Rogers' diffusion of innovation theory and adopter segmentation

Diffusion of Innovation theory consists of explaining not only the spread of new objects but also new ideas. According to Bell (1968), innovation of diffusion is considered as the key locomotive of change in society. In this sense diffusion of innovation is analyzed both with the notion of technology as tools and the notion of technology as organized knowledge. Diffusion theory has been studied from number of diverse perspectives as developmental economics, rural sociology, medical sociology, cultural anthropology, and marketing among others (Brown 1981).

Rogers (1995) argues that the central notion of diffusion theory through such concepts as adoption timing and segmentation of adopters. It also summarizes classic studies in the foundation of diffusion theory, such as the spread of hybrid corn in the Midwest and the Columbia antibiotic study. Rogers' definition contains four elements that are present in the diffusion of innovation process. The four main elements of his theory are as follows: (1) Innovation - an idea, practices, or objects that is perceived as knew by an individual or other unit of adoption. (2) Communication channels - the means by which messages get from one individual to another. (3) Time - the three time factors are considered critical that encompasses innovation-decision process, relative time with which an innovation is adopted by an individual or group, and innovation's rate of adoption. (4) Social system - a set of interrelated units that are engaged in joint problem solving to accomplish a common goal.

Diffusion theory posits adoption as the use of the new as useful, a replacement of the outmoded and inefficient with something better. This position derives from a mainly economic/technological view of innovation. A more social perspective, however, argues that diffusion of innovation entails loss as well as gain.

Diffusion theory pays much attention to the earliest adopters, less to later adopters, and very little at all to non-adopters. From an institutional perspective, however, non-adoption is of considerable interest.

There is a distinction between the last of the followers and the non-adopters that is at least as substantial as that between the innovative adopters and the followers, perhaps more substantial. The later followers are in conformity with the mainstream of society but non-adopters, at some point in time, are increasingly set apart from the majority.