I SEMINARIO “INNOVACIONES EN EL USO DE LAS TIC EN LA FORMACIÓN PROFESIONAL”

On the other hand, it should not be assumed that all innovations are equivalent. The characteristics of innovations, as perceived by individuals, help to explain their different rate of adoption (Rogers 1995):

- relative advantage. The degree to which an innovation is perceived as better than the practice it replaces may be measured in economic terms, but social prestige, convenience and satisfaction are also important factors.

- compatibility. An idea that is consistent with existing norms and values of the social system, past experiences and needs of potential adopters, will be more rapidly adopted since it will not require prior adoption of a new value system.

- complexity. Innovations that are readily understood and easy to use by most members of the social system will be adopted more rapidly than innovations that require the adopter to develop new skills and understandings.

- trialability. New ideas that can be tried on an instalment plan or can be experimented with on a limited basis will generally be adopted more quickly than innovations that are not divisible.

- observability. The easier it is for individuals to see the results of an innovation, the more likely they are to adopt it. This is related to the magnitude (size) of the effect. The more important the effect of the innovation, the higher the likelihood that it will be adopted.

time innovation

growth

maturity adoption

Figure 2-2: S-shaped curve of innovation adoption (Source: after Rogers 1995)

In addition to these 5 attributes there exist a number of other variables that determine the rate of diffusion and adoption of innovations in a social system (Figure 2-3).

First, Rogers (1995) recognises the importance of communication for innovations to spread. The nature of the information-exchange relationship between individuals determines the conditions under which a source will or will not transmit the innovation to the receiver, and vice-versa. At the same time, this relationship will influence the effect of the transfer.

Diffusion investigations show that more effective communication occurs when two or more individuals are homophilous, i.e. when they share common opinions, a mutual language, and are alike in personal and social characteristics. However, when two individuals are identical regarding their technical grasp of an innovation, no diffusion can occur between them. Ideally, the two individuals should be homophilous on all other variables, even though they are heterophilous regarding the innovation. This is difficult, but evidence indicates that there is a general tendency for followers to seek information and advice from opinion leaders who

are perceived as more technically competent than themselves. But yet, this difference should not be too pronounced, as a high-status opinion leader might be an inappropriate role model. Yet, these findings suggest the possibility of employing paraprofessional aides, such as local facilitators or farmer group leaders, in farmer-to-farmer diffusion of new

technologies in order to accelerate adoption.

As mentioned above, there are also differences in the rate of adoption for the same innovation in different social systems. Many aspects of diffusion cannot be explained by just individual behaviour. The social structure of the system affects the innovation’s diffusion in several ways. Compared to other aspects of diffusion research, however, there have been relatively few studies of how social or communication structures affect adoption of innovations in a system. Indeed, it is a rather tricky business to untangle the effects of a system’s structure on diffusion, independent from the effects of the characteristics of individuals that make up the system. For example, norms of a system tell an individual what behaviour is expected and norms can be a barrier to change. Furthermore, opinion leaders and change agents, who are often at the centre of interpersonal communication networks, are members of the social system and their role in diffusion of innovations will depend on their credibility and acceptance by the other members of the system.

The social system has yet another important kind of influence in the diffusion of new ideas. Innovations can be adopted or rejected by an individual member of a system, or by an entire social system. Rogers (1995) distinguishes three different types of innovation decisions: optional, collective and authority innovation decisions. However, in the case of agroforestry practices, most choices to adopt or reject an innovation are made by an individual

independent of the decisions of other members of the system (optional). Nevertheless, a number of agroforestry choices, such as tree planting for erosion control or watershed protection, may need consensus among the members of a social system and are therefore collective innovation-decisions (Knox et al. 2002a).

A final way in which a social system influences diffusion is consequences, i.e. the changes that occur to an individual or to a social system as a result of the adoption or rejection of an innovation. Change agents usually introduce innovations that they expect will have

consequences that will be functional, an immediate response to the innovation, recognised and intended. But often such innovations result in at least some unanticipated consequences that are indirect and undesirable for the system’s members, though only evidenced a posteriori.

Variables determining the rate of

adoption Dependent variable that is explained

Figure 2-3: Variables determining the rate of diffusion and adoption of innovations in a social system (Source: Rogers 1995, p 207)

Rate of Adoption of Innovations

V. Extent of Change Agents’ Promotion Efforts

IV. Nature of the Social System III. Communication Channels II. Type of Innovation-Decision

1. Optional 2. Collective 3. Authority

I. Perceived attributes of Innovations 1. Relative advantage 2. Compatibility 3. Complexity 4. Trialability 5. Observability