Viewed from the perspective of the current study, it seems that the ivory tower contexts have perhaps been reluctant to adopt the learnings from the world of man-agement and business where diffusion studies abound regarding the spreading of
innovations that are mainly in the form of products. Although a critical approach is to be emphasized, such studies can indeed be applied in connection with the uptake of ICTs by academic faculty in educational contexts. In their analysis of teachers’
adoption of educational innovations involving the use of ICTs, a host of writers have applied the commonly known Technology Adoption Life Cycle, generally applied in the contexts of business and industry (cf. e.g., Geoghegan 1994; Ker-shaw 1996; Jaffee 1998; Sinko & Lehtinen 1999; Johnston 1999; Thompson 1999).
The cycle, originally developed by Rogers (1983), divides the population into five segments based on the characteristics of the people. The five segments consist of innovators, early adopters, the early majority, the late majority, and laggards.
Moore (1991/1999) has further developed the cycle and specifies the segments even further by naming them as follows: innovators = the Technology Enthusiasts;
early adopters = the Visionaries; the early majority = the Pragmatists; the late ma-jority = the Conservatives; and laggards = the Skeptics.
Figure 1. The Revised Technology Adoption Life Cycle (Moore 1991/1999, 16).
In his model of the Revised Technology Adoption Life Cycle, Moore (Moore 1991/1999, 16) introduces a gap between each segment. According to Moore (1999, 15), this symbolizes the disassociation between the two groups, which im-plies the difficulty any group will have in accepting a new product if it is presented in the same way as it was to the previous group. Moore (1999, 18) focuses special attention on the gap, “the deep and dividing chasm”, as he calls it, separating the early adopters from the early majority in the Technology Adoption Life Cycle.
Moore considers this gap all the more dangerous, because it typically goes unrec-ognized. When drawing an analogy to the context of higher education, it could be argued that, indeed, some faculty will always be enthusiastic about technology for its own sake (Innovators: the Technology Enthusiasts) and some will quickly see its potential (Early adopters: the Visionaries). In connection with the launching of a new technology product, the successful development of a high-tech market faces
the crucial test of making the transition from an early market to the mainstream market dominated by the representatives of the early majority who are predomi-nantly pragmatists in orientation. Similarly in the context of higher education, closing the gap between the early adopters and the pragmatists is crucial from the perspective of the faculty’s effective adoption of technology.
In adjusting the above categorization to educational contexts, Geoghegan (1994) narrows down the five segments described above into two: the early adopt-ers and the mainstream. He enumerates the characteristics of the representatives of the two groups. Although he admits that the items listed are generalizations, they do help to point out the extent to which these two populations differ from one an-other. In applying his characterizations into educational contexts, Geoghegan (1994) sees the early adopters as a small subset of faculty, consisting generally of no more than 15% of all faculty. As teachers, he describes early adopters of ICTs with the following characteristics: favoring revolutionary change, visionary with strong technology focus, risk takers, experimenters, largely self-sufficient, and
“horizontally” networked with personal networks that have a high proposition of interdisciplinary and cross-functional links.
Table 1. The Characteristics of the Adopters of Educational Innovations according to Geoghegan (1994).
In his classification of the teachers belonging to the mainstream, Geoghegan (1994) characterizes them as favoring evolutionary change, pragmatic or conservative with strong problem and process focus, risk averse preferring proven applications of compelling value. They also tend to need significant support and be “vertically”
networked, i.e. having linkages more concentrated within a single discipline or dis-cipline area. Geoghegan also suggests that the barrier preventing instructional technology from penetrating the mainstream is less a matter of aversion to technol-ogy than it is an aversion to risk, a low tolerance for discontinuous change,
inade-quate “vertical” support, and perhaps the lack of an absolutely compelling reason to buy into a new and relatively disruptive way to go about one’s work.
Furthermore, Geoghegan (1994) identifies possible reasons why the many successful ICT applications carried out by the early adopters do not seem to find their way into a more general use within the mainstream faculty. He argues that one reason might be that early adopters often turn out to be poor role models and change agents. Their success in using technology to bring about qualitative im-provements in teaching and learning, and the visibility that occasionally accompa-nies such success, can actually have an alienating effect. Finally, he also points out that such visibility can set inappropriately high expectations with which subsequent users may be quite uncomfortable.
From the perspective of educational contexts, Geoghegan’s (1994) division into early adopters and mainstream seems less value-laden than the original catego-ries proposed by e.g. Rogers (1983; 1995) and Moore (1991/1999). However, for the purposes of this current study it can be argued that even the term “mainstream”
is too general and, in fact, also value-laden when used for categorizing teachers. It can be argued that some teachers might justifiably resent being categorized as be-longing to the mainstream on the basis of their more critical views to adjusting to the use of new technologies in their work. Consequently, this current study regards Thompson’s (1999, 154–155) classification of educational technology users into
“enthusiasts” and “adopters” as a more appropriate classification. Thompson (1999, 154) uses “the term ‘enthusiasts’ for those who are actively involved in the emergent stages and ‘adopters’ for those who take on what is regarded as ‘innova-tive’ and bring it, with greater or lesser success, both into the mainstream of teaching/learning for an individual curriculum at the micro-level, and as part of a cultural change within the institution at the macro-level”. Thompson does point out, however, that this binary distinction simplifies the gradations of adoption from early to late participants and from small groups to large cohorts, but she still con-siders it a useful way of foregrounding issues.
Thompson (1999, 155) further indicates that for the enthusiast, the develop-ment process may be an end in itself. Typically, even if the final product does not function as intended, much is gained from the experience itself. She stresses that this is in direct contrast to the adopter, who generally wants a working system al-most solely for what it can provide. In addition, the enthusiast seems to be chal-lenged by the unknown, whereas the potential adopter seeks proof, i.e. evidence that ‘it’ will work and clearly articulated statements of resultant teaching and learning outcomes. Furthermore, while the enthusiast is likely to be tolerant of fail-ure and to enjoy the whole risk-taking process, the adopter wants any technology to be failure-proof and non-disruptive.
In sum, as illustrated above, Geoghegan (1994) and Thompson (1999) have adopted the diffusion of innovations model from the business world and applied it
into education. Instead of the perspective of marketing, where the target group would consist of consumers, the target population could comprise teachers in