Graduation Speech My Dad Is A Mechanical Engineer...

I want to get a degree in civil engineering because I feel that it is important to pursue a career that I can be passionate about. My dad is a mechanical engineer project manager and sparked my interest in engineering at a young age. I have always enjoyed learning about the different projects that he has worked on and the constant problem-solving aspect of his job. I became interested in civil engineering, particularly coastal and structural engineering. Our society’s demands are always changing and civil engineers constantly work to evolve and improve the environment around us. The need for building, repairing, rebuilding, and expanding will ensure vast possibilities for a civil engineer and a promising and exciting career. Being in the UNCW Engineering transfer program with NCSU has given me an incredible amount of drive to focus on where I want to be in five years and what I need to do to get there. I can benefit from the diverse perspectives and experiences of the NC Stat e community by having the opportunity to communicate and work with people from various backgrounds. Talking to people who have lived through different experiences, learned things in a way unlike my own, or grown up with different beliefs or cultures can allow me to become more open-minded about the world and the community. It is more beneficial to know two different points of view if you hope to gain a greater understanding of something. I can even gain a better understanding of my own culture byShow MoreRelatedProject Mgmt296381 Words   |  1186 PagesCross Reference of Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) Concepts to Text Topics Chapter 1 Modern Project Management Chapter 8 Scheduling resources and cost 1.2 Project defined 1.3 Project management defined 1.4 Projects and programs (.2) 2.1 The project life cycle (.2.3) App. G.1 The project manager App. G.7 Political and social environments F.1 Integration of project management processes [3.1] 6.5.2 Setting a schedule baseline [8.1.4] 6.5.3.1 Setting a resource schedule 6.5.2.4 ResourceRead MoreDeveloping Management Skills404131 Words   |  1617 PagesEditor: Kim Norbuta Editorial Project Manager: Claudia Fernandes Director of Marketing: Patrice Lumumba Jones Marketing Manager: Nikki Ayana Jones Senior Marketing Assistant: Ian Gold Senior Managing Editor: Judy Leale Senior Production Project Manager: Kelly Warsak Senior Operations Supervisor: Arnold Vila Operations Specialist: Ilene Kahn Senior Art Director: Janet Slowik Interior Design: Suzanne Duda and Michael Fruhbeis Permissions Project Manager: Shannon Barbe Manager, Cover Visual Research Read MoreInnovators Dna84615 Words   |  339 Pagesidentifying behaviors of the world’s best innovators—from leaders at Amazon and Apple to those at Google, Skype, and Virgin Group—the authors outline ve discovery skills that distinguish innovative entrepreneurs and executives from ordinary managers: Associating, Questioning, Observing, Networking, and Experimenting. Once you master these competencies (the authors provide a self assessment for rating your own innovator’s DNA), the authors explain how you can generate ideas, collaborateRead MoreThe Five Dysfunctions of a Team a Leadership Fable46009 Words   |  185 PagesPublished by Jossey-Bass A Wiley Imprint 989 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94103-1741 www.josseybass.com No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriateRead MoreStephen P. Robbins Timothy A. Judge (2011) Organizational Behaviour 15th Edition New Jersey: Prentice Hall393164 Words   |  1573 PagesTaipei Tokyo Editorial Director: Sally Yagan Director of Editorial Services: Ashley Santora Acquisitions Editor: Brian Mickelson Editorial Project Manager: Sarah Holle Editorial Assistant: Ashlee Bradbury VP Director of Marketing: Patrice Lumumba Jones Senior Marketing Manager: Nikki Ayana Jones Senior Managing Editor: Judy Leale Production Project Manager: Becca Groves Senior Operations Supervisor: Arnold Vila Operations Specialist: Cathleen Petersen Senior Art Director: Janet Slowik Art Director:Read MoreFundamentals of Hrm263904 Words   |  1056 PagesAccount Manager Training and implementation support www.wileyplus.com/accountmanager MAKE IT YOURS! Fundamentals of Human Resource Management Tenth Edition David A. DeCenzo Coastal Carolina University Conway, SC Stephen P. Robbins San Diego State University San Diego, CA Tenth Edition Contributor Susan L. Verhulst Des Moines Area Community College Ankeny, IA John Wiley Sons, Inc. Associate Publisher Executive Editor Senior Editoral Assistant Marketing Manager MarketingRead MoreLogical Reasoning189930 Words   |  760 Pagesadvice, etc. Dowden gets the balance and the emphasis right. Norman Swartz, Simon Fraser University v Acknowledgments For the 1993 edition: The following friends and colleagues deserve thanks for their help and encouragement with this project: Clifford Anderson, Hellan Roth Dowden, Louise Dowden, Robert Foreman, Richard Gould, Kenneth King, Marjorie Lee, Elizabeth Perry, Heidi Wackerli, Perry Weddle, Tiffany Whetstone, and the following reviewers: David Adams, California State PolytechnicRead MoreMarketing Mistakes and Successes175322 Words   |  702 PagesMARKETING MISTAKES AND SUCCESSES 30TH ANNIVERSARY Robert F. Hartley Cleveland State University JOHN WILEY SONS, INC. VICE PRESIDENT PUBLISHER EXECUTIVE EDITOR ASSISTANT EDITOR PRODUCTION MANAGER PRODUCTION ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE MARKETING MANAGER ASSISTANT MARKETING MANAGER MARKETING ASSISTANT DESIGN DIRECTOR SENIOR DESIGNER SENIOR MEDIA EDITOR George Hoffman Lise Johnson Carissa Doshi Dorothy Sinclair Matt Winslow Amy Scholz Carly DeCandia Alana Filipovich Jeof

The Tragedy Of Dante s Inferno - 1439 Words

Dante’s Inferno’s central theme is God sees all of the sins people partake in their lives. Once you enter hell you will be punished for those sins according to the severity. You will endure a punishment that matches the sin you committed. Dante’s Inferno is a very imaginative way to look at crime and punishment. The story is made up of three different parts told by three people. A pilgrim is lead on journey by Virgil, Beatrice, and Saint Bernard. Virgil takes him through Hell and the Purgatory. Hell was created when Satan fell from heaven and became lodged into the center of the earth. The mountain of Purgatory was created when land was pushed down into the earth opposite the future site of Jerusalem where a passage was created and lead to the southern hemisphere as a result of Satan’s fall into the earth. Beatrice takes him through Paradise. Paradise sits on top of the Purgatory and is where Adam and Eve first dwelt Eden. Bernard prepares him for his fin al union with the godhead. The union with the godhead is the end of the journey when the pilgrim experiences love and reason. Hell is made up of nine different levels and each houses different severity of sins and the people who occupy these levels endure a different punishment. As the crime gets worse on each level the punishment is also more sever. The nine levels of Hell are Limbo, Lustful, Gluttonous, Avaricious, Wrathful, Heretics, Violent, Ordinary Fraud, and Treacherous Fraud. These are listed from the lesser sinfulShow MoreRelatedThe Tragedy Of Dante s Inferno1526 Words   |  7 Pagesof this full entanglement is out of reach these many years later. The book that left the resounding feelings of excitement and sorrow was Dante’s Inferno. Written at a time in his life filled with grief and displacement, with the feeling of betrayal looming over him, a glimpse of understanding starts to illuminate the first strands of his web. Dante draws from a vast amount of sources to compile his poem. The combined influence of the Jewish concept of Sheol, the Christian idea of a lake of fireRead MoreThe Tragedy Of Dante s Inferno954 Words   |  4 PagesDante’s Inferno is an amazing nonfiction piece that was meant to vindicate many lessons to its readers. As well as, depict what Dante believed hell to be, and express some of his concerns with divine justice, and the appropriate punishments for the crimes committed. While reading this epic piece it spoke in many ways, and it addresses similar issues that are still prevalent in current culture. This religious allegory seems to focus on punishments, and how it should equal up to the wrong that wasRead MoreThe Tragedy Of Dante s Inferno1016 Words   |  5 PagesDante’s Inferno is heavily based on the social and political downgrade of Rome in the 14th century. The poet recognized that civilians in his own city-state were idolizing corrupt politicians and giv ing into their sinful temptations. Political and religious stability were crumbling and as a result order disintegrated, many started to claim to be the Pope, people were idolizing wealth and corruption, and a majority of relationships were stemmed from adultery. As a result, throughout his cantos, DanteRead MoreThe Divine Comedy By Dante Alighieri873 Words   |  4 PagesDivine Comedy† is an epic poem written by Dante Alighieri. He wrote the epic sometime between 1308 and 1321, the year he died. It is considered one of the greatest works of world literature. He wrote â€Å"The Divine Comedy† while he was exiled from Florence, Italy (Bishops 182). â€Å"The Divine Comedy† recounts Dante’s idea of the afterlife. It is written in a first person perspective and follows Dante’s journey through Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven. At the time Dante wrote the Divine Comedy, Italy was goingRead MoreThe Divine Comedy : Inferno Ira2454 Words   |  10 PagesThe D ivine Comedy: Inferno IRA by Dante Alighieri Summary: (Exposition) Midway through his life, Dante finds himself lost from his true way, wandering through a dark and savage forest. He finds a mountain, after which a divine light shines upon him, encouraging him to go up it. But he is stopped by three malicious creatures and is only saved when a man finds him. The man identifies himself to Dante as Virgil (a great Roman poet), and reveals that his lost love Beatrice (and two others) has wishedRead MoreThe Hollow Men And The Love Song Of J. Alfred Prufrock Essay1444 Words   |  6 PagesT. S. Eliot’s modernist style critiques the lifestyle of modern society during the Roaring Twenties. He expresses the false values found in society that affects their perception of themselves, and cause them to lose direction in their lives. Through his poems â€Å"The Hollow Men† and â€Å"The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock† Eliot explores the modern underlying issues of both society and man as being lost, stagnant, and aimless. He a dvocates for change through de-romanticizing the human condition via theRead MoreThe Allegory Of The Cave Proposed By Plato1595 Words   |  7 Pageshelp of a philosopher to go through the long path, they can go out of the cave and see the outside world. The slaves are considered as the average person, a person whose life is driven by desire, and follows what the society says, like a person that’ s blind and has lived all his/her life in shadows. This person cannot free itself because he/she does not know that there they are looking at shadows and not true objects. The cave masters are the people who have more education or more power, but use themRead More Francescas Style in Canto V of Dantes Inferno Essay5060 Words   |  21 PagesFrancescas Style in Canto V of Dantes Inferno Canto V of Dantes Inferno begins and ends with confession. The frightening image of Minos who  «confesses » the damned sinners and then hurls them down to their eternal punishment contrasts with the almost familial image of Francesca and Dante, who confess to one another. In a real sense confession seems to be defective or inadequate in Hell. The huddled masses who declare their sins to Minos do so because they are compelled to declareRead MoreFire And Ice By Robert Frost1349 Words   |  6 Pagesbeing desire or passion and ice being hatred and deceit. Although this poem is one of his shortest poems with only nine lines, it is also one of the most famous works that he has ever created. The poem Fire and Ice was written in the early 1920 s and was published in 1923. World War I was the biggest war of its time and was meant to be the war that ended all wars. In the year 1914, an Austrian Archduke named Franz Ferdinand was assassinated by a Serbian nationalist. This incident sparked manyRead MoreHomosexuality in Victorian and Elizabethan Literature.6608 Words   |  27 Pagesthough it has weakened, it still affects people in todays society. It even dates back to the Renaissance days, and is presented by Dante Aligheri is his Inferno. And for this reason doth the smallest round/ Seal with its signet Sodom[...]†. Sodom is a city known for crude sexual acts, which is where sodomy gets its name from. Since the Inferno is a world created by Dante, he believes that sodomy is a sin that is worse than suicide, and decides to put it just before the entrance to the Eighth Circle

Clinical Psychology Mental Health Problems

Question: Describe about the Clinical Psychology for Mental Health Problems. Answer: Table 1: Sources of Relevant Information and analysis of Bias and Credibility Sources reference details: Author, Year, Title Indication of where in the essay the material will be used Bias AgainstFor Credibility NoviceExpert 1. Lebowitz, M.S., Ahn, W.K. and Nolen-Hoeksema, S., 2013. Fixable or fate? Perceptions of the biology of depression.Journal of consulting and clinical psychology,81(3), p.518. https://psycnet.apa.org/journals/ccp/81/3/518/ The material will be used in describing attributes of biochemical on depression and some of the symptoms for depression The source is not biased since it shows both pessimism and prognostic biological accounts of depression. The source is credible. The authors are professionals in psychology and all are well experienced. 2. Flint, J. and Kendler, K.S., 2014. The genetics of major depression.Neuron,81(3), pp.484-503. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627314000580 The material is used on part of biology of depression to show that through genes inherited from parents such as those that have depression can have impact on children born. The source uses both genomes of parents of male and female and thus it is not biased. The source is reliable and credible. The authors are holders of PhD in psychology. 3. Heck, N.C., 2015. The potential to promote resilience: Piloting a minority stress-informed, GSA-based, mental health promotion program for LGBTQ youth.Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity,2(3), p.225. https://psycnet.apa.org/journals/sgd/2/3/225/ The material is used on part where resilience can be enhanced. The article is biased since it majored on bisexual people such as lesbian and thus the information being used is less. Also, it uses a culture of USA instead of focusing on the whole world. The source is credible. Author Heck is a holder of PHD in psychology. 4. Mind Matters. 2013 Model 1.3: Protective and risks factors https://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=4cad=rjauact=8ved=0ahUKEwiu5LbImdbPAhWJWhoKHfiCCOYQFgg0MAMurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.who.int%2Fmental_health%2Fmhgap%2Frisks_to_mental_health_EN_27_08_12.pdfusg=AFQjCNGI2HqJVTsIe2hL1y2a5IOttN3G1Asig2=SzUKn9ncMHw4L7qBFpDGDQ The material is used on the part of the risk factors that contribute to mental illness. The source presented the protective and risks factors of mental illness and thus the source were not biased at all. A mind matter is a journal of psychology that deals on everything about mind and the site was credible. 5. Aneshensel, C.S., Phelan, J.C. and Bierman, A., 2013. The sociology of mental health: Surveying the field. InHandbook of the sociology of mental health(pp. 1-19). Springer Netherlands. https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-94-007-4276-5_1 The material was used on the part of mood disorder where social culture has effect on the mental illness of individuals. Both cultures are looked at from western sides and also on other parts like Africa and thus the article is not bias on cultures. Aneshensel, Phenal Bierman are sociologists who major on things that affects society and are more experienced on the field thus the article is reliable. 6. Kellie Lewis, GM Wellbing. 2014. Creative Activation: The Importance of Resilience p(5).https://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=6cad=rjauact=8 ved=0ahUKEwjfmOvvodbPAhXEA8AKHVLJBeEQFgg6MAUurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcreativeactivation.com.au%2Fthe-importance-of-resilience%2Fusg=AFQjCNFlA7DplthJW7UYkZQPBRZZG2VWrgsig2=bU-IKEB3DfDCa4sqlnuVRA The material is used on the part of importance of high level of resilience. The article is focused on one side of importance of resilience rather than focusing on both sides thus the article is biased. The article is credible since the two authors Kellie and Wellbing are holders of bachelor of psychology and have formed their own blogs. Source Analysis Mental Health Problem Essay Sources Analysis Biology of Depression Article to be evaluated: Website: Journal of consulting and clinical psychology - https://psycnet.apa.org/journals/ccp/81/3/518/ Evidence of High credibility The source is developed by Lebowitz, Ahn, and Nolen-Hokeksema and it is reliable. The experienced authors are professionals in psychology having a PhD on it and thus the article is expected to have some reliability. Mental Health Problem Essay Sources Analysis Protective and Risks Factors Article to be evaluated: Website: Journal of Psychology in mind matters https://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=4cad=rjauact=8ved=0ahUKEwiu5LbImdbPAhWJWhoKHfiCCOYQFgg0MAMurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.who.int%2Fmental_health%2Fmhgap%2Frisks_to_mental_health_EN_27_08_12.pdfusg=AFQjCNGI2HqJVTsIe2hL1y2a5IOttN3G1Asig2=SzUKn9ncMHw4L7qBFpDGDQ Evidence of bias towards my issue There are risk factors that contribute to the mental illness of a person. The article is not bias on one side rather it exploits both protective factors and risks factors of mental health illness. The protective factors are those of individuals such as physical health, family such as supportive relationships, peers such as positive influence, school such as chances for participation and also on the community such as economic security. On the other hand, risk factors increase the likelihood of having mental illness. The individuals ones are such as low self-worth, family such as lack of warmth and affection, peers such as poor and negative influence, school such as poor relationship between the teacher and the student and also community such as discrimination in the society and racism. Mental Health Problem Essay Sources Analysis Promoting Resilience Article to be evaluated: Website: journal of Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity https://psycnet.apa.org/journals/sgd/2/3/225/ Evidence of Bias against my Issue The information was bias. It was given based on enhancing and promoting resilience on bisexual genders such as lesbians and gays thus it was not enough for me since there was little on the mental health of individuals. If the article had not specialized on them it could have been a good source. On the other hand, it focuses on a culture of northeastern United States instead on dwelling on whole cultures of the world.

Cost Estimates For European Tour Essay Example For Students

Cost Estimates For European Tour Essay March 15-Day One the group will be leaving Orlando International Airport by planeon Flight 212 leaving for Madrid, Spain. Price = $418. 00March 18-Day four the group will be leaving Madrid by plane on flight 86 for Paris,France. Price = $288.00March 21- Day seven the group will be leaving Paris International by plane on flight124 for Geneva, Switzerland. Price = $130. 00March 24- Day ten the group will leave Geneva by plane on flight 584 for Vienna,Austria. Price = $150.00March 27- Day thirteen the group will be leaving for its final destinationfrom Vienna by plane on flight 56 for Berlin, Germany. Price = $200. 00Cost Estimates For LoggingMadrid, Spain March 16-17 Hotel Serrano Suite $500.00, $60.00 for eachadditional person per night. Breakfast and dinner included. Breakfastincludes assorted breads, Dinner menu will be soup and chicken for the firstnight, the second night, dinner will include the traditional Spanish platetapass a 7 course meal. Cost in pesetas = 159700.80P $1.00=142. 59PParis, France March 19-20 Hotel la Tour Maubourg double bed $200.00,$50.00 for each additional person per night. Breakfast included. Breakfastwill include croissants and sweet breads. For one of the nights there thegroup will go to a Cabaret featuring live entertainment this is a present fromthe establishment. The other night they will be given $50.00 to go to a cafe orrestaurant were they will be able to have soups rare meats and fantasticdeserts. Price in Francs = 3080.00F $1.00=5.60FBern, Switzerland March 22-23 Hotel Bern suite $550. 00, $70 for eachadditional person per night. Breakfast and Dinner included. Breakfast willinclude sweet breads and cereal. Dinner for the first night will include a 4course meal starting with soup, after soup assorted vegetables and meat, nextthere will be a salad and finishing off there will be dessert. The next nightwill be left up to the group $50.00 will be given for dinner expenses. Becausethis is in the German part of Switzerland the German mark will be a meansof money. Price in Marks = 2180. 10DM $1.00=1.69DMVienna, Austria March 25-26 Hotel Aclon suite $400.00, $50. 00 for eachadditional person per night. Breakfast and dinner included, the Vienna cafeis directly below the hotel. The dishes are varied from soups and sandwichesmeats and desserts. Price in AS = 10692. 00AS $1.00=11.88ASBerlin, Germany March 28-29 Hotel Alexander suite is $600.00, $50. 00 foreach additional person per night. Breakfast $15.00 dinner will be a little stepfor each night $53.85. Breakfast will include sweet breads, pies, cinnamonrolls, and eggs and sausage will be available if desired. Dinner will be servedat a nice restaurant, dinner will most likely include pasta dishes meats andvegetables. After the main courses dessert will be served, the first night willhave Apfelstrudel paper thin layers of pastry filled with apple slices, nuts,raisins and jam. The second night Gugelhupf a mounded cake with a hole inthe center, usually filled with raisons and almonds. Dinner will most likelybe the same or a little different. Price in Deutsch Marks = 2429.71DM $1.00=1. 69DMTotal Cost Estimate For European TripIn US dollars =$6633.70 Bibliography For Page Berlitz. German Dictionary, Berlitz 1996.

Diffusion of Innovations Essay Example

Diffusion of Innovations Essay The diffusion of innovations according to Rogers. With successive groups of consumers adopting the new technology (shown in blue), its market share (yellow) will eventually reach the saturation level. In mathematics the S curve is known as the logistic function. Diffusion of Innovations is a theory that seeks to explain how, why, and at what rate new ideas and technology spread through cultures. Everett Rogers, a professor of rural sociology, popularized the theory in his 1962 book Diffusion of Innovations.He said diffusion is the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system. The origins of the diffusion of innovations theory are varied and span multiple disciplines. Rogers (1962) espoused the theory that there are four main elements that influence the spread of a new idea: the innovation, communication channels, time, and a social system. This process relies heavily on human capital. The innovation must be wid ely adopted in order to self-sustain. Within the rate of adoption, there is a point at which an innovation reaches critical mass.The categories of adopters are: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards (Rogers 1962, p. 150). Diffusion of Innovations manifests itself in different ways in various cultures and fields and is highly subject to the type of adopters and innovation-decision process. The concept of diffusion was first studied by the French sociologist Gabriel Tarde (1890) and by German and Austrian anthropologists such as Friedrich Ratzel and Leo Frobenius. [1] Its basic epidemiological or internal-influence form was formulated by H.Earl Pemberton,[2] who provided examples of institutional diffusion such as postage stamps and standardized school ethic codes. In 1962 Everett Rogers, a professor of rural sociology published his work:Diffusion of Innovations. In this seminal piece, Rogers synthesized research from over 508 diffusion studies and pr oduced a theory applied to the adoption of innovations among individuals and organizations. Rogers work asserts that 4 main elements influence the spread of a new idea: the innovation, communication channels, time, and a social system. These elements work in onjunction with one another: diffusion is the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system. Rogers adds that central to this theory is process. Individuals experience 5 stages of accepting a new innovation: knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation. If the innovation is adopted, it spreads via various communication channels. During communication, the idea is rarely evaluated from a scientific standpoint; rather, subjective perceptions of the innovation influence diffusion.The process occurs over time. Finally, social systems determine diffusion, norms on diffusion, roles of opinion leaders and change agents, types of innovation deci sions, and innovation consequences. To use Rogers’ model in health requires us to assume that the innovation in classical diffusion theory is equivalent to scientific research findings in the context of practice, an assumption that has not been rigorously tested. How can we spread and sustain innovations in health service delivery and organization? Greenhalgh et al. evaluate an evidence-based model for considering the diffusion of innovations in health service organizations. [3] The origins of the diffusion of innovations theory are varied and span across multiple disciplines. Rogers identifies six main traditions that impacted diffusion research: anthropology, early sociology, rural sociology, education, industrial sociology, and medical sociology. The diffusion of innovation theory has been largely influenced by the work of rural sociologists. [4] In 1971, Rogers published a follow-up work: Communication of Innovations; A Cross-Cultural Approach. uilding on his original the ory on the diffusion process by evaluating social systems. This extension aimed to add value to Roger’s 1962 touchstone work (Rogers ;amp; Shoemaker, 1971). Elements[edit source  | editbeta] The key elements in diffusion research are: Element| Definition| Innovation| Rogers defines an innovation as an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption. [5]| Communication channels| A communication channel is the means by which messages get from one individual to another. 6]| Time| The innovation-decision period is the length of time required to pass through the innovation-decision process. [7] Rate of adoption is the relative speed with which an innovation is adopted by members of a social system. [8]| Social system| A social system is defined as a set of interrelated units that are engaged in joint problem solving to accomplish a common goal. [9]| Decisions[edit source  | editbeta] Two factors determine what type a particular dec ision is: * Whether the decision is made freely and implemented voluntarily, * Who makes the decision.Based on these considerations, three types of innovation-decisions have been identified within diffusion of innovations. Type| Definition| Optional Innovation-Decision| This decision is made by an individual who is in some way distinguished from others in a social system. | Collective Innovation-Decision| This decision is made collectively by all individuals of a social system. | Authority Innovation-Decision| This decision is made for the entire social system by few individuals in positions of influence or power. | Process[edit source  | editbeta]Diffusion of an innovation occurs through a five–step process. This process is a type of decision-making. It occurs through a series of communication channels over a period of time among the members of a similar social system. Ryan and Gross first indicated the identification of adoption as a process in 1943 (Rogers 1962, p. 79). Rogers five stages (steps): awareness, interest, evaluation, trial, and adoption are integral to this theory. An individual might reject an innovation at any time during or after the adoption process.Scholars such as Abrahamson (1991) examine this process critically by posing questions such as: How do technically inefficient innovations diffuse and what impedes technically efficient innovations from catching on? Abrahamson makes suggestions for how organizational scientists can more comprehensively evaluate the spread of innovations. [10] In later editions of the Diffusion of Innovations Rogers changes the terminology of the five stages to: knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation. However the descriptions of the categories have remained similar throughout the editions.Five stages of the adoption process| Stage| Definition| Knowledge| In this stage the individual is first exposed to an innovation but lacks information about the innovation. During this stage of the process the individual has not been inspired to find more information about the innovation. | Persuasion| In this stage the individual is interested in the innovation and actively seeks information/detail about the innovation. | Decision| In this stage the individual takes the concept of the change and weighs the advantages/disadvantages of using the innovation and decides whether to adopt or reject the innovation.Due to the individualistic nature of this stage Rogers notes that it is the most difficult stage to acquire empirical evidence (Rogers 1964, p. 83). | Implementation| In this stage the individual employs the innovation to a varying degree depending on the situation. During this stage the individual determines the usefulness of the innovation and may search for further information about it. | Confirmation| In this stage the individual finalizes his/her decision to continue using the innovation. This stage is both intrapersonal (may cause cognitive dissonance) and int erpersonal, confirmation the group has made the right decision. Rate of Adoption[edit source  | editbeta] The rate of adoption is defined as the relative speed in which members of a social system adopt an innovation. Rate is usually measured by the length of time required for a certain percentage of the members of a social system to adopt an innovation (Rogers 1962, p. 134). The rates of adoption for innovations are determined by an individual’s adopter category. In general, individuals who first adopt an innovation require a shorter adoption period (adoption process) when compared to late adopters.Within the rate of adoption, there is a point at which an innovation reaches critical mass. This is a point in time within the adoption curve that the amount of individuals adopters ensure that continued adoption of the innovation is self-sustaining. Illustrating how an innovation reaches critical mass, Rogers outlines several strategies in order to help an innovation reach this stage. Strategies to propel diffusion include: when an innovation adopted by a highly respected individual within a social network, creating an instinctive desire for a specific innovation.Also, injecting an innovation into a group of individuals who would readily use said technology, and provide positive reactions and benefits for early adopters of an innovation. Difference Between Diffusion and Adoption[edit source  | editbeta] Adoption is an individual process detailing the series of stages one undergoes from first hearing about a product to finally adopting it. The diffusion process, however, signifies a group of phenomena, which suggests how an innovation spreads among consumers. Overall, the diffusion process essentially encompasses the adoption process of several individuals over time.Adopter categories[edit source  | editbeta] Rogers defines an adopter category as a classification of individuals within a social system on the basis of innovativeness. In the book Diffusion of Innovations, Rogers suggests a total of five categories of adopters in order to standardize the usage of adopter categories in diffusion research. The adoption of an innovation follows an S curve when plotted over a length of time. [11] The categories of adopters are: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards (Rogers 1962, p. 50) In addition to the gatekeepers and opinion leaders who exist within a given community, there are change agents from outside the community. Change agents essentially bring innovations to new communities– ? rst through the gatekeepers, then through the opinion leaders, and so on through the community. Adopter category| Definition| Innovators| Innovators are the first individuals to adopt an innovation. Innovators are willing to take risks, youngest in age, have the highest social class, have great financial liquidity, are very social and have closest contact to scientific sources and interaction with other innovators.R isk tolerance has them adopting technologies which may ultimately fail. Financial resources help absorb these failures. (Rogers 1962 5th ed, p. 282)| Early adopters| This is the second fastest category of individuals who adopt an innovation. These individuals have the highest degree of opinion leadership among the other adopter categories. Early adopters are typically younger in age, have a higher social status, have more financial lucidity, advanced education, and are more socially forward than late adopters.More discrete in adoption choices than innovators. Realize judicious choice of adoption will help them maintain central communication position (Rogers 1962 5th ed, p. 283). | Early Majority| Individuals in this category adopt an innovation after a varying degree of time. This time of adoption is significantly longer than the innovators and early adopters. Early Majority tend to be slower in the adoption process, have above average social status, contact with early adopters, and seldom hold positions of opinion leadership in a system (Rogers 1962 5th ed, p. 83)| Late Majority| Individuals in this category will adopt an innovation after the average member of the society. These individuals approach an innovation with a high degree of skepticism and after the majority of society has adopted the innovation. Late Majority are typically skeptical about an innovation, have below average social status, very little financial lucidity, in contact with others in late majority and early majority, very little opinion leadership. | Laggards| Individuals in this category are the last to adopt an innovation.Unlike some of the previous categories, individuals in this category show little to no opinion leadership. These individuals typically have an aversion to change-agents and tend to be advanced in age. Laggards typically tend to be focused on traditions, likely to have lowest social status, lowest financial fluidity, be oldest of all other adopters, in contact with only family and close friends. | Rogers’ 5 Factors[edit source  | editbeta] Rogers defines several intrinsic characteristics of innovations that influence an individual’s decision to adopt or reject an innovation.Factor| Definition| Relative Advantage| How improved an innovation is over the previous generation. | Compatibility| The level of compatibility that an innovation has to be assimilated into an individual’s life. | Complexity or Simplicity| If the innovation is perceived as complicated or difficult to use, an individual is unlikely to adopt it. | Trialability| How easily an innovation may be experimented. If a user is able to test an innovation, the individual will be more likely to adopt it. | Observability| The extent that an innovation is visible to others.An innovation that is more visible will drive communication among the individual’s peers and personal networks and will in turn create more positive or negative reactions. | Failed Diffusion[ed it source  | editbeta] Rogers, in his Diffusion of Innovation writings, discussed a situation in Peru involving the implementation of water boiling to obtain higher health and wellness levels of the individuals living within the village of Los Molinas. The residents of the village have no knowledge of the link between particular sanitation and reduced levels of illness.The campaign was working with the villagers to try and teach them how to boil their water to make it healthier for consumption, as well as to burn their garbage, install working latrines, and report cases of illness to local health agencies. In Los Molinas, a stigma is linked to boiled water as being something that only the unwell consume, and thus, the idea of healthy residents boiling their water prior to consumption was frowned upon, and those who did so wouldnt be accepted by their society.Thus, the two-year campaign to help bring more sanitary ways of living to this village was considered to be largely unsucces sful. Much of the reason for the lack of success is because the social norms and standards of acceptance into society greatly outweighed the idea of taking on this innovation, even at the sake of the health, well-being, and greater levels of education to the villagers. This failure better exemplified the importance of the roles of the interpersonal communication channels that are involved in such a health-related campaign for social change.Burt, R. S. (1973) also looked at the process of diffusion in El Salvador and asks: Is there a differential influence exercised by social integration on participation in the diffusion process and is such influence, significant above that exerted by other important diffusion relevant variables? [12] Heterophily and communication channels[edit source  | editbeta] Lazarsfeld and Merton first called attention to the principles of homophily and its opposite, heterophily. 13] Using their definition, Rogers defines homophily as the degree to which pair s of individuals who interact are similar in certain attributes, such as beliefs, education, social status, and the like. [13] When given the choice, individuals usually choose to interact with someone similar to him or herself. [14] Furthermore, homophilous individuals engage in more effective communication because their similarities lead to greater knowledge gain as well as attitude or behavior change. 14] However, most participants in the diffusion of innovations are heterophilous, meaning they speak different languages, so to speak. [14] The problem is that diffusion requires a certain degree of heterophily; if two individuals are identical, no diffusion occurs because no new information can be exchanged. [14] Therefore, an ideal situation would involve two individuals who are homophilous in every way, except in knowledge of the innovation. [14] The Role of Social Systems[edit source  | editbeta] Opinion Leaders[edit source  | editbeta]Throughout the diffusion process there is evidence that not all individuals exert an equal amount of influence over all individuals. In this sense there are Opinion Leaders, leaders who are influential in spreading either positive or negative information about an innovation. Rogers relies on the ideas of Katz amp; Lazarsfeld and the two-step flow theory in developing his ideas on the influence of Opinion Leaders in the diffusion process. [15] Opinion Leaders have the most influence during the evaluation stage of the innovation-decision process and late adopters (Rogers 1964, p. 19). In addition opinion leaders have a set of characteristics that set them apart from their followers and other individuals. Opinion Leaders typically have greater exposure to the mass media, more cosmopolitan, greater contact with change agents, more social experience and exposure, higher socioeconomic status, and are more innovative. Research was done in the early 1950s at the University of Chicago attempting to assess the cost-effectiveness o f broadcast advertising on the diffusion of new products and services. 16] The findings were that opinion leadership tended to be organized into a hierarchy within a society, with each level in the hierarchy having most influence over other members in the same level, and on those in the next level below it. The lowest levels were generally larger in numbers, and tended to coincide with various demographic attributes that might be targeted by mass advertising. However, it found that direct word of mouth and example were far more influential than broadcast messages, which were only effective if they reinforced the direct influences.This led to the conclusion that advertising was best targeted, if possible, on those next in line to adopt, and not on those not yet reached by the chain of influence. It can be a waste of money to market to those not yet ready to buy. Other research relating the concept to public choice theory finds that the hierarchy of influence for innovations need not, and likely does not, coincide with hierarchies of official, political, or economic status. [17] Elites are often not innovators, and innovations may have to be introduced by outsiders and propagated up a hierarchy to the top decision makers.Electronic communication social networks[edit source  | editbeta] Prior to the introduction of the Internet, it was argued that social networks had a crucial role in the diffusion of innovation particularly tacit knowledge in the book The IRG Solution hierarchical incompetence and how to overcome it. The book argued that the widespread adoption of computer networks of individuals would lead to the much better diffusion of innovations, and with greater understanding of their possible shortcomings, and the identification of needed innovations that would not have otherwise occurred the Relevance paradox.The social model proposed by Ryan and Gross (1943) (Rogers 1962, p. 79) is expanded by Valente (1996)[18] who uses social networks as a basis f or adopter categorization instead of solely relying on the system-level analysis used by Ryan and Gross. Valente also looks at an individuals personal network, which is a different application than the organizational perspective espoused by many other scholars. [18] Organizations[edit source  | editbeta] Innovations are often adopted by organizations through two types of innovation-decisions: collective innovation decisions and authority innovation decisions.The collective innovation decision occurs when the adoption of an innovation has been made by a consensus among the members of an organization. The authority-innovation decision occurs when the adoption of an innovation has been made by very few individuals with high positions of power within an organization (Rogers 2005, p. 403). Unlike the optional innovation decision process, these innovation-decision processes only occur within an organization or hierarchical group.Within the innovation decision process in an organization there are certain individuals termed champions who stand behind an innovation and break through any opposition that the innovation may have caused. The champion within the diffusion of innovation theory plays a very similar role as to the champion used within the efficiency business model Six Sigma. The innovation process within an organization contains five stages that are slightly similar to the innovation-decision process that individuals undertake.These stages are: agenda-setting, matching, redefining/restructuring, clarifying, routinizing. Policy Diffusion[edit source  | editbeta] The theories of diffusion have spread beyond the original applied fields. In the case of political science and administration, policy diffusion focuses on how institutional innovations are adopted by other institutions, at the local, state or country level. An alternative term is policy transfer where the focus is more on the agents of diffusion such as in the work of Diane Stone.The first interests with regards to policy diffusion were focused in the variation over time (Berry ;amp; Berry 1990[19] or [1], state lottery adoption) but more recently the interest has shifted towards mechanisms (emulation, learning, coercion, as in Simmons ;amp; Elkins (2004)[20] or Gilardi (2010)[21] or in channels of diffusion (as in Jordana, Levi-Faur and Fernandez-i-Marin (2011)[22]), where the authors find that the creation of regulatory agencies is transmitted by country and sector channels).Diffusion of New Technology[edit source  | editbeta] Peres, Muller and Mahajan (2010) suggest that Innovation diffusion of a new technology is the process of the market penetration of new products and services that is driven by social in? uences, which include all interdependencies among consumers that affect various market players with or without their explicit knowledge. [23] Eveland (1986) evaluated diffusion of innovations from a strictly phenomenological view, which is very different than the othe r perspectives I found.He asserts that, â€Å"Technology is information, and exists only to the degree that people can put it into practice and use it to achieve values†[24] Diffusion of existing technologies has been measured in S curves. These technologies include radio, television, VCR, cable, flush toilet, clothes washer, refrigerator, home ownership, air conditioning, dishwasher, electrified households, telephone, cordless phone, cellular phone, per capita airline miles, personal computer and the Internet. This data[25] can be assessed as a valuable predictor for future innovations. Diffusion curves forInfrastructures[26] This data reveals stunning contrast in the diffusion process of personal technologies versus infrastructure. Consequences of adoption[edit source  | editbeta] There are both positive and negative outcomes when an individual or organization chooses to adopt a particular innovation. Rogers states that this is an area that needs further research because of the biased positive attitude that is associated with the adoption of an innovation (Rogers 2005, p. 470). In the Diffusion of Innovation, Rogers lists three categories for consequences: desirable vs. ndesirable, direct vs. indirect, and anticipated vs. unanticipated. In her article, Integrating Models of Diffusion of Innovations, Barbara Wejnert details two categories for consequences: public vs. private and benefits vs. costs. [27] Public vs. Private[edit source  | editbeta] Public consequences refer to the impact of an innovation on those other than the actor, while private consequences refer to the impact on the actor itself. [27] Public consequences usually involve collective actors, such as countries, states, organizations, or social movements. 27] The results are usually concerned with issues of societal well-being. [27] Private consequences usually involve individuals or small collective entities, such as a community. [27] The innovations are usually concerned with the i mprovement of quality of life or the reform of organizational or social structures. [27] Benefits vs. Costs[edit source  | editbeta] The benefits of an innovation obviously refer to the positive consequences, while the costs refer to the negative. [28] Costs may be monetary or nonmonetary, direct or indirect. 28] Direct costs are usually related to financial uncertainty and the economic state of the actor. [28] Indirect costs are more difficult to identify. [28] An example would be the need to buy a new kind of fertilizer to use innovative seeds. [28] Indirect costs may also be social, such as social conflict caused by innovation [28] Marketers are particularly interested in the diffusion process as it determines the success or failure of a new product. It is quite important for a marketer to understand the diffusion process so as to ensure proper management of the spread of a new product or service.Mathematical treatment[edit source  | editbeta] Main article: Logistic function The diffusion of an innovation typically follows an S shaped curve which often resembles a logistic function. Mathematical programming models such as the S-D model apply the diffusion of innovations theory to real data problems. [29] International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)[edit source  | editbeta] Several papers on the relationship between technology and the economy have been written by researchers at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA).The pertinent papers deal with energy substitution and the role of work in the economy as well as with the long economic cycle. Using the logistic function, these researchers were able to provide new insight into market penetration, saturation and forecasting the diffusion of various innovations, infrastructures and energy source substitutions. [30] Cesare Marchetti published on Kondretiev waves and on diffusion of innovations. [31] Grubler (1990) presents a mathematical discussion of diffusion and substition models. 32] Criticism[edit source  | editbeta] Much of the evidence for the diffusion of innovations gathered by Rogers comes from agricultural methods and medical practice. Various computer models have been developed in order to simulate the diffusion of innovations. Veneris developed a systems dynamics computer model which takes into account various diffusion patterns modeled via differential equations. [33][34] There are a number of criticisms of the model which make it less than useful for managers.First, technologies are not static. There is continual innovation in order to attract new adopters all along the S-curve. The S-curve does not just happen. Instead, the s-curve can be seen as being made up of a series of bell curves of different sections of a population adopting different versions of a generic innovation. Rogers has placed the contributions and criticisms of diffusion research into four categories: pro-innovation bias, individual-blame bias, recall proble m, and issues of equality. 35] One of the cons of the Diffusion of Innovation approach is that the communication process involved is a one-way flow of information. The sender of the message has a goal to persuade the receiver, and there is little to no dialogue. The person implementing the change controls the direction and outcome of the campaign. In some cases, this is the best approach, but other cases require a more participatory approach. Diffusion of Innovations Essay Example Diffusion of Innovations Essay The diffusion of innovations according to Rogers. With successive groups of consumers adopting the new technology (shown in blue), its market share (yellow) will eventually reach the saturation level. In mathematics the S curve is known as the logistic function. Diffusion of Innovations is a theory that seeks to explain how, why, and at what rate new ideas and technology spread through cultures. Everett Rogers, a professor of rural sociology, popularized the theory in his 1962 book Diffusion of Innovations.He said diffusion is the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system. The origins of the diffusion of innovations theory are varied and span multiple disciplines. Rogers (1962) espoused the theory that there are four main elements that influence the spread of a new idea: the innovation, communication channels, time, and a social system. This process relies heavily on human capital. The innovation must be wid ely adopted in order to self-sustain. Within the rate of adoption, there is a point at which an innovation reaches critical mass.The categories of adopters are: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards (Rogers 1962, p. 150). Diffusion of Innovations manifests itself in different ways in various cultures and fields and is highly subject to the type of adopters and innovation-decision process. The concept of diffusion was first studied by the French sociologist Gabriel Tarde (1890) and by German and Austrian anthropologists such as Friedrich Ratzel and Leo Frobenius. [1] Its basic epidemiological or internal-influence form was formulated by H.Earl Pemberton,[2] who provided examples of institutional diffusion such as postage stamps and standardized school ethic codes. In 1962 Everett Rogers, a professor of rural sociology published his work:Diffusion of Innovations. In this seminal piece, Rogers synthesized research from over 508 diffusion studies and pr oduced a theory applied to the adoption of innovations among individuals and organizations. Rogers work asserts that 4 main elements influence the spread of a new idea: the innovation, communication channels, time, and a social system. These elements work in onjunction with one another: diffusion is the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system. Rogers adds that central to this theory is process. Individuals experience 5 stages of accepting a new innovation: knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation. If the innovation is adopted, it spreads via various communication channels. During communication, the idea is rarely evaluated from a scientific standpoint; rather, subjective perceptions of the innovation influence diffusion.The process occurs over time. Finally, social systems determine diffusion, norms on diffusion, roles of opinion leaders and change agents, types of innovation deci sions, and innovation consequences. To use Rogers’ model in health requires us to assume that the innovation in classical diffusion theory is equivalent to scientific research findings in the context of practice, an assumption that has not been rigorously tested. How can we spread and sustain innovations in health service delivery and organization? Greenhalgh et al. evaluate an evidence-based model for considering the diffusion of innovations in health service organizations. [3] The origins of the diffusion of innovations theory are varied and span across multiple disciplines. Rogers identifies six main traditions that impacted diffusion research: anthropology, early sociology, rural sociology, education, industrial sociology, and medical sociology. The diffusion of innovation theory has been largely influenced by the work of rural sociologists. [4] In 1971, Rogers published a follow-up work: Communication of Innovations; A Cross-Cultural Approach. uilding on his original the ory on the diffusion process by evaluating social systems. This extension aimed to add value to Roger’s 1962 touchstone work (Rogers ;amp; Shoemaker, 1971). Elements[edit source  | editbeta] The key elements in diffusion research are: Element| Definition| Innovation| Rogers defines an innovation as an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption. [5]| Communication channels| A communication channel is the means by which messages get from one individual to another. 6]| Time| The innovation-decision period is the length of time required to pass through the innovation-decision process. [7] Rate of adoption is the relative speed with which an innovation is adopted by members of a social system. [8]| Social system| A social system is defined as a set of interrelated units that are engaged in joint problem solving to accomplish a common goal. [9]| Decisions[edit source  | editbeta] Two factors determine what type a particular dec ision is: * Whether the decision is made freely and implemented voluntarily, * Who makes the decision.Based on these considerations, three types of innovation-decisions have been identified within diffusion of innovations. Type| Definition| Optional Innovation-Decision| This decision is made by an individual who is in some way distinguished from others in a social system. | Collective Innovation-Decision| This decision is made collectively by all individuals of a social system. | Authority Innovation-Decision| This decision is made for the entire social system by few individuals in positions of influence or power. | Process[edit source  | editbeta]Diffusion of an innovation occurs through a five–step process. This process is a type of decision-making. It occurs through a series of communication channels over a period of time among the members of a similar social system. Ryan and Gross first indicated the identification of adoption as a process in 1943 (Rogers 1962, p. 79). Rogers five stages (steps): awareness, interest, evaluation, trial, and adoption are integral to this theory. An individual might reject an innovation at any time during or after the adoption process.Scholars such as Abrahamson (1991) examine this process critically by posing questions such as: How do technically inefficient innovations diffuse and what impedes technically efficient innovations from catching on? Abrahamson makes suggestions for how organizational scientists can more comprehensively evaluate the spread of innovations. [10] In later editions of the Diffusion of Innovations Rogers changes the terminology of the five stages to: knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation. However the descriptions of the categories have remained similar throughout the editions.Five stages of the adoption process| Stage| Definition| Knowledge| In this stage the individual is first exposed to an innovation but lacks information about the innovation. During this stage of the process the individual has not been inspired to find more information about the innovation. | Persuasion| In this stage the individual is interested in the innovation and actively seeks information/detail about the innovation. | Decision| In this stage the individual takes the concept of the change and weighs the advantages/disadvantages of using the innovation and decides whether to adopt or reject the innovation.Due to the individualistic nature of this stage Rogers notes that it is the most difficult stage to acquire empirical evidence (Rogers 1964, p. 83). | Implementation| In this stage the individual employs the innovation to a varying degree depending on the situation. During this stage the individual determines the usefulness of the innovation and may search for further information about it. | Confirmation| In this stage the individual finalizes his/her decision to continue using the innovation. This stage is both intrapersonal (may cause cognitive dissonance) and int erpersonal, confirmation the group has made the right decision. Rate of Adoption[edit source  | editbeta] The rate of adoption is defined as the relative speed in which members of a social system adopt an innovation. Rate is usually measured by the length of time required for a certain percentage of the members of a social system to adopt an innovation (Rogers 1962, p. 134). The rates of adoption for innovations are determined by an individual’s adopter category. In general, individuals who first adopt an innovation require a shorter adoption period (adoption process) when compared to late adopters.Within the rate of adoption, there is a point at which an innovation reaches critical mass. This is a point in time within the adoption curve that the amount of individuals adopters ensure that continued adoption of the innovation is self-sustaining. Illustrating how an innovation reaches critical mass, Rogers outlines several strategies in order to help an innovation reach this stage. Strategies to propel diffusion include: when an innovation adopted by a highly respected individual within a social network, creating an instinctive desire for a specific innovation.Also, injecting an innovation into a group of individuals who would readily use said technology, and provide positive reactions and benefits for early adopters of an innovation. Difference Between Diffusion and Adoption[edit source  | editbeta] Adoption is an individual process detailing the series of stages one undergoes from first hearing about a product to finally adopting it. The diffusion process, however, signifies a group of phenomena, which suggests how an innovation spreads among consumers. Overall, the diffusion process essentially encompasses the adoption process of several individuals over time.Adopter categories[edit source  | editbeta] Rogers defines an adopter category as a classification of individuals within a social system on the basis of innovativeness. In the book Diffusion of Innovations, Rogers suggests a total of five categories of adopters in order to standardize the usage of adopter categories in diffusion research. The adoption of an innovation follows an S curve when plotted over a length of time. [11] The categories of adopters are: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards (Rogers 1962, p. 50) In addition to the gatekeepers and opinion leaders who exist within a given community, there are change agents from outside the community. Change agents essentially bring innovations to new communities– ? rst through the gatekeepers, then through the opinion leaders, and so on through the community. Adopter category| Definition| Innovators| Innovators are the first individuals to adopt an innovation. Innovators are willing to take risks, youngest in age, have the highest social class, have great financial liquidity, are very social and have closest contact to scientific sources and interaction with other innovators.R isk tolerance has them adopting technologies which may ultimately fail. Financial resources help absorb these failures. (Rogers 1962 5th ed, p. 282)| Early adopters| This is the second fastest category of individuals who adopt an innovation. These individuals have the highest degree of opinion leadership among the other adopter categories. Early adopters are typically younger in age, have a higher social status, have more financial lucidity, advanced education, and are more socially forward than late adopters.More discrete in adoption choices than innovators. Realize judicious choice of adoption will help them maintain central communication position (Rogers 1962 5th ed, p. 283). | Early Majority| Individuals in this category adopt an innovation after a varying degree of time. This time of adoption is significantly longer than the innovators and early adopters. Early Majority tend to be slower in the adoption process, have above average social status, contact with early adopters, and seldom hold positions of opinion leadership in a system (Rogers 1962 5th ed, p. 83)| Late Majority| Individuals in this category will adopt an innovation after the average member of the society. These individuals approach an innovation with a high degree of skepticism and after the majority of society has adopted the innovation. Late Majority are typically skeptical about an innovation, have below average social status, very little financial lucidity, in contact with others in late majority and early majority, very little opinion leadership. | Laggards| Individuals in this category are the last to adopt an innovation.Unlike some of the previous categories, individuals in this category show little to no opinion leadership. These individuals typically have an aversion to change-agents and tend to be advanced in age. Laggards typically tend to be focused on traditions, likely to have lowest social status, lowest financial fluidity, be oldest of all other adopters, in contact with only family and close friends. | Rogers’ 5 Factors[edit source  | editbeta] Rogers defines several intrinsic characteristics of innovations that influence an individual’s decision to adopt or reject an innovation.Factor| Definition| Relative Advantage| How improved an innovation is over the previous generation. | Compatibility| The level of compatibility that an innovation has to be assimilated into an individual’s life. | Complexity or Simplicity| If the innovation is perceived as complicated or difficult to use, an individual is unlikely to adopt it. | Trialability| How easily an innovation may be experimented. If a user is able to test an innovation, the individual will be more likely to adopt it. | Observability| The extent that an innovation is visible to others.An innovation that is more visible will drive communication among the individual’s peers and personal networks and will in turn create more positive or negative reactions. | Failed Diffusion[ed it source  | editbeta] Rogers, in his Diffusion of Innovation writings, discussed a situation in Peru involving the implementation of water boiling to obtain higher health and wellness levels of the individuals living within the village of Los Molinas. The residents of the village have no knowledge of the link between particular sanitation and reduced levels of illness.The campaign was working with the villagers to try and teach them how to boil their water to make it healthier for consumption, as well as to burn their garbage, install working latrines, and report cases of illness to local health agencies. In Los Molinas, a stigma is linked to boiled water as being something that only the unwell consume, and thus, the idea of healthy residents boiling their water prior to consumption was frowned upon, and those who did so wouldnt be accepted by their society.Thus, the two-year campaign to help bring more sanitary ways of living to this village was considered to be largely unsucces sful. Much of the reason for the lack of success is because the social norms and standards of acceptance into society greatly outweighed the idea of taking on this innovation, even at the sake of the health, well-being, and greater levels of education to the villagers. This failure better exemplified the importance of the roles of the interpersonal communication channels that are involved in such a health-related campaign for social change.Burt, R. S. (1973) also looked at the process of diffusion in El Salvador and asks: Is there a differential influence exercised by social integration on participation in the diffusion process and is such influence, significant above that exerted by other important diffusion relevant variables? [12] Heterophily and communication channels[edit source  | editbeta] Lazarsfeld and Merton first called attention to the principles of homophily and its opposite, heterophily. 13] Using their definition, Rogers defines homophily as the degree to which pair s of individuals who interact are similar in certain attributes, such as beliefs, education, social status, and the like. [13] When given the choice, individuals usually choose to interact with someone similar to him or herself. [14] Furthermore, homophilous individuals engage in more effective communication because their similarities lead to greater knowledge gain as well as attitude or behavior change. 14] However, most participants in the diffusion of innovations are heterophilous, meaning they speak different languages, so to speak. [14] The problem is that diffusion requires a certain degree of heterophily; if two individuals are identical, no diffusion occurs because no new information can be exchanged. [14] Therefore, an ideal situation would involve two individuals who are homophilous in every way, except in knowledge of the innovation. [14] The Role of Social Systems[edit source  | editbeta] Opinion Leaders[edit source  | editbeta]Throughout the diffusion process there is evidence that not all individuals exert an equal amount of influence over all individuals. In this sense there are Opinion Leaders, leaders who are influential in spreading either positive or negative information about an innovation. Rogers relies on the ideas of Katz amp; Lazarsfeld and the two-step flow theory in developing his ideas on the influence of Opinion Leaders in the diffusion process. [15] Opinion Leaders have the most influence during the evaluation stage of the innovation-decision process and late adopters (Rogers 1964, p. 19). In addition opinion leaders have a set of characteristics that set them apart from their followers and other individuals. Opinion Leaders typically have greater exposure to the mass media, more cosmopolitan, greater contact with change agents, more social experience and exposure, higher socioeconomic status, and are more innovative. Research was done in the early 1950s at the University of Chicago attempting to assess the cost-effectiveness o f broadcast advertising on the diffusion of new products and services. 16] The findings were that opinion leadership tended to be organized into a hierarchy within a society, with each level in the hierarchy having most influence over other members in the same level, and on those in the next level below it. The lowest levels were generally larger in numbers, and tended to coincide with various demographic attributes that might be targeted by mass advertising. However, it found that direct word of mouth and example were far more influential than broadcast messages, which were only effective if they reinforced the direct influences.This led to the conclusion that advertising was best targeted, if possible, on those next in line to adopt, and not on those not yet reached by the chain of influence. It can be a waste of money to market to those not yet ready to buy. Other research relating the concept to public choice theory finds that the hierarchy of influence for innovations need not, and likely does not, coincide with hierarchies of official, political, or economic status. [17] Elites are often not innovators, and innovations may have to be introduced by outsiders and propagated up a hierarchy to the top decision makers.Electronic communication social networks[edit source  | editbeta] Prior to the introduction of the Internet, it was argued that social networks had a crucial role in the diffusion of innovation particularly tacit knowledge in the book The IRG Solution hierarchical incompetence and how to overcome it. The book argued that the widespread adoption of computer networks of individuals would lead to the much better diffusion of innovations, and with greater understanding of their possible shortcomings, and the identification of needed innovations that would not have otherwise occurred the Relevance paradox.The social model proposed by Ryan and Gross (1943) (Rogers 1962, p. 79) is expanded by Valente (1996)[18] who uses social networks as a basis f or adopter categorization instead of solely relying on the system-level analysis used by Ryan and Gross. Valente also looks at an individuals personal network, which is a different application than the organizational perspective espoused by many other scholars. [18] Organizations[edit source  | editbeta] Innovations are often adopted by organizations through two types of innovation-decisions: collective innovation decisions and authority innovation decisions.The collective innovation decision occurs when the adoption of an innovation has been made by a consensus among the members of an organization. The authority-innovation decision occurs when the adoption of an innovation has been made by very few individuals with high positions of power within an organization (Rogers 2005, p. 403). Unlike the optional innovation decision process, these innovation-decision processes only occur within an organization or hierarchical group.Within the innovation decision process in an organization there are certain individuals termed champions who stand behind an innovation and break through any opposition that the innovation may have caused. The champion within the diffusion of innovation theory plays a very similar role as to the champion used within the efficiency business model Six Sigma. The innovation process within an organization contains five stages that are slightly similar to the innovation-decision process that individuals undertake.These stages are: agenda-setting, matching, redefining/restructuring, clarifying, routinizing. Policy Diffusion[edit source  | editbeta] The theories of diffusion have spread beyond the original applied fields. In the case of political science and administration, policy diffusion focuses on how institutional innovations are adopted by other institutions, at the local, state or country level. An alternative term is policy transfer where the focus is more on the agents of diffusion such as in the work of Diane Stone.The first interests with regards to policy diffusion were focused in the variation over time (Berry ;amp; Berry 1990[19] or [1], state lottery adoption) but more recently the interest has shifted towards mechanisms (emulation, learning, coercion, as in Simmons ;amp; Elkins (2004)[20] or Gilardi (2010)[21] or in channels of diffusion (as in Jordana, Levi-Faur and Fernandez-i-Marin (2011)[22]), where the authors find that the creation of regulatory agencies is transmitted by country and sector channels).Diffusion of New Technology[edit source  | editbeta] Peres, Muller and Mahajan (2010) suggest that Innovation diffusion of a new technology is the process of the market penetration of new products and services that is driven by social in? uences, which include all interdependencies among consumers that affect various market players with or without their explicit knowledge. [23] Eveland (1986) evaluated diffusion of innovations from a strictly phenomenological view, which is very different than the othe r perspectives I found.He asserts that, â€Å"Technology is information, and exists only to the degree that people can put it into practice and use it to achieve values†[24] Diffusion of existing technologies has been measured in S curves. These technologies include radio, television, VCR, cable, flush toilet, clothes washer, refrigerator, home ownership, air conditioning, dishwasher, electrified households, telephone, cordless phone, cellular phone, per capita airline miles, personal computer and the Internet. This data[25] can be assessed as a valuable predictor for future innovations. Diffusion curves forInfrastructures[26] This data reveals stunning contrast in the diffusion process of personal technologies versus infrastructure. Consequences of adoption[edit source  | editbeta] There are both positive and negative outcomes when an individual or organization chooses to adopt a particular innovation. Rogers states that this is an area that needs further research because of the biased positive attitude that is associated with the adoption of an innovation (Rogers 2005, p. 470). In the Diffusion of Innovation, Rogers lists three categories for consequences: desirable vs. ndesirable, direct vs. indirect, and anticipated vs. unanticipated. In her article, Integrating Models of Diffusion of Innovations, Barbara Wejnert details two categories for consequences: public vs. private and benefits vs. costs. [27] Public vs. Private[edit source  | editbeta] Public consequences refer to the impact of an innovation on those other than the actor, while private consequences refer to the impact on the actor itself. [27] Public consequences usually involve collective actors, such as countries, states, organizations, or social movements. 27] The results are usually concerned with issues of societal well-being. [27] Private consequences usually involve individuals or small collective entities, such as a community. [27] The innovations are usually concerned with the i mprovement of quality of life or the reform of organizational or social structures. [27] Benefits vs. Costs[edit source  | editbeta] The benefits of an innovation obviously refer to the positive consequences, while the costs refer to the negative. [28] Costs may be monetary or nonmonetary, direct or indirect. 28] Direct costs are usually related to financial uncertainty and the economic state of the actor. [28] Indirect costs are more difficult to identify. [28] An example would be the need to buy a new kind of fertilizer to use innovative seeds. [28] Indirect costs may also be social, such as social conflict caused by innovation [28] Marketers are particularly interested in the diffusion process as it determines the success or failure of a new product. It is quite important for a marketer to understand the diffusion process so as to ensure proper management of the spread of a new product or service.Mathematical treatment[edit source  | editbeta] Main article: Logistic function The diffusion of an innovation typically follows an S shaped curve which often resembles a logistic function. Mathematical programming models such as the S-D model apply the diffusion of innovations theory to real data problems. [29] International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)[edit source  | editbeta] Several papers on the relationship between technology and the economy have been written by researchers at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA).The pertinent papers deal with energy substitution and the role of work in the economy as well as with the long economic cycle. Using the logistic function, these researchers were able to provide new insight into market penetration, saturation and forecasting the diffusion of various innovations, infrastructures and energy source substitutions. [30] Cesare Marchetti published on Kondretiev waves and on diffusion of innovations. [31] Grubler (1990) presents a mathematical discussion of diffusion and substition models. 32] Criticism[edit source  | editbeta] Much of the evidence for the diffusion of innovations gathered by Rogers comes from agricultural methods and medical practice. Various computer models have been developed in order to simulate the diffusion of innovations. Veneris developed a systems dynamics computer model which takes into account various diffusion patterns modeled via differential equations. [33][34] There are a number of criticisms of the model which make it less than useful for managers.First, technologies are not static. There is continual innovation in order to attract new adopters all along the S-curve. The S-curve does not just happen. Instead, the s-curve can be seen as being made up of a series of bell curves of different sections of a population adopting different versions of a generic innovation. Rogers has placed the contributions and criticisms of diffusion research into four categories: pro-innovation bias, individual-blame bias, recall proble m, and issues of equality. 35] One of the cons of the Diffusion of Innovation approach is that the communication process involved is a one-way flow of information. The sender of the message has a goal to persuade the receiver, and there is little to no dialogue. The person implementing the change controls the direction and outcome of the campaign. In some cases, this is the best approach, but other cases require a more participatory approach.

Response 5 Example

Response 5 Example Response 5 – Article Example Response 5 The intense patriotic sentiment and national pride in Panama Canal started after the end of Suez Canal. The project started in 1904 with the guidance of chief engineer John Wallace. In as much as it started under praises and hope of success from Suez Canal, several challenges prevailed to both European and Spanish labourers. The film A Man, A Plan, A Canal, Panama shares these sentiments with Julie Greene’s book Spaniards on the Silver Roll: Labor Troubles and Liminality in the Panama Canal Zone, 1904-1914. In the film, building of the canal gets guided by smart people without the wisdom to harmonize different cultures. The deadly look through Nova’s eye brings into perspective a 30-year-old period of torment. The human trap in the film leads to death of many labourers mainly European and Spanish labourers1. They have no access to information, are victims to corruption and discrimination in terms of payment. For example, many labourers received 10 cents an ho ur, an amount not able to sustain anybody.The racial segregation in the book also unveils the imperial and complex labour issues in the Canal Zone. Green notes that labourers have the opportunity to suffer but cannot air their grievances. For example, when the Spaniards protest against the right to eat in the job, a foreman suspends 500 people for insubordination2. The high number of workers raises many labor concerns; however, race and nationality takes priority during the construction period. Interestingly, recruitment agents promise heavens despite the deplorable conditions. Worse of all, labourers have no protection from the police or any labor unions.BibliographyDavid McCullough. NOVA: A Man, A Plan, A Canal, Panama. 2011Julie Greene, aSpaniards on the Silver Roll: Labor Troubles and Liminality in the Panama Canal Zone, 1904-1914, International Labor and Working-Class History, No. 66, New Approaches to Global Labor History (Fall, 2004), pp. 78-98, Cambridge University Press

Faith Diversity. Spiritual Healing Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Faith Diversity. Spiritual Healing - Assignment Example In the present healthcare stipulation, healthcare providers need to undoubtedly have a wonderful understanding, acceptance and appreciation of the varied religious systems their patients belong to, almost all of which will be different from their beliefs (Ketchell, Pyles, & Canda, n.d). In this paper, three religions that are often met in health care facilities – Baha’ism, Buddhism, and Hinduism will be discussed. All these three religions have many similarities as well as many distinctions. This paper will respond to the following questions about each of the three religions: ‘What is the spiritual perspective on healing of each religion?’ ‘What are the critical components of healing, such as prayer, meditation, belief, etc?’, ‘What is important to people of the particular faith when cared for by a health care provider whose spiritual beliefs differ from their own?’, and â€Å"How do patients view health care providers who are abl e to let go of their own beliefs in the interest of the beliefs and practices of the patient?† Furthermore, these religions will be compared with Christianity and its perspective on faith and healing. In the end, I shall share the knowledge that I gained after researching the spiritual healing perspectives of these three religions. A Research on Spiritual Healing in Buddhism, Hinduism and Baha’ism Spiritual healing is a healing in which the patient is cured through spiritual practices. The perspective of spiritual healing is wide but generally includes meditation and prayers. Spiritual healing is found in all of the world’s major religions though it varies from one religion to another. Most patients belong to different faiths in the health care institutes the world over. In recent times, the health care providers have to deal with patients with varied surroundings and faiths. In this essay, the spiritual concept of health will be explored from the perspective of three major religious perspectives – Buddhism, Hinduism and Baha’ism. Moreover, we shall discuss what is essential for people of all these three beliefs and how do these patients examine health care providers. The spiritual perspective of healing of the three faiths – Buddhism, Hinduism and Baha’ism The Buddhists believe in inner healing and consider their health as the most fundamental asset in their life. Their healing procedure conceptualizes the mind and body as one single element. For instance, the sickness of one’s body has an effect on one’s psychological wellbeing. Therefore, they believe that personal enlightenment is the best way of curing one’s health. Moreover, the principle of karma directs the Buddhist concept of physical health. In other words, they believe that a person’s undesirable acts of harming oneself or others lead to injury or ill heath in this life as well as in future embodiments, therefore one needs t o rectify his karma for one’s wellbeing( Ketchell, Pyles & Canda, n.d). The second religion in discussion is one of the world’s most ancient religions – Hinduism. The Hindus are firm believers of God and religiously offer prayers every day. They too believe in termination of some essentials of human life that ensnares people in the continuous succession of birth and death thereby creating dissonance in life. According to the Hindus, this disharmony of health is the result of improper actions of the mind, body and speech; bad karma; or bad conduct. Furthermore, they believe that the soul has to pass through a series of births and deaths before finally attaining liberty from mortality. Therefore, prayers and meditation are absolutely necessary for healing oneself and for attaining mortality (Kakar, 1989, p.115). The third religion being explored is Baha’