                   Na decisão pela adoção
                   estão os elementos do
                     entendimento das
                       consequências



  Individual
characteristics   innovativeness            consequences
 and behavior
                         Independent
                  Dependent
                           variable /
                   variable
                           Predictor
A model for studying the
consequences of innovation (p.410)
Antecedents of      Indicators of
                                       Consequences of
innovativeness    innovativeness
  (Independent    (prior dependent
                                          innovation
                                       (New dependent variable)
     variable)         variable)

                                      Functional, direct or
Socioeconomic                        manifest consequences
characteristics        Relative
                                      (increased production, higher
                     earliness in      income, more leiseure, etc)
  Personality          adopting
                                     Dysfunctional, indirect
                      new ideas
Communication                        or latent consequences
                                     (Greater expense, need for more
  behavior
                                         capital, social inequality)
Why consequences are less
studied?
   Change agents: pro-innovation assumptions (needs
    fullfilled)
   Usual survey methods are less suitable for consequence
    assessments
   Consequences unfold over an extended period of time
   Consequences are difficult to measure: individuals are not
    always fully aware of consequences (individual and
    system consequences)
   Cultural relativism: researcher needs an inside view of
    the culture to generate judgement and measure (Ex: Pierre
    Clastres)
   Difficult to isolate result of innovation from other effects
    and context
   Original introduction objectives may be concealed by
    subsequent rationalization by system members.
Consequences taxonomy
   Desirable X Undesirable
   Direct X Indirect
   Anticipated X Unanticipated
Consequences taxonomy
   Desirable X Undesirable: effect on adopters
       Example of undesirable consequences: social
        system qualities that guarantee the welfare of the
        system => reindeers-hendering
           Family bonds, Respect for life and property,
            Respect for ancestors
       Consequences can be desired for the system and
        undesired for certain individuals: tomato harvester
       Windfall profits: positive consequences for early
        adopters (higher risks)
Consequences taxonomy
   Desirable X Undesirable: effect on
    adopters
       Generalization 1: « The effects of an
        innovation usually cannot be managed to
        separate the desirable from the undesirable
        consequences » (p. 414)


       Principle of inseparability: Amish
Consequences taxonomy
   Direct X Indirect
       One change generates a chain reaction
       Direct consequences: come from innovation
       Indirect come from consequences
Example: wet rice growing in
Madagascar
Innovation      Direct        Indirect        Indirect       Indirect
                Effects     effects (1st   effects (2nd    effects (3rd
                            generation)    generation)     generation)

 Wet rice     Permanent     Individual     Social status   Changes in
cultivation   settlements      land         differences      tribal
                            ownership                       govern.

               Change in    Breakdown         Bonds        Slavery and
                 labor       in kinship     formed on      competition
              techniques        clans       economic         for land
                                            basis only
                            Nonsharing                     Role of the
                              of food                       father is
                                                            changed
Consequences taxonomy
   Anticipated X Unantecipated
       Anticipated: innovation changes recognized and
        intended by the members
           Snowmobile’s rapid transportation
       Unanticipated: unknown or unintended changes
           Breast liquid silicone implants
       « A system is like a bowl of marbles: move any
        one of its elements and the positions of all the others
        are inevitably changed also » (p. 419)
Consequences taxonomy


   Generalization 2: « The undesirable,
 indirect and unanticipated consequences
   of an innovationusually go together, as
  do the desirable, direct and anticipated
           consequences» (p. 421)
Steel axes for Stone-Age
Aborigines
   Stone ax: central tool in their culture
   Symbol of masculinity and respect for elders
   Axes borrowed from fathers, uncles, older men in the
    family.
   Missionairs distributed steel axes as gifts or payments
   Expected consequences: improvement of living
    conditions
   Unexpected consequences: disruption of status
    relations and a confusion of ages and sex roles.
   Prostitution in exchange on steel axes
Consequences characteristics
   Form: directly observable substance of
    innovation
   Function: contribution generated to the
    way of life of adopters
   Meaning: subjective perception of an
    innovation by individuals (Cultural
    dimension)
Consequences characteristics


   Generalization 3: « Change agents more
    easily anticipate the form and function of
     an innovation for their clients than its
                meaning » (p. 423)
Ideal rate of change?
   Stable equilibrium: when there is almost
    no change
   Dynamic equilibrium: rate of change
    is commensurate with the system’s
    ability to deal with it
   Disequilibrium: too rapid change of rate
    for the system to adjust
To whom introduce
innovations?
   Innovators and early adopters: open and
    ressourceful to adopt innovations
   Opinion leaders among innovators:
    trickle across rather than trickle-down


   Individual with different social status in
    the society
The communication effect gap
   Has the communication had a different effect
    on certain individuals than others?
   Measure:
       Average amount of behavior change in the audience
       Gap increase or decrease in socioeconomic status
        and knowledge

   Objective: to look within an audience to
    determine whether certain segments were
    more affected than others
The communication effect gap
    Generalization 4: « The consequences of the
        diffusion of innovation usually widen the
      socioeconomic gap between the earlier and
    later adopting categories in a system » (p. 433)


    Generalization 5: « The consequences of the
    diffusion usually widen the socioeconomic gap
     between the audience segments previously
         high and low in social status » (p. 433)
Social structure and equality
   How an innovation is introduced determines in
    part the degree to which it causes unequal
    consequences.
       Bangladesh: irrigation purchase by large farmers

   Pakistan: irrigation purchase by village
    cooperatives
   Adoption determined by system structure (S
    curve socially determined)
Social structure and equality
  Generalization 6: « A system’s social
  structure partly determines the equality
    versus inequality of an innovation’s
          consequences» (p. 436)
Narrowing gaps
   The ups have greater access to information:
       provide messages that are less interesting to higher
        economic audience
       Message segmentation
       Shift agents action from early adopters to late
        majority
       Identify opinion leaders among the disadvantaged
        segments
       Select agents from the downs for a homophilous
        exchange
Narrowing gaps
   The ups possess greater resources:
       Develop apropriate innovation for the downs
       Create a social organization to cope with the
        absence of individual resources
       Establish special diffusion agencies to work
        only with downs
       Depend more on indigenous knowledge
        system
Narrowing gaps
   Generalization 7: « When special efforts
      are made by a diffusion agency, it is
    possible to narrow, or at least to maintain
      the size of socioeconomic gaps in a
             social system» (p. 439)
Thank you!