Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Innovative Trends and Characteristics

384 views

Published on

Elizabeth Leonard and Betsy Clementson, Hunter Library, Western Carolina University

Published in: Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Innovative Trends and Characteristics

  1. 1. BUSINESS LIBRARIANS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP Innovative Trends and Characteristics Elisabeth Leonard Betsy Clementson Hunter Library Western Carolina University
  2. 2. IN THE BEGINNING  Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations (2003).  “an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption”  Elisabeth Leonard (!)  Innovation is the adoption of a new idea, service or product that provides value to the adopter.  Little research exists on innovation within libraries; less on innovativeness within libraries  We wanted to know how innovative are we (librarians) really…at work
  3. 3. METHODOLOGY: GROUNDED THEORY  “A qualitative research method that uses a systematic set of procedures to develop an inductively derived grounded theory about a phenomenon.” Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.  Provides building blocks on which theory can be constructed (no initial hypothesis)  Procedures so far: survey with a mix of open ended and Likert scale questions  To follow: interviews with managers, document analysis (mission statements, strategic plans, etc.)
  4. 4. METHODOLOGY: PARTICIPANTS  Web survey of business librarians associated with the ten schools listed in America’s Best Graduate Schools  Received IRB approval (and consent from participants)  Identified librarians via library websites  90% response rate for the schools/ 38% response rate for individuals
  5. 5. PARTICIPANTS  Babson College  UC Berkeley  Harvard University  IUPUI (Indiana University-Purdue University)  MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)  Stanford University  University of Southern California  University of Texas at Austin  University of Pennsylvania University of Arizona did not participate
  6. 6. ADOPTERS Rabina & Walczyk. 2007. Information professionals’ attitude toward the adoption of innovations in everyday life. Information Research, 12(4), 1‐15. innovators early adopters early majority late majority laggards 2.50% 13.50% 34% 34% 16% 3.60% 24.60% 17.20% 37% 17.70% 42.00% 42.00% 5% 11% 0% Rogers Rabina & Walczyk 2007 Leonard & Clementson 2011
  7. 7. ANOTHER VIEW OF OUR RESULTS  Not all our participants were easily typecast!  Warning: results can vary by innovation 74% 79% 21% 21% 0% Innovator Early adopter Early majority Late majority Laggard
  8. 8. INNOVATORS: VENTURESOME  “They are very eager to try new ideas.”  “…must be able to cope with a high degree of uncertainty about an innovation…”
  9. 9. INNOVATORS: VENTURESOME 2.50% 13.50% 34% 34% 16% 3.60% 24.60% 17.20% 37% 17.70% 42.00% 42.00% 5% 11% 0% Rogers Rabina & Walczyk 2007 Leonard & Clementson 2011 Laggards Innovator Early adopter Early majority Late majority
  10. 10. EARLY ADOPTERS: RESPECTABLE  “…has the greatest degree of opinion leadership in most social systems.”  “…the role of the early adopter is to decrease uncertainty about a new idea by adopting it…”
  11. 11. EARLY ADOPTERS: RESPECTABLE 2.50% 13.50% 34% 34% 16% 3.60% 24.60% 17.20% 37% 17.70% 42.00% 42.00% 5% 11% 0% Rogers Rabina & Walczyk 2007 Leonard & Clementson 2011 LaggardsInnovator Early adopter Early majority Late majority
  12. 12. EARLY MAJORITY: DELIBERATE  “They follow with deliberate willingness in adopting innovations, but seldom lead.”
  13. 13. EARLY MAJORITY: DELIBERATE 2.50% 13.50% 34% 34% 16% 3.60% 24.60% 17.20% 37% 17.70% 42.00% 42.00% 5% 11% 0% Rogers Rabina & Walczyk 2007 Leonard & Clementson 2011 LaggardsInnovator Early adopter Early majority Late majority
  14. 14. LATE MAJORITY: SKEPTICAL  “The weight of social norms must definitely favor the innovation before the late majority are convinced.”
  15. 15. LATE MAJORITY: SKEPTICAL 2.50% 13.50% 34% 34% 16% 3.60% 24.60% 17.20% 37% 17.70% 42.00% 42.00% 5% 11% 0% Rogers Rabina & Walczyk 2007 Leonard & Clementson 2011 LaggardsInnovator Early adopter Early majority Late majority
  16. 16. LAGGARDS: TRADITIONAL  “The point of reference for the laggard is the past.”  “…precarious economic position”
  17. 17. LAGGARDS: TRADITIONAL 2.50% 13.50% 34% 34% 16% 3.60% 24.60% 17.20% 37% 17.70% 42.00% 42.00% 5% 11% 0% Rogers Rabina & Walczyk 2007 Leonard & Clementson 2011 LaggardsInnovator Early adopter Early majority Late majority
  18. 18. AND THIS AFFECTS ME …….HOW?! Rabina & Walczyk. 2007. Information professionals’ attitude toward the adoption of innovations in everyday life. Information Research, 12(4), 1‐15. innovators early adopters early majority late majority laggards 2.50% 13.50% 34% 34% 16% 3.60% 24.60% 17.20% 37% 17.70% 42.00% 42.00% 5% 11% 0% Rogers Rabina & Walczyk 2007 Leonard & Clementson 2011
  19. 19. DIFFUSING INNOVATIONS: KEY PLAYERS  Look internally and externally for influencers  Innovators, early adopters, and early majority  Change agents  Managers  Institutional inertia inhibits risk-taking  [where I work, there is a] culture to support risk-taking.  I am rarely taken seriously when talking about the use and benefits of new products and services.  I don't have enough time to experiment and try out new tools or services  Think about the message you are sending…and the one you are receiving
  20. 20. WHAT’S NEXT?  Begin a real discussion  Expand survey?  National definition of innovation?
  21. 21. CHECK US OUT

×