103
People tend to have several roles and identities (e.g. be a consumer, a producer,
entrepreneur, a father, a husband, a citizen), and they may reason and think differently in different capacities. For example, as a citizen, someone may be all in favour
of sustainable agriculture and vote for a green party that proposes a tax on meat or
fertiliser, but as a consumer, the same person may have different considerations and
buy the cheapest meat available, while as a parent he/she may insist on buying the
most expensive meat when their grown-up children come home for dinner. From the
perspective of an outsider, such behaviours may be regarded as ‘inconsistent’, but at
the same time, one could argue that they are consistent with the salient identity that
is evoked by a certain interaction setting. Thus, the salient identity can be seen to
shape the kinds of knowledge, values and social influences that are taken into
account when deciding to adopt something or not. Arguably, identity can be important in another way as well, namely, an important motivator for action in specific
situations. When people feel that their identity is threatened or treated disrespectfully (e.g. their religious, national or racial identity), they may respond strongly. In
this sense too, identity may play a role in adoption of technologies or behaviours.
For example, people may resist re-allocation of land in the context of a land consolidation or resettlement scheme because they feel it undermines their identity as landowners who have been custodians of the land for many generations.
Risk and uncertainty The existence of numerous interdependencies in relation to
adoption only amplifies and underscores that people may well experience uncertainties or risks in relation to several of the variables discussed so far. They may actually
wonder what the consequences of one practice may imply for other practices and
outcomes or have doubts about how relevant others might respond to their adoption
behaviour. Clearly, people are not all knowing about the world around them and
may neither be fully convinced about the adequacy of their beliefs, the level of their
capacities and/or the importance of competing aspirations. It is likely that such
uncertainties and/or risk perceptions have an impact on people who actively consider the adoption of something, but this is not well represented in the dominant models.
Institutions While the complementary variables mentioned so far relate to people’s
mindsets and mental considerations, it is useful to introduce another type of concept
from a rather different academic tradition: the idea that practices or behaviours are
shaped by ‘institutions’. Institutions can be seen as the formal and inform rules and
arrangements to which people orient themselves in their (inter)action (North 1990).
We may think of the regulations that govern interactions in markets and value
chains, the informal standards and norms regarding appropriate social behaviour,
the formal legal rules that people take into account when deciding how to deal with
a conflict and/or the procedures that are in place to arrive at democratic decisionmaking. Clearly, such rules and arrangements (in some literatures called ‘structures’
or ‘regimes’) can have an important influence on what people do or do not do. As
mentioned, institutional explanations of behaviour stem from a completely different
tradition than social-psychological and individualist explanations but certainly
4 Rethinking Adoption and Diffusion as a Collective Social Process…
People tend to have several roles and identities (e.g. be a consumer, a producer,
entrepreneur, a father, a husband, a citizen), and they may reason and think differently in different capacities. For example, as a citizen, someone may be all in favour
of sustainable agriculture and vote for a green party that proposes a tax on meat or
fertiliser, but as a consumer, the same person may have different considerations and
buy the cheapest meat available, while as a parent he/she may insist on buying the
most expensive meat when their grown-up children come home for dinner. From the
perspective of an outsider, such behaviours may be regarded as ‘inconsistent’, but at
the same time, one could argue that they are consistent with the salient identity that
is evoked by a certain interaction setting. Thus, the salient identity can be seen to
shape the kinds of knowledge, values and social influences that are taken into
account when deciding to adopt something or not. Arguably, identity can be important in another way as well, namely, an important motivator for action in specific
situations. When people feel that their identity is threatened or treated disrespectfully (e.g. their religious, national or racial identity), they may respond strongly. In
this sense too, identity may play a role in adoption of technologies or behaviours.
For example, people may resist re-allocation of land in the context of a land consolidation or resettlement scheme because they feel it undermines their identity as landowners who have been custodians of the land for many generations.
Risk and uncertainty The existence of numerous interdependencies in relation to
adoption only amplifies and underscores that people may well experience uncertainties or risks in relation to several of the variables discussed so far. They may actually
wonder what the consequences of one practice may imply for other practices and
outcomes or have doubts about how relevant others might respond to their adoption
behaviour. Clearly, people are not all knowing about the world around them and
may neither be fully convinced about the adequacy of their beliefs, the level of their
capacities and/or the importance of competing aspirations. It is likely that such
uncertainties and/or risk perceptions have an impact on people who actively consider the adoption of something, but this is not well represented in the dominant models.
Institutions While the complementary variables mentioned so far relate to people’s
mindsets and mental considerations, it is useful to introduce another type of concept
from a rather different academic tradition: the idea that practices or behaviours are
shaped by ‘institutions’. Institutions can be seen as the formal and inform rules and
arrangements to which people orient themselves in their (inter)action (North 1990).
We may think of the regulations that govern interactions in markets and value
chains, the informal standards and norms regarding appropriate social behaviour,
the formal legal rules that people take into account when deciding how to deal with
a conflict and/or the procedures that are in place to arrive at democratic decisionmaking. Clearly, such rules and arrangements (in some literatures called ‘structures’
or ‘regimes’) can have an important influence on what people do or do not do. As
mentioned, institutional explanations of behaviour stem from a completely different
tradition than social-psychological and individualist explanations but certainly
4 Rethinking Adoption and Diffusion as a Collective Social Process…