I think it’d be wise to add at least a mention of what an early adopter is related to the figshare article.<\/p>\n
Some poking around on Google Scholar shows there is both an organizational early adopter and an individual early adopter.<\/p>\n
I did a Google Scholar search for:<\/p>\n
individual AND “early adopter” AND technology<\/a><\/p>\n Some of the article titles that interest me include:<\/p>\n I’d really like the titles to be more focused on “early adopter” so I am changing up the search a bit –<\/p>\n allintitle: individual AND AND technology “early adopter”<\/b>\u00a0– did not match any articles published between\u00a01999<\/b>\u00a0and\u00a02013<\/b>.<\/p>\n allintitle: \u00a0technology AND “early adopter” – 2 results.<\/p>\n Might not be the best way to go about it.<\/p>\n Changed again:<\/p>\n technology AND “early adopter”<\/p>\n I like this:<\/p>\n Pointed me to this \u00a0book Diffusion of Innovations<\/a>:<\/p>\n Everett Rogers (1986), considered by many the “guru” of adoption\/diffusion research since publishing Diffusion of Innovations (now in its fourth edition) in 1960, reveals three important ways in which the adoption of interactive communications differs from that of previous innovations. 1) A critical mass of adopters is needed to convince the “mainstream” teachers of the technology’s efficacy. 2) Regular and frequent use is necessary to ensure success of the diffusion effort. 3) Internet technology is a tool that can be applied in different ways and for different purposes and is part of a dynamic process that may involve change, modification and reinvention by individual adopters.<\/p>\n <\/p><\/blockquote>\n In glancing at the book’s contents, there appear to be a few useful sections –<\/p>\n The .mil article continues with some other interesting points concerning some recent additions by Rogers (recent meaning 1995 compared to 1960s).<\/p>\n The first point might be applied to the individual who seeks to use a service such as figshare:<\/p>\n Individual Innovativeness theory.<\/em>Individuals who are risk takers or otherwise innovative will adopt an innovation earlier in the continuum of adoption\/diffusion.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n Perceived Attributes theory.<\/em>\u00a0There are five attributes upon which an innovation is judged: that it can be tried out\u00a0(trialability),<\/strong>\u00a0that results can be observed\u00a0(observability),<\/strong>\u00a0that it has an advantage over other innovations or the present circumstance\u00a0(relative advantage),<\/strong>\u00a0that it is not overly complex to learn or use\u00a0(complexity),<\/strong>\u00a0that it fits in or is compatible with the circumstances into which it will be adopted\u00a0(compatibility).<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Some characteristics of early adopters listed in Table 1 of the .mil paper, itself adapted from an earlier study by W.H.\u00a0Geoghegan, show “willing to take risks” and “willing to experiment” as part of the “early adopter” portfolio. \u00a0Also, “revolutionary” change versus evolutionary; “project oriented” versus “process oriented.” I’m wondering if the September 2013 announcement of figshare for institutions represents the transition from “early adopter” to “early majority” as the move literally “institutionalizes” the platform.<\/p>\n I think these notes might help me get at the “traditional” or “timeless” view of adoption of technology innovations. I’m wondering if there’s a way to get at more recent studies concerning Internet technology in particular – so I’m modifying the search on Scholar.<\/p>\n “Social Network” AND “early adopter”<\/p>\n Yields about 1,810 results.<\/p>\n I’m not feeling good about these results, but digging through to the second page shows some interesting items:<\/p>\n Digging to page 6 found me this that I’m very interested in looking at:<\/p>\n I’m particularly interested in it because it’s from 2010. It’s cited by 12, and I’m tempted to look at “related articles.”<\/p>\n Page 9 gives me this:<\/p>\n Which interests me but is probably outside the scope of what I’m doing. Still there is an important background question of “influence” among early adopters.<\/p>\n I abandoned looking at these results and moved over to the “related articles” tab I’d pulled up from the Denmark study. Interesting:<\/p>\n I didn’t see anything else there and there were only two pages of results.<\/p>\n I think these few links should provide a good starting point for shoring up a definition of what exactly an early adopter is.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I think it’d be wise to add at least a mention of what an early adopter is related to the figshare article. Some poking around on Google Scholar shows there is both an organizational early adopter and an individual early adopter. I did a Google Scholar search for: individual AND Continue reading Defining “Early Adopters” of Data Sharing Platforms<\/span>Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home computers<\/a><\/h3>\n
Understanding\u00a0technology\u00a0<\/b>adoption: Theory and future directions for informal learning<\/a><\/h3>\n
Impact of personality on\u00a0technology\u00a0<\/b>adoption: An empirical model<\/a><\/h3>\n
Characteristics of early adopters of end-user online searching in the health professions.<\/a><\/h3>\n
Technology\u00a0<\/b>adoption and diffusion<\/a><\/h3>\n
\n
Global diffusion of interactive networks: The impact of culture<\/a><\/h3>\n
Complex adaptive systems and the diffusion of innovations<\/a><\/h3>\n
Towards Research Collaboration-a Taxonomy of Social Research Network Sites.<\/a><\/h3>\n
Capturing implicit user influence in online social sharing<\/a><\/h3>\n
Understanding online collaboration technology adoption by researchers-a model and empirical study.<\/a><\/h3>\n