Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Communicating Connections: Social Networks and Innovation Diffusion

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Practice-Based Innovation: Insights, Applications and Policy Implications

  • 1906 Accesses

Abstract

The role of social networks in promoting the diffusion of innovations is widely recognised, but networks are used more as a vague metaphor than an analytic concept. In this chapter, we study the possibilities that social network analysis (SNA) offers to promote the diffusion of innovations. In addition, we investigate the roles of opinion leaders and opinion brokers in the networks of innovation diffusion. We base our findings on a case study of a food industry organisation. We conclude with some remarks on how the study of innovation diffusion might benefit from adapting the methods of social network analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Degree centrality measures the number of connections the actor has. Betweenness measures the number of shortest paths (lines of connection) that go through the actor. Closeness measures the actor’s distance to other members of the network.

  2. 2.

    Density is figure between 0 and 1, with 0 meaning none of the possible connections are present, and 1 meaning every possible connection is present. Reciprocity indicates what percentage of the directed relationships in a network is mutual. Centralisation indicates how much structural power within the network is centralised in a single actor.

  3. 3.

    The clustering coefficient is the network’s general tendency to form triangles: for example, if A is connected to B, who in turn is connected to C. The clustering coefficient in the example situation is the overall situation ranging from 0 to 1 in networks where A is also connected to C.

  4. 4.

    In social network analysis, the term ego is used to describe the actor whose connections are under scrutiny. The ego has connections to alters, other actors that may have connections with each other.

References

  • Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barabasi, A. L. (2003). Linked. New York: Plume.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, J. (1982). Opinion leaders, is anyone following? Public Opinion Quarterly, 46, 169–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, T., & Stalker, G. (1961). The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. (1992). Structural Holes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. (1999). The social capital of opinion leaders. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 566, 37–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. The American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantner, U., & Graf, H. (2006). The network of innovators in Jena: An application of social network analysis. Research Policy, 35(4), 463–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson, B., Jacobsson, S., Holmén, M., & Rickne, A. (2002). Innovation systems: Analytical and methodological issues. Research Policy, 31(2), 233–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrington, P. J., Scott, J., & Wasserman, S. (2005). Models and methods in social network analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Cambridge: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, K., & Shekhar, M. (1990). Characteristics of the opinion leader: A new dimension. Journal of Advertising, 19(3), 53–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Childers, T. (1986). Assessment of the psychometric properties of an opinion leadership scale. Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 184–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Everett, M., & Borgatti, S. (2005). Extending centrality. In P. J. Carrington, J. Scott, & S. Wasserman (Eds.), Models and methods in social network analysis (pp. 57–76). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Flap, H., Bulder, B., & Völker, B. (1998). Intra-organizational networks and performance: A review. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 4(2), 109–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, L. (2005). Graphic techniques for exploring social network data. In P. J. Carrington, J. Scott, & S. Wasserman (Eds.), Models and methods in social network analysis (pp. 248–269). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gelsing, L. (2010). Innovation and the development of industrial networks. In B. Ã…. Lundvall (Ed.), National systems of innovation: Toward a theory of innovation and interactive learning (pp. 119–132). London: Anthem Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith, R., & Hofacker, C. (1991). Measuring consumer innovativeness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19(3), 209–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (2005). The impact of social structure on economic outcomes. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(1), 33–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harmaakorpi, V. (2006). The regional development platform method as a tool for regional innovation policy. European Planning Studies, 14(8), 1085–1104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harmaakorpi, V., & Melkas, H. (2005). Knowledge management in regional innovation networks: The case of Lahti, Finland. European Planning Studies, 13(5), 641–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibarra, H., Kliduff, M., & Tsai, W. (2005). Zooming in and out: Connecting individuals and collectivities at the frontiers of organizational research. Organization Science, 16(4), 359–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johanson, J. E. (2000). Intraorganizational influence: Theoretical clarification and empirical assessment of intraorganizational social influence. Management Communication Quarterly, 13(3), 393–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johanson, J. E., Mattila, M., & Uusikylä, P. (1995). Johdatus verkostoanalyysiin [An Introduction into Network Analysis]. Helsinki: Kuluttajatutkimus. (In Finnish.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955). Personal influence. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoke, D. (1994). Political Networks: The Structural Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knox, H., Savage, M., & Harveyn, P. (2006). Social networks and the study of relations: Networks as method, metaphor and form. Economy and Society, 35(1), 113–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazarsfeld, P., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1948). People’s choice (2nd ed. [1st ed. 1944]). New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. (1957). Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monge, P., & Contractor, N. (2003). Theories of communication networks. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, J. (1934). Who shall survive? Washington, DC: Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parjanen, S., Harmaakorpi, V., & Frantsi, T. (2010). Collective creativity and brokerage functions in heavily cross-disciplined innovation processes. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 5, 2–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T. (1991). The social system. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed. [1st ed. 1962]). New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strang, D., & Soule, S. (1998). Diffusion in organizations and social movements: From hybrid corn to poison pills. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 265–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge Transfer in Intraorganizational Networks: Effects of Network Position and Absorptive Capacity on Business Unit Innovation and Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996–1004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valente, T. (1995). Network Models of the Diffusion of Innovations. Cresskill: Hampton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valente, T., & Davis, R. (1999). Accelerating diffusion of innovations using opinion leaders. The Annals of the American Academy AAPSS, 566, 55–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valente, T., & Pumuang, P. (2007). Identifying opinion leaders to promote behavior change. Health Education & Behavior, 34(6), 881–896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weimann, G., Deon, H., van Vuuren, D., & Joubert, J. P. R. (2007). Looking for opinion leaders: Traditional vs. modern measures in traditional societies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19(2), 173–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wejnert, B. (2002). Integrating models of diffusion of innovations: A conceptual framework. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 297–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, P. (2009). Innovation diffusion in heterogeneous populations: Contagion, social influence, and social learning. The American Economic Review, 99(5), 1899–1924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Research, Media and Communication Studies, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

    Pekka Aula (Professor) & Olli Parviainen (Researcher)

  2. Entrepreneur, Verkostoanatomia, Helsinki, Finland

    Olli Parviainen (Researcher)

Authors
  1. Pekka Aula
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Olli Parviainen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Pekka Aula or Olli Parviainen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Lahti School of Innovation, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Saimaankatu 11, Lahti, 15140, Finland

    Helinä Melkas

  2. Lahti School of Innovation, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Saimaankatu 11, Lahti, 15140, Finland

    Vesa Harmaakorpi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Aula, P., Parviainen, O. (2012). Communicating Connections: Social Networks and Innovation Diffusion. In: Melkas, H., Harmaakorpi, V. (eds) Practice-Based Innovation: Insights, Applications and Policy Implications. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21723-4_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation