Diffusion of Innovations:

Theoretical Perspectives and

Future Prospects of Diffusion Studies

-----------------------------------------

Prof. Shawaludin Anis

College of Applied Sciences Nizwa - Sultanate of Oman

Abstract:

This paper provides us with a brief review and progress on the

theory of diffusion of innovations which was made popular by
communication scholar Everett Rogers (1983). This paper attempts
to conceptualize the diffusion ideas among the diffusion scholar
worldwide and its implication on the development and expansion of
the new media communication technologies. It attempts to provide
answers to the following questions namely: (i) How does the diffusion
ideas relevant vis-a-vis to the development and expansion of new
media communication technologies. (ii) How this theory is useful
to us? (iii) What are the contributing factors that help to explain the
innovation ideas? (iv) What could we significantly learned from this
theory? (v)What would be the major criticism and drawbacks of the
diffusion model? (vi) What is the future of the diffusion theory in
explaining the rapid expansion of the new media technologies?

Keyword: diffusion of innovations, two-step-flow theory, change

agent, homophily, heterophily, relative advantage, compatibility,
complexity, trialability, observability , s-shape curve, innovators,
early adopters, early majority, late majority, laggards. Critical mass,
take-off –point.
Paper presented at the International Conference: New Media
technologies for the New World, organized by the Department of

241
Communication ,Tourism & Fine Arts, University of Bahrain, Kingdom
of Bahrain. Manama, April 7-9, 2009. 11-13 Jami’dil Awal 1430.

Diffusion of Innovations:

Theoretical perspectives and future prospects of the diffusion

studies in the new media communication technologies.

Summary:

This paper provides us with a brief review and progress on the

theory of diffusion of innovations which were made popular by
communicationscholarEverettRogers(1983). Rogersspentalmost
his entire academic carrier (42 years) developing, conceptualizing,
teaching and propagating the diffusion ideas among the diffusion
scholars worldwide.

The theory which was initially started as a Ph D dissertation to help

explain the diffusion of hybrid corn among farmers in Iowa, USA
later, found to have its applications to many other fields of social
sciences, including that of communication. The innovation of ideas
which scholars worldwide propagate could easily be adopted to
explain the diffusion phenomenon of the new media communication
media technologies.

What initially was thought to be a relevant theory only to explain

the diffusion of projects related to only agricultural extension
works, family planning and population studies, it has now expanded
its applications to other fields of studies. Currently this theory is
one of the many popular theories used by many communication
scholars, social science scientists and educationists - both in the
developed and developing world. By about 1980’s the cumulative
counts of the diffusion of innovation research then totaling to
over 3000 studies across more than ten different disciplines in

242
social sciences ranging from the field of communication, rural
sociology, education, marketing, general sociology, public health,
anthropology, geography, population studies, sociology and
agricultural extension works. To date I believe the total numbers of
diffusion studies have increased more than three folds, more than
what was initially recorded in 1980’s. This demonstrates the under-
pinning potential applications of the theory has, across many fields
of social sciences. To date it represents large numbers of scholars
worldwide associated with such a theory .

Rogers, in his early works influenced by De Fleur’s (1988) two

step flow theory (opinion leader and opinion followers) goes on
to explain the diffusion of any innovations among others rely on
the roles of change agent. These change agents must share many
similar attributes in terms of homophily (the degree to which pairs
of individuals interact with their cultures and sub-cultures are
similar in certain attributes – e.g. beliefs, values, education, social
status etc. When they share common meanings a mutual subculture
is established) and heterophily (the degree to which pairs of
individuals who interact are sometimes quite different in their
attributes. They do share some similar attributes but for different
reasons).

The diffusion theory characterized by the successful characteristics

of an innovation that would result in successful adoption (or
rapid adoption) must include factors like relative advantage,
compatibility, complexity, trialability and observability.

However, the theory explains to us that before any innovation could

be adopted ‘the mental process of individuals’ and those taking
part in that innovation generally go through a liner mental process
of decision-making in terms of acquiring knowledge, persuasion,
decision, implementation, and lastly the confirmation stage as
illustrated in the S-shape curve. Once the innovation is adopted

243
– the spread of committed innovations could be classified into
different groupings of adopters as described by Rogers (1983) in
his S-shape curve. This curve represents grouping of participants
known as: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority
and laggards, all operating within a social system. Innovations and
expansions of new media communication technologies in many
ways are quite similar to the ‘S-shape curve graph’ syndrome as
cited by Rogers and others, but it might also differ in it’s heterophily
factors.

Although this theory has many strength and its usefulness,

limitations of the diffusion theory is also serious. Like any other
theories, this theory had some unique drawbacks in terms of
it’s applications. For example, diffusion of ideas often assumed
that adoption of innovations were well understood as desired by
adopters. But in reality in some cases this is not really so. Sustainable
flow of continuous innovations often times could be problematic.
Often the diffusion of innovations doesn’t guarantee long lasting
success. In the case where new media technologies were adopted,
often the speed of changes in the technology itself supersede
its adoption process. The users are always being in the state of
lagging behind or being ‘out of date’ in addition to the committed
investments in terms of cost of infrastructure incurred are huge. In
other words, innovation sometimes could not stay long enough (or
stable enough) before newer innovations are being re-introduced
or re-invented. These phenomenon pose a dilemma to the users.

Perhaps this phenomenon is best explained by tracing back at the

speed development of computer technology ( e.g. the evolution of
micro chips technology series starting from 8086 chips to, 8088,
286, 386, 486, Pentium 1,2,3,4 with dual core, core 2 duo etc. The
speed of progress for this invention is phenomenon as it supersede
what were adopted in the market place. Another technology is the
mobile phones. The technology changes faster than one could

244
imagine. These scenarios created mis-match between the process
of adoption of the innovation and reinvention.

Rogers (1983) and many other diffusion scholars suggested that in

order for the diffusion effort to be successful, it needed the services
of the opinion leader, a concept of using catalysts known as change
agents. That is relying heavily on people who could go out and
directly influence early adopters about the innovation. This stage of
the diffusion ideas are critical to the success of the model as it relies
on the creation of critical mass among early adopters . This critical
mass should reach at least 20 percent ‘take off point’. Innovation is
more likely to fail if the expected rate of acceleration of 20 percent
is not achieved. Innovation is therefore not an automatic process. It
relies on a concept of a critical mass for a take off to be successful.

In a nutshell, the aims of this brief paper is to provide some answers

to the following questions as follows:

First, this paper is to provide some understanding about the diffusion

of innovation theory and the extend it is relevant in the contact of
new media communication technologies’ development. Second,
what contribution of diffusion research today? Third, how much
the diffusion theory is useful to us ? Fourth, what are the underlying
contributing factors that help to explain certain innovations that
are successful while other theory are not . Fifth, what would be the
significant factors learned from this theory ? Sixth, what would be
the rate or speed of adoption process in any innovation ? Seventh,
what would be the major criticisms and drawbacks of the diffusion
model ? Eight, what is the future of the diffusion of innovation
studies in explaining the rapid expansion of new communication
technologies for the new world ?

245
Introduction:

Although communication is a very young discipline, communication

theory professors belonging to the first generation has already
making an impact in the field of social sciences. Knowledge of
theories explain a wide range of communication phenomena.
Names like Wilber Schramm,1954 (How communication works)
Siebert, Peterson & Schramm, 1956 (Four theories of the press),
Claude Shannon & W. Weaver, 1949 (Mathematical theory of
communication), Harold Lasswell, 1948 (Who says what in
which channel to whom with what effect), Charles Osgood, 1954
(Congruitytheory),PaulLazarsfeld,1940 (Grouptheory),Theodore
Newcomb 1953 (Symmetry model), Leon Festinger, 1957 (Theory
of cognitive dissonance), George Herbert Mead & Herbert Blumer,
1934 (Symbolic interactionism), Northon Long, 1958 / Kurt &
Gladys Lang 1959, (Agenda setting), Carl Hovland, 1953 (Theory
of communication persuasion), Kurt Lewin,1951 (Theory of group
dynamics), Elihu Katz, 1959 (Uses & gratification), and many others
are some of the first generation of communication scholars that are
no stranger to the students of communication. These scholars have
carved their names in the ‘Theory Hall of Fame’. In this respect name
Everett Rogers is not excluded from this list, although Ryne & Cross
(1943) noted the first diffusion ideas in education was in 1943,
but the best known and widely respected researcher in diffusion
of innovations research today is non other than the late Professor
Everett Rogers himself.

(i) Why research on the Diffusion of Innovations theory?

When Everett Rogers first wrote the book on the theory of the
diffusion of innovations about 47 years ago (1962), at that point
of time there were only about 405 innovation publications known
then. Although there were evident to suggest that diffusion
studies were initiated much earlier date, as early as in 1940’s

246
(Ryan & Cross, 1943) but it was not until 1970’s, that the diffusion
studies became popular among social scientists. By the time when
Rogers’s diffusion of innovation’s book was updated in 1971, the
numbers of diffusion studies have increased to about 1,500 out of
which 1,200 were empirical research reports and the other 300 were
bibliographies, syntheses, theoretical writings and non empirical
writings (Rogers, 1976: 47). By 1983, the diffusion publications had
reached to about 3,085. To date I believe the diffusion studies has
surpass an estimated more than three fold from the last count (see
Table 1.1) Perhaps, no other field of behavioral science research
that represents more efforts by more scholars in more nations than
that of the diffusion studies.

Table 1.1Cumulative number of diffusion research publications by

year (extracted from Rogers’s Diffusion of Innovations. Page 47)

(ii) What contribution and the status of Diffusion Research today ?

Rogers (1983:88-90) provided us with an impressive brief account
of the diffusion research today. During 1960’s & 1970’s results of
the diffusion research have been incorporated in most of the basic
textbooks in social psychology, communication, rural development,

247
population studies, public relations, advertising, marketing,
consumer beheaviour, rural sociology and many other fields of
study just to name few. The application of diffusion approaches
in agricultural developments and family planning are often
synonymous in many Latin America, Africa and Asian countries.

In the ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Countries) countries

in particular Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, and Thailand the
diffusion models are used in the field of agricultural sectors and
national family planning. The catalysts for propagating the
innovation ideas also known as change agents were then trained in
the US under the sponsorship programmes of ‘foreign aids’ to the
developing nations and these change agents on their return to their
own countries carried out the diffusion ideas. To date some of these
former change agents obtained Ph D’s in the field and now serving at
the local universities were common to be found in many countries.

The popularity of the diffusion theory perhaps is in its application

across multi disciplines. Evident conducted in many fields of social
sciences such as in marketing, education, anthropology, agriculture,
rural sociology, social work, public health, communication,
geography and lately in economic were the manifestation of its
applicability. The diffusion ideas across many fields, cross-cultures
and many different countries supports the popularity of such
theory.

In the field of economic in particular marketing for example, in the

1960’s and 1970’s marketing managers have long been concerned
with how to launch a new product and promoting the concept
of ‘product life-cycle’. In addition to the tangible products the
concept of marketing was further extended to also include the non
tangible products. Kotler and Zaltman (1971) introduced the idea
of marketing to include the non-tangible products such as ‘social
marketing’ . Here, the principles were trying to diffuse socially

248
beneficial ideas that do not necessarily entailed with the sale of
commercial products. Marketing concepts thus are integrated with
healthy life styles and environmental concerned to consumers. In
other words today, market research examined data beyond the
purchasing behaviors.

(iii) How much the diffusion theory is useful to us?

The diffusion ideas according to Rogers in his books and lectures,
which were initiated in the early years in US and Europe soon spread
very fast in the other developing nations like Latin America, Africa,
China and Asia. The fact that the diffusion ideas were very much
encouraged in the field such as agriculture, family planning, public
health and nutrition, were very much well suited to the developing
nations agendas not to mention it has its application in the industrial
world too. In Malaysia and Indonesia for example the diffusion ideas
went into the field of population studies such as the national family
planning and agricultural extension divisions projects went to the
rural sectors like Mada in Kedah, Jangka in Pahang, FELDA in Johore
and many other states in Malaysia in the 1970’s and 1980’s.

The diffusion did gained acceptance in many developing

nations for several reasons as follows:
First, by studying the diffusion of innovation ideas in the developing
nations like the Latin America’s, Asia, India and China, in the early
years, gradually we realized that although there were certain
limitations do existed with the diffusion framework, this theory is
apparently not a cultural or disciplinary bounded. The trend towards
more unified and cross-disciplinary research in diffusion has continue
then and until today. And every diffusion scholar is also fully aware of
the parallel methodologies and results found in the other traditions.
This paper is the manifestation of the other potential applications
especially in the field of new media technology and media studies.
This is very encouraging indeed.

249
Secondly, the other significant attraction among many scholars
who are interested in the diffusion ideas is the increased interest in
the aspects of organization processes. In another words this theory
is also capable of providing some explanations as to the process of
how organizational decision-making made by individuals, groups
and organizations.

(iv) What is the underlying contributing factors that help to

explain certain innovations are more successful than others ?
As indicated earlier in this paper, the initial diffusion ideas was
initiated as far back as early as in 1940’s. Rogers (1983) while
working at the diffusion of hybrid corn project among Iowa farmers
at the Iowa State University, made significant refinement on the
model and later popularized the theory. He provided us with a very
detailed construction of the theory of diffusion of innovation’s
model.

In order to help understand the model fully , two factors that we have
to take into account. First we have to understand two important
facets of the model, namely we have to examine the model’s
characteristics and secondly we have to understand the rate in
which the model gets diffused or adopted or not adopted.

(a) What is Diffusion?

Diffusion is the process by which innovation is communicated
through certain channels over time among the members of a social
system (Rogers,1983:5). This is a special type of innovation , in
which the massages are concerned with spreading of new ideas. It
is this newness of the idea in the content message that gives the
diffusion a special character. The newness means that to some
degree some form of uncertainty is involved. Uncertainty implies
the lack of predictability with respect to probability of alternatives
chosen.

250
(b) The main elements of in the Diffusion of Innovation’s Model.

The beauty of the diffusion model is on the dissemination of new

ideas (innovations) as propagated by this theory and the concepts
that allows the process of social change of to occur. The basic idea
of the diffusion lies on the S-shape curve model as illustrated in
Figure 1.1 below:

Figure 1.1. The S-shape Curve Diffusion Model It the process by which
(1) an innovation (2) is communicated through certain channels
(3) over time (4) among members of a social system.
(extracted form Rogers’s Diffusion of Innovation’s Model : page 11)

As explained earlier the diffusion model takes into account four major
elements of the diffusion ideas such as (1.1) it must be classified
as an innovation, (1.2) it must be communicated through certain
channels, (1.3) it takes into account the duration or time factor and
(1.4) lastly it must be adopted among members of within the social
system. These criteria must be met if the innovation is to ‘take off’
as predicted according to the S-shape as illustrated above.
E.g how innovations were applied in the field of marketing &
advertising.

251
Firstly, the diffusion starts with an innovation. An innovation could
be an idea, practice (e.g. services) , object (e.g. product) that is
perceived as ‘new’ by individuals who wishes to adopted the idea.
It matters little whether the ideas involve is a new knowledge or
not, as long as it ‘must be perceived’ by the potential adopters as
‘something new which they have not heard before’ and must be
seen desirable to be adopted.

In the field of international marketing and advertising for example

the concept of 4 P’s (product, price, promotion, place) have been
redefined into something the something ‘new’ in the local market.
Product are classified for example into various categories such
as product ‘standardization’ and product ‘specialization’ in order
to make it relevant to local market (Kotler and Grey. 1993:221)
That product relevancy has been translated into the concept of
‘newness’ or in short innovativeness to enter the local market and is
often done either through product adoption as described by Mueller
(1996:27-33) as follows:

(a) Mandatory product adaptation (i.e. it refers to situations in

which international company adapts its product’s requirements to
the local environment such as – e.g. frozen food cannot be marketed
in countries where retailers do not have freezer storage facilities.
Freezer for storage facilities is considered as adaptation of an
innovation.

(b) Discretionary product adaptation (i.e. it refers to imposition

requirements imposed by the country’s authority – e.g. food
products to be sold to the Muslim consumers in Malaysia and
many other Muslim countries must carries the the Ministry’s
endorsement for hallal (permissible for Muslim to consume) food
sign on the product’s label. Hallal labeling is part of the adaptation of
an innovation.

252
(c) New product development (i.e. it refers to development of new
products specifically geared to the needs and suitability of the local
market –e.g Heinz developed a special rice line of rice based baby
foods for the China’s market or the Pepsi ‘tarek’ for the Malaysian
market by adding the component of coffee or ‘Maharaja Masala
Pizza’ (hot and spicy taste) by the Pizza Hut for the local market.
Added recipes are an added innovation. Adaptation were made on
products sold to specific markets.

The interpretation of ‘newness’ also includes the idea of

(d) the country of the product origin (i.e it refers to the product
country of origin –e.g. French perfume Channel No 5 or Este’ Lauder’s
Elizabeth Taylor ‘Poison’ perfume from New York. The country of
product’s origin in itself sometimes is considered as an innovation.

In the case of product distribution, innovativeness has been in the

form of the following distribution strategies:

(a) Licensing (i.e. a company was offered a licensee in foreign market

rights to operate or manufacture or market its product.

(b) Management contract (i.e. foreign firm assign local firms to

supply the management or know-how to foreign firm who are willing
to invest capital in the local firm to operate in the local market.

(c) Foreign assembly – (i.e. knock down assembly plant of various

products e.g foreign cars assembly plants in the local market.

(d) Contract manufacturing which involves manufacturing of the

firm’s products produced locally for the foreign market – e.g many
Free trade Zone companies in many developing countries a part of
promotional mode of innovativeness.

253
(e) Joint ownerships (i.e this refers to the process by which two
or more firms in the different countries joint forces to create
local business in which they share joint ownership and control of
management, marketing and services – e.g in the Sultanate of
Oman – the Oman Marketing LLC company for Honda, Saud Bahwan
for Toyata, Sohil Bahwan LLC for Nissan Zawawi for Mercedes, Naza
Motor Sdn. Bhd for KIA or Pantai Medical Groups just to name few,
with the foreign participation in the Holdings. This joint partnership
as part of the innovation.

The above are some of the current examples of how innovations

were diffused taking into account the environmental strategies
in which business operates penetrating taking advantage of the
availability of the local markets.

(v) What would be the significant factors learned from this theory?
Rogers (1993:211-236) itemized other characteristics of
innovations as being perceived by individuals quite differently. This
helps to explain the different rate of adoptions . He explained that
the reasons for the different rate of adoption of any innovations
differs are because of the following reasons namely:

(a) relative advantage – that is the degree of which an innovation

must be perceived to be better than the idea it supersedes. The
greater the perceived relative advantage of an innovation the more
rapid its rate of adoption is going to be.

(b) Compatibility – that is the degree to which an innovation is

perceived as being consistent with the existing values, past
experience and needs of potential adopters. The greater the
compatibility the faster the rate of adoption.

(c) Complexity – that is the degree to which the innovation is

perceived to be difficult to understand or to use. In other words the

254
more simpler the innovation for understanding it will be more rapidly
adopted than innovation that require more complex understanding.
More complex understanding require the adopter to develop new
skills thus the rate of understanding, slows down the process of the
diffusion,

(d) Trialability – that is the degree to which an innovation may be

experimented on a trial basis before it really convince large majority
of the adopters. If the innovation is not tested it is likely that the
innovation will not succeed as expected,

(e) Observability – that is the degree to which the results of an

innovation are visible to others. The easier for individuals to see the
results of an innovation the more convincing the innovation to be
adopted.

In general, innovations that are perceived by the adopters as having

greater relative advantage, compatibility, trialability, observability,
and less complexity the innovation will be, the more rapidly the
innovations will be adopted by individuals.

Secondly, the diffusion model describes the use of communication

channels as a process of creating group participations. In other
words individual adopters must have the knowledge and experience
and these two factors must be communicated , transmit or transfer
to each other. This dependence on the communicated experience
suggest that the heart of the diffusion process is a process of
network relationships. One support the other by means of certain
attributes such as beliefs, education, social status and the like. They
must share common meanings, share mutual benefits. Failure to do
this, innovation is bound to fail.

Thirdly, the factor of time. Time is an important factor in the

diffusion process. The time dimension specifically referring to the

255
length of time from which an innovation is fully convinced by the
adopters from one stage to believability to the other stage that
than led to the process of decision-making. There are five steps to
decision-making process that happened in the diffusion model.
They are namely: knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation
and confirmation. The occurrences takes place perhaps in a linear
format.

Fourthly, theinnovation model takes into account of the involvement

of innovations among members within the social system. Meaning
that the accomplishment is not an individual achievement alone.
It must be supported by the structure within the social system
to support the innovation. A system has a structure and pattern
of arrangements within our social system. A decision of adoption
begins on at individual level, then collective level, then choices are
made based authority imposition.

(vi) What would be the rate or speed of adoption process?.

The issue of innovativeness is the degree to which an individual
adopt the new innovation. It refers to the question of how fast the
rate of diffusion is being adopted and this adoption would be based
on the S-curve model as illustrated by Rogers (1983: 22). The
rate of adoption is usually measured status and by the length of
time required for certain percentage of the members of a system
to adopt an innovation. In other words the rate of adoption of an
innovation might vary in different social system depending on the
commonality of characteristics of the innovation as illustrated
above. The more common the characteristic the faster the rate of
adoption would be.

These categories could be classified into five different levels of

adoption as follows : (i) innovators (ii) early adopters, (iii) early
majority, (iv) late majority and (v) laggards. (refer to Table 1.1)

256
The innovators are the first group of adopters who initiated an
innovation with in the system. They play a gate keeping roles in the
flow of this new ideas. This groups normally belongs to 2.5 % batch
or early birds. The early adopters are the second batch of adopters
who are convince with the ideas initiated by the early innovators.
Early adopters normally belongs to 13.5 percent grouping. Early
majority adopts new ideas just before the majority adopts the idea.
This group normally occupied about 34 percent Late majority on
the other hand implies that this group adopts new ideas fairly late
because they are very much skeptical in the beginning. As time
proceed they then joint the main stream of adopters. Laggard are
those who adopt the innovation last. This grouping consistent of
about 16 %. This is the last batch of adopters.
In conclusion, the pace of innovation depended on the different
level that individuals belief in adoption itself.

(vii) What would be the major criticisms of the diffusion research ?

Although the diffusion theory arguably is an excellent example of
the middle range theory where by it successfully contributes and
integrates vast amount of empirical research. Rogers in 1993
reviewed thousands of studies (Baran & Davis 2003:168-170)

The diffusion ideas also made many implicit assumptions resulting in

limiting its use. Like any other information flow theory, the diffusion
model is a source dominated theory that see innovations from the
point of view of the uses of the adoption process and not from the
receiver’s point of view. Thus this theory provides us with better
strategies for overcoming barriers to innovations.

The diffusion of innovation was very influential in 1950’s to 1970’s

especially to spread agricultural innovations strategies leading to
the green revolution for many of the developing world. In African
and Indian continent including that of Malaysia and Indonesia the

257
diffusion ideas were used for agricultural extension and for national
family planning. In the west marketing theories and promotional
campaigns supports the diffusion ideas (Baran & Davis, 2003:
170).

Despite of its usefulness, limitations of the diffusion theory is also

serious. It had some unique drawbacks in terms of its applications.
For example, diffusion of ideas often assumed that adoption of
innovations were well understood as desired by adopters. But
sometimes in reality this is not the case. Vary often adopters fail
to understand the innovation itself. For example farmers in India
destroy their crops by using too much fertilizer. Farmers in Mada
Scheme Malaysia adopted complex new machinery for harvesting
padi (rice crop) only to have the machines break down and stand idle
after the change agents left the scheme. Children of the Jangka’s
scheme, FELDA’s (Malaysia) scheme nationwide left the scheme
for non–agricultural jobs in bigger towns, leaving the old folks to
continue managing the scheme instead of their children replacing
them in the field. ‘Bright lights’ of the city attracts the young more
than the rural farming. As a result commercial rural farming were
disrupted. These problems however, has created manpower gaps
which was not anticipated in the equations of rural development..
Thus sustainable flow of new and innovative work force was
interrupted.

In the case of State of Sarawak (Malaysia) , ‘shifting cultivating’

(clearing of virgin jungles for the purpose of farming from place
to place ) continues as being practice in rural Sarawak as soon
the government’s change agent left the ‘longhouses’ where they
lived instead of the fixed farming. These kinds of experiences
being repeated in many other parts of the world especially in Brazil.
Therefore the diffusion of innovations didn’t guarantee long lasting
success.

258
In the case of new media communication technology like computers,
the evolution of the invention – e.g micro chips like 8086, 8088, 286,
386, 486, Pentium 1,2, 3,4 (with dual core) and core 2 duo by itself
often times supersede what the users can adopt in terms of financial
investment. Another example the mobile phone. Sets bought today
– in due short period of time are already obsolete. That is the nature
of fast growth technology.

Rogers (1983) and many other scholars of innovations suggested

that the diffusion effort in order to be successful need the services
of the opinion leader, a concept of using catalysts known as change
agents. That is relying heavily on people who could go out and directly
influence early adopters as indicated in Table 1.1 earlier. This stage
of the diffusion ideas is critical to the success the model as it relies
on the creation of critical mass among early adopters of about 20
percent ‘take off’ point’. Failure to achieve the expected rate,
innovation would likely bound to fail. Innovation is not automatic. It
relies on a critical mass for a take off.

(vii) The Future of Diffusion of Innovations studies?

What would be the future of innovation studies. Like any other
theories, the diffusion theory despite of its shortcomings it has
been proven to be useful as indicated in Table 1.1 it has applications
on wide range of different fields of social sciences. After all it is only
a tool we could benefited from. As long as it is useful and able to help
us explain the phenomena that we are studying the diffusion ideas
and model would be useful to us. Understanding its strength and
weaknesses helps us become more sensitive of its usefulness and
avoiding shortcomings. We have to go on finding new explanations
and usefulness of this theory while it last. Perhaps there are other
explanations which were not revealed by the diffusion scholars.
The late Everett Rogers (2004) has initiated a clear path for us to
further investigate new explanations and new paradigms need to be
rediscover taking off from where the diffusion scholars have left us.

259
Conclusion:

In this short paper I have attempted to trace the growth and analyze
the popularity of the theory of diffusion mainly from the theoretical
point of view. It has helps us explain the characteristics and the rate
of any innovation adoption. As illustrated in this paper the beauty
of this model is not culturally or disciplinary bounded theory. It is
a theory applicable to cross cultural and multi-disciplinary. It is a
theory that could accommodate both the tangible and the non-
tangle items of innovations. It provides us with a useful explanations
of a social phenomena in field of social sciences without being
dogmatically attached to certain ideology.

In short this theory has direct implications on the development and

expansion of the new media communication technology worldwide.
It has the potential means of explaining some of the phenomena as
illustrated in this model.

260
References:

Baran, S & Davis, D. K. (2003) (3ed) Mass communication theory.

Belmont, CA : Wads/Thomson Learning.
Homles, D (2005). Communication theory: Media. Technology and
society. Thousand Oks, CA : Sage Publications Inc.
Griffin, E (2000) A first look at the communication theories.
NY: McGraw Hill Companies.
Jones, J. P (2000) International advertising: Realities and myths.
Thousand Oks : Sage Publications Inc.
Kotler, P & Armstrong, G (1993).(3ed) Marketing: An introduction.
Englwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice – Hall.
Muller, B (1996) International advertising. Communication cross
cultures. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Rogers, E. M. (1983) (3ed) The diffusion of innovations. New York:
Free Press.
Severin, W & Tankard, J. W. (1997) (4ed) Communication theories:
Origins, methods, and uses in mass media. White Plains,
NY :Longman Publishers.
Windahl, S, Singintzer, B & Olson, J. T (2000) Using Communication
theory. Thousand Oks, CA : Sage Publications Inc

261