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.

An Account of Library and Information Science Education at National and International Levels Essays

An Account of Library and Information Science Education at National and International Levels Essays An Account of Library and Information Science Education at National and International Levels Essay An Account of Library and Information Science Education at National and International Levels Essay An account of Library and Information Science Education at National and International levels By Keshav R. Dhuri Goa University INTRODUCTION: Among the countries imparting library and information science (LIS) education, India would rank within five nations chronologically, in output and contribution to the development of thought content. If it was Melvil Dewey who made an auspicious beginning in the west, then much more notable contributions came from Dr Ranganathan in the east in all domains of LIS knowledge, thought and content. For LIS education and pedagogy from India in general and from Ranganathan in particular, the it has been unmatched and the world has always turned towards India for something new to emerge from and excel. India has been a pioneer in education and research in LIS, particularly among the developing nations who are looking for a just educational environment in this context. What India can offer to the developing nations in imparting best education, training and research to the aspirants has been discussed in this paper? It gives a brief description of various aspects of LIS education in India and its implied suitability to the aspirants of educatee from the developing nations. PROFILE OF LIS EDUCATION IN INDIA: 1) Genesis and Growth LIS education in India started in 1911, when the Baroda School was started by W A Borden due to the initiative taken by Sayaji Rao Gaikwad II, the then Maharaja of State of Baroda. Since then, India has not looked back and has been striding high in the ladder A. Y. Asundi and c. R. Karisiddappa Information Officer, Siddaganga Institute of Technology. The paper presents a succinct profile and contributions of Indian LIS education since its inception. It also attempts to bring to the fore how this profile presents its international potentiality and perspective scenario in context to developing countries. Bull. Inf. This apart, several universities are concurrently running Distance Education Programmes too. The details of the developments of LIS education in India are well recorded in the status report of the Curriculum Development Committees (CDC) Report on Curriculum for LIS by the University Grants Commission (UGC) 2 ) UGC Efforts: The UGC efforts in the development of LIS education are well evidenced by the three committees that were constituted to formulate model curriculum and pedagogic guidelines for the LIS courses in India. The Ranganathan reports on University and College Libraries and Library Science Education were the first landmarks in this regard. Later, report of the Kaula Committee on Curriculum Development in LIS Education was published in 1992. This was followed with the Karisiddappa Committee report on Curriculum Development in LIS in 2002. The impact of these efforts were first seen in the continuous development of the curriculum with changing times. Second, the UGC recognised LIS as a discipline on par with other pure and applied subjects. Third was the growth of teaching departments in various universities. And finally, it also necessitated the need for qualified personnel to teach the subject, which gave impetus to start the masters and research degrees programmes. Thus the curriculum, developed over the years for the LIS matches with the modem and contemporary developments in the field and has been responsible for the creation of manpower to man the different types of professional responsibilities, in practice and teaching. ) Role of Professional Bodies and Other Agencies: The role of professional associations in India in the promotion of the LIS education and its systematic development has also been noteworthy. The three main professional associations-the Indian Library Association (ILA), the Indian Association of Special Libraries and Information Centres (IASLIC), and the Indian Association of Teachers of Library and Inform ation Science (IATLIS)-have been holding annual conferences at the national and international levels to take stock of manpower needs and supply of qualified manpower from the departments. In particular, the IA TLIS has been focusing much closer on the education sector than the other two; it widened the scope of the membership to plasticizing librarians so that the teachers and practioners share a common platform towards the developments of education sector and the needs of the practice sector. The IATLIS with ILA and IASLIC also organised jointly a National Seminar on Hundred years of Library Science Education and its Future in October 1987. IATLIS and AGLIS again rganised jointly a National Seminar on IT and its Impact on LIS Education and Library Management in 19965, Two unique courses were developed by the Documentation Research and Training Centre (DRTC) and the Indian National Science and Documentation Centre (lNSDOC) to cater to the needs of special libraries in particular. However, the inculcation of the graduates from these institutions in teaching programmes have given a new direction to the educational paradigm of LIS. While DRTC is an autonomous central ins titute under the Indian Statistical Institute, INSDOC is a constituent centre of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research. The National Centre for Science Information is also offering a postmasters degree course with intensive application of IT to LIS. 4) Levels of Courses in LIS in India In India a variety of courses in LIS are offered and as such the learners have a wide DESIDOC Bull. Inf. Technol. , choice. From a three months Certificate Course to two years Diploma Courses are available to create Para-professionals. The Bachelors, Masters, MPhil and PhD degree programmes are also offered by most of the universities conducting LIS courses. Even at the Masters degree level, there are two courses offering one year BLISc, and one year MLISc or a two years integrated MLISc programme. Besides these, library science is also offered as an optional subject at the three years degree programme to inculcate professional knowledge with college level itself. The UGC report of the CDC gives more details on the structure of these categories. 5) Distance Education in LIS in India: Besides the formal educational programmes in LIS, India also has a good infrastructure of distance education programmes in LIS. As many as 52 universities are offering distance education prgrammes in LIS; some of them such as the Indira Gandhi National Open University (lGNOU) are providing this facility exclusively. IGNOU offers Bachelors, Masters, and Postmasters degrees and even is in the line to extend doctoral programmes in LIS through distance education mode. The course material and the audio- video lessons prepared by IGNOU can match to any international standards in this regard. 6) Curriculum Development and Research Growth: As already mentioned the curriculum of LIS has been continuously revised by he departments at least once in five years. In some cases, it is even once in three years. It takes recourse to the progress of the subject in its various dimensions. The three committees, mentioned already, have been second came only after 20 years. But, today the number of PhDs in LIS far exceeds the time frame; there are 1000 estimated PhD holders in India and each one of them has been guiding several st udents from their respective departments. In the next five years the number of PhD holders in LIS in India would be around SOOO-estimated at about five times more than today. A national meeting on Research in LIS was held in 1994 and numbers of papers on this subject were published to take stock of research output Infrastructure and Other Physical facilities UGCs initiative in providing adequate infrastructure to the LIS departments has enabled them to equip with IT laboratories to provide intensive training in their use. It is a matter of pride that among the developing nations India has the best suited curriculum with orientation to technology applications, (India has been the earliest to include a compulsory paper on library automation as early as in 1980s). The National Accreditation and Assessment Council (NAAC) under UGC have provided enough impetus towards creating good infrastructure, for both libraries and teaching departments. The faculty to teach the traditional and IT related subjects is also available in good number as is evidenced by the large number of conferences, workshops and refresher courses organised by several professional bodies, and the Academic Staff Colleges. The IATLIS also organised a National Conference on the Study of the Infrastructure Facilities available in the LIS departments of the country8. Besides, a statistical presentation in this context has also been given in the UGC Reportl. 8) IT in LIS Education: After the USA, the UK and some European countries, India is one among the few countries, where information and communication technology (ICT)-oriented LIS teaching is being provided. In late 1960s and early 1970s teaching of computer application commenced in Indian library science departments. The courses run by the DRTC and INSDOC also included a paper on library automation. The starting of the INFLIBNET and the Online Information 8 DESIDOC Bull. Inf. Technol. , Retrieval Experiments carried out at National Aeronautical Laboratory and INSDOC gave boost to the inculcation of new technology trends. The contributions of private agencies, in particular the online and CD-ROM database search services started by Informatics (India) are responsible for the initiation of technology culture in Indian libraries and among the library science teachers. A detailed account of technology application in India libraries and library science education has been given by Kumar. The National Information System in Science and Technology/Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (NISSA T IDS IR) and other research and development organisations like Defence Scientific Information and Documentation Centre (DESIDOC) and Sectoral Information Centres under NISSA T have also contributed to this process of technology application in libraries and the manpower development to man many of these libraries and information centres. Today, India with many projects on digital libraries on hand can be considered as technologically advanced in LIS education with IT applications. Many national and international conferences organised in this aspect gives a clear idea of its technological capabilities. INTERNATIONALISATION OF LIBRARY SCIENCE EDUCATION: The profile of LIS education development prescribed under above shows Indias unique experiences in different aspects of LIS education and place it on par with developed nations in imparting LIS education to the aspirants within and outside the country. Students from Kenya, Ethiopia, Thailand and from SAARC countries: and from many African and South-East Asian regions are coming to India under the fellowship of Indian Council for Cultural Relation (lCCR) for pursuing studies in LIS (from bachelors to PhD programmes) and leading the LIS education mantle in their respective countries. In 2005 two Indian professors of LIS were invited by the Danish Government to participate in the workshop organised by the Royal School of Library and Information Science, Copenhagen, where the participants were LIS educators from Africa, Asia and Latin America. The two scholars are members of the Discussion Group formed by International Federation of Library Association (IFLA) with a special emphasis on LIS education in developing countries. There is growing awareness in the Asia-Pacific region about the training and practice of library and information professionals in the 21st century and need for a regional cooperation with the countries like India, which is affluent with vast experience of teaching, research and practice in LIS. Study by Abdullahi, et al. needs to be referred here in order to surface the ppropriateness of India taking a lead-role in this context, particularly with an emphasis on developing countries. They made a theoretical survey on the importance of international and intercultural opportunities in serving as essential components In educating and training library and information professionals. The scope of the paper is though limited to Europe and North America, but the kind of opportunities identified by them can be a good frame work for the others to set-in their goals. Promotion of distance education is another area where internationalisation of LIS education can be promoted. India, since last 25 years; has been imparting distance education programme is LIS, particularly through IGNOU. IGNOU over the years has achieved substantial experience in this area, has created excellent course material using nations best subject experts to write the lessons, and has also broadcasted the lessons through its national television network. Like India, many other developing countries such as Ghana have been utilising ICT for distance education programmes. Martey in his paper has described the ICT scene in Ghana from 1996 to 2004. His paper emphases on the benefits that distance learners in Ghana will derive from an ICT -enhanced distance education. The paper also makes some suggestions as how academic libraries in Ghana can assist distance learners. India with her experience can also exchange the views with others in DESIDOC Bull. Inf. technology, the developing world. The suggestions made by Subba Rao in this context are also worth mentioning STUDY OF ISSUES RELATING TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: The broad perspectives on making LIS curriculum viable for the global issues were Presented by Karisiddappa. They also deliberated on major issues like emergence of information and knowledge society. The paper enlisted nine major factors that needed inclusion in the LIS curriculum. Many of them have now find place in the curriculum on LIS developed by the CDC of UGC. The curriculum has a viable balance between the traditional and technological aspects, practices, skills, and techniques. Karisiddappa has succinctly stressed the need for a model curriculum for developing countries. Shiholo and Ocholla21 in their paper have deliberated on the training needs of LIS professionals in Kenya. Their paper implies to seek international collaboration in developing a need-based curriculum. Indian expertise can be a part of this exercise to fulfill the requirements. Wijetunge stated that Poor information system has poor curriculum development in Sri Lanka. Ocholla and Bothma made some detailed study on the status, trends and challenges of library and information education and training in Eastern and Southern Africa. Similar studies have come from Mexico by Morales and from Croatia by Horvat. In the comparative case study of graduate courses in library and information studies in the UK, USA, India and Iran Mortezaie and Naghshineh have highlighted the need for curricula revamping in terms of diversity of courses offered; university independence; diversity of degrees offered; ease and flexibility of the higher education system; updated course programmes; emphasis on research; and course and curricula development. The paper also laments on a widening chasm between LIS education in developing countries and those in developed countries. In this context the paper by Asundi and Karisiddappa has presented a detailed perspective on the developing countries needs in their paper presented at the Copenhagen workshop in Denmark. Leif has identified number of collaborative aspects, which are not successful in Europe but could be of relevant to developing nations. The issues of collaboration can be examined by the Indian LIS teachers to make concerted efforts to achieve them. Asundi have also identified some areas of study relevant to developing countries. Like the Bologna Declaration-an international agreement with the help of IFLA could be arrived at with the Indian library and information science Departments working towards achieving the collaborative and participative attitude with The developing country schools. Chaudhry identified The aim to look into projects undertaken to promote collaboration between LIS education programmes in South East Asia. He suggested a plan for developing a repository of learning objects for facilitating sharing of teaching materials for improved LIS education. Faculty development was identified another important area of possible future collaboration in the region with possible involvement of international forums. Wijetunge, made a descriptive survey of LIS teachers of Sri Lanka. He identified a strange reason for the dearth of faculty to teach LIS subjects in Sri Lanka. He also expressed lack of full-time teachers to teach in LIS schools resulting in a set-back to professional education in Sri Lanka. Though the paper suggests for a complete manpower survey of LIS professionals, the gap needs to be filled-up as early as possible. Until then neighboring countries like India, which has needed expertise can help under the collaborative approach adopted by the SAARC countries. The two sections, the internationalization and the issues relating to developing countries, should be placed in juxtaposition and superimposed with the profile of the LIS education presented in the Sections International forums like IFLA have endorsed this View as is evident from the formation of Discussion Group under its purview. The trends in LIS education are rather very conspicuous and the influence of technology is diversifying its approach. Hence, the countries with both traditional approach and suitability to adopt the technology will endure the durability for the future. CONCLUSION: The LIS education in India has a unique profile, as it started as a voluntary vocation by many university libraries. This trend followed for at least a decade or so. An independent identity to the course was reached only in early 1970s. Despite these lacunae, it has progressed well and has attracted the world focus particularly that of the developing world. The profile of LIS education given in the paper shows the landmark achievements in its stride for recognition. Today, it has reached a stage where it is being considered as a course to be reckoned with technologically affluent programmes, and being considered on the agenda of apex bodies offering technical education. It is influenced by within and goes with concurrent progress made by India in the field of IT. In traditional subjects of LIS too, India stands different with scholarly contribution by Or Ranganathan and his contemporaries and disciples. Or Ranganathans contributions are being considered in the design of computerized information retrieval systems. Eisenberg, Michael B, et al. mentioned that an integration of traditional areas and IT developments is seen vibrantly in India as is evidenced by the PhD theses generated by the departments of LIS of Indian universities. The range of LIS subjects researched in India presents a very broad base, expressing in itself its potentialities and expertise in conventional subjects like library classification, library cataloguing, and library management and in the specialized areas like, digital libraries and open archives initiatives. The internationalization of LIS education is an issue being discussed at many international forums, and the role that Europe and North America played in the early genesis, was noteworthy. However, the needs of the developing countries are variable and they are looking towards viable partners to suit their social, cultural, economic and political environment. In consideration of these aspects, India can be considered as a viable partner in reshaping LIS education in developing countries. REFERENCES: 1. Dayani, M. H. (2005). Library and information science educational curriculum: Guidelines for evolution. Quarterly Journal of Library and Information Science 3 (1): 1-20. (Persian language). 2. Fattahi, R. (2005). Education for librarianship in Iran before the 1979 Islamic Revolution: An historical review of the American roles and influences. Library Review 54 (5): 316-327. 3. Fattahi, R. , et. al. (2006). The new MA curriculum for librarianship and information science: The report of a research project. Iranian Journal of Information Science and Technology 4 (2) 4. Ghadirian, A. , ; Asili, G. (2005). The prophecy of government, university and industry in national development. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education: 127. (Persian language). 5. Gharibi, H. (n. d. ) Information Committee bulletin, No. 8, Available: irandoc. ac. ir/Com/Newsletter/Bulletin-8. htm#A ?. (Persian language). 6. Hayati, Z. (2008). Library and information science challenges in universities of Iran. Quarterly Journal of Library and Information Science 1 (2): 23. (Persian language). 7. Human resource development. (2002). Damparvar Journal 3:9. (Persian language). 8. Iranian Book News Agency (IBNA). (2008). Library and information science educational curricula should be correct: An interview with Dr. Horri. Available: ibna. ir/vdcgwq9x. ak9n34prra. html. (Persian language). 9. Kumar, P. S. G. Computerisation of Indian libraries. B. R. Publishing, New Delhi, 1977.