Larsen, G D (2005) Horses for courses: Relating innovation diffusion concepts to the stages of the diffusion process. Construction Management and Economics, 23(8), pp. 787-792. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
The research uses a sociological perspective to build an improved, context specific understanding of innovation diffusion within the UK construction industry. It is argued there is an iterative interplay between actors and the social system they occupy that directly influences the diffusion process as well as the methodology adopted. The research builds upon previous findings that argued a level of best fit for the three innovation diffusion concepts of cohesion, structural equivalence and thresholds. That level of best fit is analysed here using empirical data from the UK construction industry. This analysis allows an understanding of how the relative importance of these concepts' actually varies within the stages of the innovation diffusion process. The conclusion that the level of relevance fluctuates in relation to the stages of the diffusion process is a new development in the field.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | actor; cohesion; diffusion stages; innovation; structural equivalence; structure; thresholds |
| Index terms: | methodology, cohesion, relative importance, innovation diffusion, construction industry, social system |
| Subjects: | risk assessment, research methods, structural engineering, social theory, sociology, industry analysis |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Engineering Principles, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here