' lit-A
U
I

I.

ABSTRACT

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF COMMUNICATION STRUCTURE

AND INNOVATION DIFFUSION IN TWO INDIAN VILLAGES
Dharam P. Yadav

The main objectives of the present thesis were two-
fold: /(a) to develop a conceptual and analytical framework
designed to study the relationship of the elements of com-
munication structure and technological diffusion in compar-
ative social systems. and (2) to utilize this framework in
an empirical investigation designed to analyze variations
between two peasant communities with regard to patterns of
communication structure which differentially affect techno-
lOgical diffusion in these communities The communities
are located in the state of Punjab. Indiay/

The selection of the two communities was based on
the criteria (1) that identical programs of technological
change were introduced in the two communities. which were
comparatively similar in terms of respondents' character-
istics. religious. ethnic. and cultural background. (2)
that the two communities manifested different types of

l

Dharam P. Yadav

social structures. each producing different patterns of in-
terpersonal communication. and (3) that different patterns
of communication structure affected differential rate of
technological diffusion in the two communities.

The two communities were conceptualized as "modern"
and "traditional" on the assumption that there were extreme
differences between the two with respect to rate of techno-
logical diffusion--the dependent variable of this study.
The conceptualization of the two communities as modern and
traditional was validated empirically.

The communication structure of a social system was
conceptualized in terms of three main concepts: patterns
of opinion leadership. patterns of homophily in dyadic com-
munication. and patterns of communication integration. A
sociometric design based on "saturation sampling" was em-
ployed so that every respondent could be located within the
networks of interpersonal communication contacts. Thus
every head of a farm family was interviewed in both commun-
ities. Hypotheses dealing with patterns of Opinion leader-
ship were tested by utilizing the individual as the unit of
analysis; hypotheses pertaining to patterns of homOphily in
dyadic communication were studied by utilizing the dyad as

2

Dharam P. Yadav

the unit of analysis; and hypotheses concerning patterns of
communication integration were tested by using the group or
system as the unit of analysis.

Eight hypotheses dealing with opinion leadership
were postulated and tested. The first five hypotheses were
concerned with variations between the modern and traditional
social systems with regard to communication and innovative
behavior of Opinion leaders. The sixth hypothesis dealt
with differences in the degree of polymorphism of opinion
leadership between the modern and traditional social system.
and the remaining two hypotheses postulated variations in
degree of opinion leadership concentration between the two
social systems. Of the eight hypotheses. three were supported.
one was partially supported. and the remaining four were not
supported.

Ten hypotheses were stated in the category of patterns
of homophily in dyadic communication. The hypotheses dealt
with variations in the degree of homophily between the modern
and traditional SDCial system. with respect to five designated
attributes of members. and with respect to two types of dyadic
communication contacts namely "instrumental interaction" and
“social interaction." In addition. one more hypothesis

3

Dharam P. Yadav

dealing with frequency of instrumental interaction in dyadic
communication contacts was also tested. Of the eleven hy-
potheses. only one was supported. seven were in the expected
direction. and three were in the Opposite direction than ex-
pected.

The research emphasis regarding patterns of communi-
cation integration was to compare the communication structure
of the two peasant social systems in terms of subgroups. in
terms of communication contacts between the subgroups. and
in terms of key communication positions of "liaison" persons.
All the six hypotheses stated in the category of patterns of
communication integration were supported.

In general. 25 hypotheses were postulated in the
present thesis. Of the 25 hypotheses. ten were supported.
one was partially supported. and the remaining fourteen were

not supported.

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF COMMUNICATION STRUCTURE

AND INNOVATION DIFFUSION IN TWO INDIAN VILLAGES

BY

Dharam P. Yadav

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment Of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department Of Communication

1967

G q >3 H
3-~.2(1,-4$g

Accepted by the faculty of the Department of
Communication. College of Communication Arts. Michigan
State University. in partial fulfillment of the require-
ments for the Doctor of Philosophy degree.

K \-

1/<,/ 2'1. L2,}; . 1, (nge‘fi
Director of Thesis

 

,r ~ vv \.
, .
: ix ‘ ,1
. - .r
r . .1

Guidance Committee: ,Lgi/fi djflranK»-.Chairman

 

('

Crflnlf? 6g1fi2w¢7[:~“9

aw M
xii/Z. A

r .

 

PREFACE

The present thesis is an attempt to explore some of
the underlying mechanisms of the process of communication
and technolOgical change in the context of peasant communi-
ties. The accomplishment Of this thesis in the present form
is indeed due to invaluable assistance and helpful sugges-
tions received from numerous sources which. I can only ack-
nowledge.

I owe my greatest debt to my advisor. Dr. Everett
M. Rogers. who has been instrumental in guiding the present
study from the beginning to the very end. I wish to ack-
nowledge the intellectual stimulation and professional guid-
ance that Professor Rogers has Offered with great warmth
throughout the period of my studies in the Department of
Communication. Michigan State University.

I extend my great appreciation to Dr. Hideya Kumata.
Dr. Erwin P. Bettinghaus. and Dr. Eugene Jacobson. Who
served as members on my doctoral guidance committee and
who Offered valuable suggestions and comments in regard to
the present thesis. I wish to thank Professor Jacobson for
the significant theoretical and methodological suggestions
especially dealing with the analysis Of interpersonal com—
munication structures.

TO RObert F. Keith and Duane Pettersen. my colleagues
in the department. I extend my appreciation for the helpful
suggestions they contributed toward the improvement of the
present thesis.

Finally. I wish to take this Opportunity to thank
Dr. David K. Berlo and the faculty of the Department of Com-
munication for the indefinable help and encouragement that
I received throughout the period Of my doctoral studies in
communication.

Dharam P. Yadav

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACMOWLEDGEMENTS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

LIST
LIST
Chapter

I.

II.

OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

INTRODUCTION AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND .

Importance of Interpersonal Communication

Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rate of Technological Diffusion . . . .

State Of Research on Interpersonal Communica-

tion and TechnolOgical Diffusion. . .
Inadequacies in Diffusion Research. . .
The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Communication Structure: A Conceptual

Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Definitions Of Key Concepts and Variables

CONCEPTS AND STATEMENTS OF HYPOTHESES . .

The Individual as the Unit of Analysis.
Patterns of Opinion Leadership. . . .

The Dyad as the Unit Of Analysis. . . .

Patterns Of Homophily in Dyadic Communication

Structural Analysis . . . . . . . . . .

Patterns of Communication Integration .

iii

Page

ii

vii

\lO‘H

14
15
21
27

36

36
36
50
51
7O
7O

Table of Contents/continued

Chapter

III. METHODOLOGY AND TECHNIQUES OF MEASUREMENT

Selection of Communities and their Locale

Method of Data Collection . .

Operationalization of Concepts and Techniques

Of Sociometric Measurement.

Reliability of Sociometric Measurement.

MethOdOlOgical Assumptions. .

Equivalence of the Two Communities. . .

IV. RESEARCH FINDINGS . . . . . . .

Criterion Variable. . . . . .

Validation of "Modern" and

Variable. . . . . . . . .

"Traditional"
Social System Types on the Criterion “

Tests Of Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . .

Patterns of Opinion Leadership. . . . . . . .
Patterns of Homophily in Dyadic Communication
Patterns of Communication Integration . . . .

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . .

Sumary O O O O O O O I I O 0
Discuss ion. 0 O O O I O O 0
Conclusions . . . . . . . . .

Communication Structure and

Diffusion . . . . . . . .
Implications for Action . .
Needed Research . . . . . .

BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . .

iv

Page

85

85
89

95
117
120
121

124

124

126
129

129
140
151

165
165

181
191

192
201
205

211

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Relationships Of Interpersonal Variables to Inno-
Vativeness . O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O 0 ll

2. Single—stage Reliability Coefficients of Sociometric
Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

3. Equivalence Of the Two Communities with Regard to
Variables Dealing with Characteristics and Back-
ground Information Of Respondents . . . . . . . . 122

4. Comparative Rate Of Technological Diffusion in Two
Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

5. z-Statistics for Correlation Differences Between
Modern and Traditional Social System with Regard
to the Relationship Between Opinion Leadership
and Indicators Of Communication and Innovative
Behavior. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

6. z-Statistics for Correlational Differences Between
Modern and Traditional Social System with Regard
to the Relationship Between Opinion Leadership
and Indicators of Mass Media Exposure . . . . . . 132

7. Variation Between Modern and Traditional Social
Systems with Respect to Polymorphism of Opinion
Leadership and Opinion Leadership Concentration . 137

8. Variation in HomOphily Index. Between Traditional
and Modern Social System. with ReSpect to Desig-
nated Attributes of Members in Dyadic Communica-
tion Contacts Based on "Instrumental interaction"
in the Information Seeking Network. . . . . . . . 142

List of Tables/continued

Table

9.

10.

ll.

12.

13.

Variation in HomOphily Index. Between Traditional
and Modern Social System with Respect to Desig-
nated Attributes Of Members in Dyadic Communica-
tion Contacts Based on Social Interaction in the
Informal Friendship Network . . . . . . . . . . .

Variation Between Traditional and Modern Social
System with Respect to Frequency Of Instrumental
Interaction. Degree Of Integration into Informa-
tion Seeking Networks. and Range of Social Inter-
action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Liaison Persons. Subgroups and their Characteristics
in the Modern Social System . . . . . . . . . . .

Liaison Persons. Subgroups and their Characteristics
in the Traditional Social System. . . . . . . . .

Summary of Results of the 25 Hypotheses Tested in
the Present Thesis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vi

Page

143

150

161

162

182

LIST OF FIGURES
Figures Page

1. Conceptual and analytical paradigm of communication
structure in innovation diffusion . . . . . . . . f23

2. The relationship of homophily and technological
diffusion potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

3. An illustration of Lorenz Curve indicating concen—
tration Of sociometric contacts . . . . . . . . . 103

4. Patterns of communication integration in the Bsant
Pur modern community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

5. Patterns of communication integration in the Arjan
Pur traditional community . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

vii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Importance of Interpersonal Communication

The peasant villages in India have been undergoing a
process of change and modernization-—a process initiated by
governmental change agencies since the first Five Year Plan
was put into action in 1951. Plans for increasing agricul-
tural production were given priority via an attempt to ac-
celerate the adoption and diffusion of improved agricultural
practices. Development planners recognized since the very
beginning Of these programs Of change that illiterate peas—
ants must be motivated and induced to accept innovations.
Large-scale community development and agricultural extension
programs were launched to help peasants in all phases of
better farming and better living. These attempts by change
agencies focused on villages as grass roots social organiza—
tions for the implementation of social and technological
change. Indeed. the diffusion of innovations has been one
of the major mechanisms of bringing about agricultural de-

velopment in these settings.

To what extent have peasants responded to innovations
over time? What are some of the underlying social processes
influencing the rate Of technolOgical diffusion in peasant
villages? How do new ideas and innovations become integrated
into the life style of villagers? These are a few of the
many important questions that one might raise in Older to
explore the process Of technological diffusion in peasant
villages. We shall be primarily concerned in this thesis
with some of the elements of the communication process. es-
pecially those dealing with interpersonal communication. in
innovation diffusion in Indian villages.

The diffusion of innovations involves at least four
crucial elements: (1) the innovation. (2) its communication
from one individual to the other. (3) in a social system.

(4) over time. Thus. the major task of accelerating innova-
tion diffusion in peasant villages depends upon the effective-
ness of the flow of messages from mass media and change agen-
cies to opinion leaders. and through interpersonal communica-
tion channels from opinion leaders to other villagers.

Studies in the United States reveal the effect of interper-
sonal communication and influence on individuals' attitudes
and behaviors in diverse areas such as voting behavior (Laz-

arsfeld and others. 1948. p. 151). marketing and public

affairs (Katz and Lazarsfeld. 1955. p. 25). and adoption of
farm practices (Rogers. 1962. p. 25). In all such studies.
even in a media-saturated society like the United States.
interpersonal communication was found to be more important
than mass media channels.

At a more general level. Pye (1963. p. 27) emphasized
the relative importance of interpersonal communication in de-
velopment in these words: "It is only necessary at this
point to make it clear that the process Of development is
less dependent upon increased investment in the modernized.
urbanized mass media system than it is upon the adjusting of
the informal. rural systems to each other and to the mass
media system." Seemingly. Pye is suggesting that new arrange-
ments in the social structure of peasant villages are a pre-
requisite to the effective adoption of innovation messages
and their integration into the life style of rural communi-
ties.

Indeed. Eisenstadt (1962) reported from a study con—
ducted in modern. traditional. and transitional informal so-
cial systems in Israel that the extent to which a given item
of information would diffuse through the interpersonal com—
munication network was partly determined by (1) the charac-

teristics of Opinion leaders. (2) the nature of interpersonal

networks. and (3) the manner in which the community responded
to certain kinds of messages and influences. Speaking of the
role of mass media and interpersonal communication in modern-
ization. Pool (1963. p. 248) stated that mass media channels
seldom lead to adoption directly. they rather created an
awareness of the existence of new practices. and provided
guidance to innovating leaders. Pool further pointed out
that the adOption of an innovation adecated in the mass
media was mainly dependent on its interpersonal dimension.
Thus it is widely acknowledged that the effectiveness of com-
munication attempts to induce change in individual attitudes
and behavior is in large part dependent upon the nature of
interpersonal networks of communication.

New ideas mainly reach peasant communities as a result
of programs of planned change which heavily depend upon local
leaders for the dissemination Of ideas via word-Of-mouth
channels. Considering the limited availability of the mass
media and the high rates Of illiteracy among peasants (pre—
venting them from using printed materials). much reliance has
been placed on interpersonal communication in the diffusion
of innovations to peasants. Furthermore. peasant communities
are to a considerable extent rigidly structured. highly strat-

ified and an individual's decision to adopt technological

innovations is expected to be subordinated and conditioned
by dominant role prescriptions and group norms. Thus. keep-
ing in view the limited mass media availability. mass illit-
eracy. coupled with the situation in which an individual's
decision is considerably conditioned by the social structure.
the probability that individuals will adOpt technological

innovations depends in part upon (1) whether knowledge or

 

information regarding innovations is available in the inter—
personal communication network. and (2) whether norms and
group standards are such that they provide the necessary s97
cial support for adoption of decisions. It is indeed in these
micro systems of informal face-to-face diffusion networks
that encoding and decoding of innovation messages takes place.
Interpersonal communication structure thus assumes a rela-
tively much more important function in technological diffu-
sion and adoption in these settings. However. our knowledge
is too limited and scanty to specify exactly what particular
elements of the interpersonal communication structure make
what kind of differences in technological diffusion. Perhaps
one of the main factors responsible for lack of scientific
body of knowledge dealing with interpersonal communication

is that past diffusion research. which was conducted mostly

in the U.S. and other develOped countries. was based on

survey research designs in which individual rather than in—

terpersonal relationship was the unit of analysis.

Objectives

 

The main objectives of the present thesis are twofold:

1. TO develop a conceptual and analytical framework de—
signed to study the relationship of the elements of communi—
cation structure and technological diffusion in comparative
social systems.

2. To utilize this framework in an empirical investiga-
tion of the attributes Of communication structure which dif—
ferentially affect technological diffusion in two social sys-
tems. which are peasant communities in India.

Our goal is to understand what variations in communi-
cation structure differentially condition technological dif-
fusion in comparative social systems. First. we intend to
define rate of technological diffusion. then present an Over—
view of the state of research bearing on the relationship of
interpersonal communication and technological diffusion. and
consequently suggest some of the inadequacies in diffusion
research. Following this discussion we shall seek to state

the central problem Of this thesis. and then spell out in

brief our conceptual framework. incorporating the key elements

Of communication structure.

Rate of Technological Diffusion

Rateggfftechnoloqical diffusion* is defined as the
extent to which members in a social system have adopted inno-
vations over time. It is described in terms of the cumula-
tive percentage of a social system's members Who have adOpted
an innovation.

Some researchers have studied rate of diffusion as
the logistic fitted to the logarithmic transformation of dif—
fusion curve data (Griliches. 1957). Coleman. and others
(1966. p. 97) considered rate of technological diffusion as
a function of the "snowball process" in which those members
who had adOpted an innovation in one time period exerted in—
fluence on other members to adOpt it during subsequent periods.
Under these circumstances the proportion of potential adopters

who would accept the innovation in each time period would

 

*Rate of technological diffusion is an important criterion
variable in order to predict innovation acceptance at the
social system level. However in past diffusion research.‘
only a few investigations utilised this particular variable
primarily because a study Of rate of technOlOgical diffu-
sion requires a social system as the unit of analysis.

increase in prOportion to the number of those who had already
adOpted. and the resulting curve would be a logistic curve.
Considering individuals as adopting units. rate of techno-
logical diffusion was interpreted by Rogers (1958) in the
form Of an S-shaped distribution based on the normal distri-
bution. Rogers assumed the S-shaped distribution was an in-
dicant of the effect of interpersonal influences on the adOp-
tive decisions of individuals in a social system.

Thus. the rate Of technological diffusion in a social
system is directly related to and affected by processes of
interpersonal influence in which innovating leaders and early
adopters influence those who have not adOpted. Over a certain
period of time innovation is expected to be adOpted by a ma-

jority of social system members.

State of Research on InterpersOnal
Communication and Technological Diffusion
It is apprOpriate at this point to review what we
know from diffusion research about the nature of interper-
sonal communication variables which have been investigated
in relation to their effect on technological diffusion.
Research findings from studies conducted in the United

States supported the notion that the rate of technological

diffusion is considerably influenced when early adopters of
innovations influence later adopters (Haven and Rogers. 1961;
Ryan and Gross. 1943: Rogers and Beal. 1958; Coleman and
others. 1957). These findings are presumably based on the
interpretation that once innovations are adopted by a few
members in a given social system. then innovation diffusion
flows through the social structure over time by means of in-
terpersonal communication channels or what has been generally
called the “interaction effect."

Further support regarding the effect Of interpersonal
communication channel use on technological diffusion is evi-
dent from quite a large number of studies in which the research
focus was to investigate what specific channels were important
at various stages in the process of acceptance of innovations
by farmers (Copp and others. 1958; Wilkening 1956; Rogers and
Beal. 1958). These studies indicate that interpersonal chan-
nels such as peers. neighbors. and progressive farmers are
important influences in innovation decisions. especially at
the persuasion stage when favorable attitudes toward adOption
of innovation are formed. Similar results were reported in
studies conducted in peasant societies where farmers were
found to have had little or no exposure to mass media chan-

nels. and interpersonal channels were most important in

10

innovation decisions (Deutschmann and Fals Borda. 1962.
Myren. 1962. Rahim. 1961; and Rogers and Meynen. 1965).

These studies have their main focus on the use of
interpersonal channels in innovation decisions. How the
structural attributes of interpersonal communication net-
works might condition innovation diffusion was not the
prime objective in these studies.*

In view of the focus of the present research on
interpersonal communication in technological diffusion in
comparative social systems. a further attempt was made to
pool empirical findings bearing on these variables. from all
possible diffusion studies. Table 1 indicates the nature and
extent to which certain dimensions of communication variables
have been studied in determining their relationship to inno-

vativeness.** From Table 1. it is evident that out of a total

 

*Exception is the study by Coleman. Katz and Menzel (1957)
who considered innovation diffusion from the point of view
of friendship networks. discussion networks. and consulta-
tion networks formed by communication links among doctors.

**The variable of innovativeness is one indicator of rate of
technological diffusion and is defined as the degree to
which an individual is relatively earlier in adopting inno-
vations than other members of the social system. The major
difference between innovativeness and rate of technical dif-
fusion stems from the fact that innovativeness is measured
by utilising individual as the unit of analysis whereas rate
of technological diffusion is studied by utilising social
system as the unit of analysis.

11

TABLE 1.--Relationships of interpersonal variables to inno-
vativeness.*

 

Variables Related Type Of Relationship Found Total Number
to Innovativeness of Publica—
Pos. None Neg. Cond** tions

 

 

1. Opinion Lead-
ership 9 3 l 1 l4

2. Interpersonal
Communica—
tion Exposure 28 6 6 0 40

 

of about 900 diffusion studies content-analyzed in the Dif-
fusion Documents Center at Michigan State University.
slightly more than one per cent investigated the relationship
of opinion leadership to innovativeness. and around four per
cent inquired into the relationship of interpersonal interac-
tion with innovativeness. In most of the studies opinion
leadership was defined as the degree to which an individual

is sought by others for information and advice. Interpersonal

 

*Data reported in Table l were obtained from the Diffusion
Documents Center at Michigan State University. The Center
contains more than 1.200 articles pertaining to the commun-
ication of new ideas among members of a social system over
time. Each empirical study catalogued in the Center has
been content-analyzed. and information pertaining to both
the independent and dependent variables and the relation-
ship between them has been placed on IBM cards.

**Conditional--A relationship that may be positive or negative
depending upon other variables.

12

communication measured in terms of information-seeking from
peers. neighbors. etc. In about two—thirds of these studies
the relationship of such dimensions as Opinion leadership
and interpersonal interaction to innovativeness is reported
to be positive. This review from all diffusion studies re-
flects the extent to which interpersonal communication var-
iables remain unexplored in diffusion research. Even the
related concept of Opinion leadership has not been much

studied in diffusion research.

Comparative Social System Analyses

A further review of diffusion studies shows that only
five studies deal with the relationship Of interpersonal com-
munication variables to technological diffusion in comparative
social systems.* Two of these studies dealt with diffusion
of educational innovations in school systems in the United
States (Eibler. 1965; and Davis. 1965) and three other studies

were conducted in U.S. farming communities to study rate of

 

*There are a few other diffusion research studies based on
comparative social system analysis. but the research focus
in such studies was not on interpersonal communication (Van
Den Ban. 1960; Marsh and Coleman. 1954 and 1956: Bose and
Basu. 1963). Van Den Ban studied locality differences in
innovation acceptance in Wisconsin counties in terms of re-
ligious and cultural values; Marsh and Coleman analysed the
effect of neighborhood norms on individual's adoption beha-
vior in Kentucky. and Bose and Basu investigated the effect
of reference group norms on farm practice adoption in Indian
villages in West Bengal.

l3

technological diffusion (Coughenour. 1964 and 1966; Lionberger.
1963). In the latter case. the researchers found that rate of
technological diffusion varied from one locality to the other
with the extent to which information and influence flowed from
those individuals who were relatively more innovative and more
exposed to mass media to others who were relatively less so.
Only one study was conducted in a develOping society by Rogers
and van Es (1964): they studied the communication behavior of
Opinion leaders in modern and traditional peasant communities
in Colombia.

These studies were not designed to investigate in
depth the differential characteristics of the structure of
interpersonal communication system itself. the focus was ra-
ther on one or a few selected interpersonal variables. It is
therefore very clear that our understanding of the variations
in patterns of interpersonal communication and their differ-
ential effect in innovation diffusion in comparative social
systems. especially peasant villages. is very much limited.
Indeed. lack of research in this area which is so evident
from the previous review. was very categorically pointed out
by a team Of U.S. social scientists in India who stated:

"None of the village studies conducted so far in India pro-

vided a description of the channels of communication which

14

might be utilized by change agents to diffuse innovations"
(Taylor. Ensminger. and others. 1965. p. 539).

From this discussion. we move to brief the major in-
adequacies in diffusion research dealing with the effect of

interpersonal communication in technological diffusion.

Inadequacies in Diffusion Research

In summary. the previous review brings to focus the
central hypothesis that the nature of interpersonal communi-
cation affects innovation diffusion in a social system. At
the same time this discussion is also indicative of the fact
that in spite of theoretical importance of interpersonal com-
munication in technological diffusion. this specific area of
research has not been much explored. Some Of the inadequacies

in past diffusion research are:

l. The major emphasis in most diffusion studies has been
limited to investigation of what functions interper-
sonal channels such as peers and neighbors serve in
the innovation decision—making process. rather than
on studying the structural characteristics of inter-
personal communication networks as they condition in-

novation diffusion in a social system. There has been

15

very little or no attempt to focus on analysis of in-
terpersonal relationships. Interpersonal channels
are embedded in a specific social structure and should

be studied in that context.

2. Another limitation of diffusion research. pointed
out by Katz (1963). is the lack of studies designed
to analyze the extent to which differential charac-
teristics of communication structure influence the
diffusion of innovation within one social system as
compared to the other. That is. there is a need to

use the comparative method.

In view Of these research inadequacies and the fact
that such limited research has been done thus far in the area
of interpersonal communication and technological diffusion.
our research problem assumes greater importance. With this
background. our next step is to state and define the central

problem of this thesis.

The Problem

This thesis is a comparative study to analyze elements
Of communication structure related to the diffusion Of inno—

vations in informal social systems in peasant communities.

16

Once innovations penetrate these social systems. it takes a
certain period of time before innovations are widely accepted
by the system's members. For example. it was found that 14
years were required for hybrid seed corn to reach complete
adOption in Iowa (Ryan and Gross. 1943) and it took almost
50 years for the widespread adOption of a new educational
practice by school systems in the United States (Ross. 1958).
It is evident that the process of innovation diffusion
spreads Over a period Of time.

A synthesis by Rogers (1962) Of research findings
drawn from more than 500 diffusion studies bearing on the
factors which condition adoption in social systems indicated
that the more important of the factors were (1) characteris-
tics of adOpting units. (2) characteristics of innovations
as perceived by the adopting units. (3) availability of in-
formation sources. and (4) the nature and extent of interper—
sonal communication and influence.

Now a very fundamental question from a theoretical \
and practical viewpoint can be raised as to why some social
systems have a higher rate of technological adOption than
other social systems. Perhaps such variation in rate of

technological adoption from one social system to another is

a function of variations in the four factors just mentioned.

17

But which specific factors are more important in affecting
technOlOgical adoption. and to what extent. is an empirical
question that.wou1d require comparative social system analy—
sis.

Given (1) that social systems are comparable on rel-
atively important characteristics of adOpting units. (2) that
the innovations are equally applicable to the adopting units
in these social systems. (3) that innovations are introduced
by one and the same change agency at similar time periods.
and (4) that physical conditions and facilities for availabil-
ity Of innovations are just about equally similar. then the
stage is set for raising the fundamental problem of this the-
sis: Are fhere differences between social systems with regard
to their communication stfggfure which differentially affects
innovation diffusion and technofggical adoption.

The concern of the present thesis is to dwell upon
such questions as: Are there differences between social sys-
tems with regard to their opinion leadership roles which tend
to influence greater acceptance Of innovations in one social
system than the other? Are there differences between social
systems with respect to characteristics Of the structure of
dyadic communication involving the flow of innovation and in-

fluence in the person to person diffusion network which

18

contributes to their differential rate Of technological adOp-
tion? Are there differences between social systems in terms
Of patterns of communication integration which condition dif-
ferentially their rate Of acceptance Of innovation? In brief.
then. the problem is to understand the differential rate Of
innovation acceptance in tWO social systems in terms of vari—
ations in their patterns Of communication structure.

It would be appropriate to mention here that since
the research investigation of this thesis is restricted to
only two social systems. there are certain limitations in
statistical analyses. We assume that the two social systems
widely differ with regard to their rate of technological dif—
fusion and mean adoption index* (both are considered as de-
pendent variables) on account of differences in their commun-
ication structure. Therefore. on the premise of extreme dif-
ferences between the two social systems with respect to their
rate Of technological diffusion and mean adOption index. we
seek to conceptualize each one of them on a continuum Of tra-
ditional-modern social system types. and then proceed with
the problem of determining what differences in fact exist be-

tween the two social systems with regard to their communication

 

*AdOption index is defined as the tendency of an individual
to be early in adOpting innovation.

19

structure. A conceptualization of the two social systems as
traditional and modern is derived empirically from observa-
tions Of reality: as Rogers (1962. p. 60) pointed out. the
purpose of constructing ideal types is primarily methodolog—
ical as they provide tools for analysis and understanding of
some dimension.

Our goal in this thesis is not prediction. We seek
to understand and describe the differential characteristics
of communication structure which affect technological diffu-
sion in informal social systems. peasant villages.

.Understanding the diffusion of innovations and their
adOption by members of a social system is contingent upon
adequate and scientific knowledge of the networks of inter-
personal communication. especially in the context of peasant
villages. Rogers (1962. p. 219) Observed that the importance
of interpersonal influence convinced most students of diffu-
sion that it was impossible to ignore social relations in
studying the spread of innovations. Once innovation messages
penetrate into the boundaries of a social system. then the
diffusion process occurs mainly via interpersonal communica-
tion; hence a study Of communication structure and innovation
diffusion has a considerable theoretic import. However. the

basic question of analyzing the interpersonal communication

20

seems to have received little or no attention in diffusion
research.

It seems that the lack of research in this area stems
partly because there is no single coherent theory of inter-
personal communication. and partly because the analysis of
interpersonal communication structure has some methodological
drawbacks. especially limitations in constructing quantita-
tive measures of structural characteristics. Furthermore.
lack of research in the area Of interpersonal communication
can also be attributed to the greater reliance upon survey
research designs in which the unit of analysis is the indi-
vidual.

Therefore. we see two issues which must be resolved
as a prerequisite to studying the differential effect of com—
munication structure in innovation diffusion. First. there
is need to develOp a conceptual framework descriptive of com-
munication structure. Secondly. the conceptual scheme should
be so organized that it can be fitted as soundly as possible
into an analytical framework useful to study the variables
of communication structure in comparative social systems.

Hence.in order to see the problem Of this thesis in
clear perspective. we shall outline and define in brief the

conceptual framework Of communication structure now.

21

Communication Structure:
A Conceptual Framework

Our concern in this section is to conceptualize com-
munication structure in such a way that (1) it takes into
account the linkage of interpersonal networks. and the char-
acteristics Of those who provide this linkage. to the flow
of information and influence from outside sources to the
system. especially via the mass media and change agencies;

(2) it provides meaningful interpersonal dimensions which
have a bearing on innovation diffusion. and (3) it serves

as a descriptive model which can potentially be utilized to
compare empirically one social system with another in inter-
personal dimensions which affect innovation diffusion in these
systems.

At various points in our attempt to conceptualize com—
munication structure descriptive Of informal social systems.
we found especially useful the work of Jacobson and Seashore
(1951) and Weiss and Jacobson (1955). who suggested a concep—
tual and analytical scheme for the study of communication
structure in complex organizations.

We intend to discuss first the social psychological
basis Of communication structure. and then to define communi-

cation structure. its key concepts. and variables.

22

Social-Psychological Basis
of Communication Structure

How the structure of interpersonal communication
evolves can be more clearly illustrated from Figure 1. In
general. innovation messages emanating from the mass media
or the change agencies first reach a few persons like Bl-Bn
in Figure 1. It is from them that other social system mem-
bers like Al—An* acquire information. In addition. the very
act Of adOption of innovations by innovators produces infor—
mation. alternatives. and evaluative results for the benefit
of other members in the social system. Indeed. these adop—
tion acts might activate channels of interpersonal communi—
cation if the social system is characterized by relatively
change—inducing norms. The interpersonal communication ex-
change through which members in a social system Obtain in-
formation tend to be structured rather than occurring ran-
domly.

The manner in which members in a social system enter

into distinctive interpersonal communication behavior in the

 

*There can be situations in which individuals like Al-A
also have direct contact with mass media sources and change
agents. In such situations the communicative relationship
between Al-An and Bl-Bn implies one in which individuals
like Al-An seek interpretation. clarification. and evalua-
tion of information dealing with innovations.

OOHwOMMHD cowum>occH CH musuosuum OOHDMOHCOEEOO mo Emflpmumm Hmoflumamc< paw HMDDQOOCOOII.H ousmflm

2 m B m N m A ¢ H U 0 m

 

mamaamcm mflmhamsm mo vac: mm Oman mflmxamcm «0 pass

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_
a _
HmHsuOsHum _ mm Hmspw>HUcH
s _ s _
animusuosnum coflumOHcsEEoo mo mummeHm ......... "1-4 _
. .
_e n h n 4 _
coflumuumusfl coaumOficsEEOO Qanmnmpmma
sowumOHOOEEOO prmhp CA :Oflcflmo _
mo mcuwuumm maflnmosom mo mcuwuumm _
n no mcnmuumm " _
n L. . . _
szOHOmew cmm3umn cowumuacseaoo msoum HMOOmumm Hmpmma mwammwmm
_ Insm HmucH OOHCAQO _mmcm£O
. . \ l// .
_ w m ./ _ ._u
OHOH :Oma.maq _ .\\* d < x _ c
\. x .1
f u . R\ N v. m.
r -.- c c .(
\mm AIIW «.mTrITHmAI Tm. m._ suds muamfwm
I
I. \ \\ W_\..\\m/ \ H.
m J. m on u
u

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S H E m.» m A fl H U 0 m

ZEN

_ .213 ..
N «\HM\\ b d _AW$+_¢ Godum>occH

O

sefiessam uorqen

f6
,4
'U
Q)
S

mmm:

sowum>
IOGGH

24

process Of innovation decisions can be understood from the
A-B—X model of interpersonal behavior (Newcomb. 1953 and 1956).

The communication relationship between A1 and another farmer.

B1 (an Opinion leader on innovation X). about innovation X

can be explained in terms of what Newcomb calls the individ-
ual system and the collective system stability. Basic to

this theory is the notion that individual A1 will tend to

maintain minimal discrepancy between his own attitudes toward
the innovation x and those of B's attitudes. depending upon

A's attraction toward the Opinion leader B and the valence

1.
or importance that is jointly attributed to innovation x by
the two individuals. Newcomb stated the role Of interpersonal
communiction in maintaining minimal discrepancy between inter-
acting individuals oriented toward common Objects in their
environment. In other words interpersonal communication in-
volving information seeking about innovations is one Of the

basic mechanisms through which individuals like Al-An will

maintain minimal discrepancy between their attitudes toward

innovations and those of Opinion leaders B If innova-

1-Bn'

tions are evaluated positively by Opinion leaders Bl-Bn. it

is expected that channels Of interpersonal communication will

generate innovative processes in a given social system.

25

Similarly Festinger (1950) stated that individuals
(like Al) engage in interpersonal communication with others
(like Bl) because Of certain need states which induce them
to equilibrate their view of "social reality." to learn
what others believe and to modify their own Opinions. Ac-
cording to this formulation the extent to which interpersonal
communication of a message would lead to attitudinal and be-
havioral Change will greatly depend upon the degree to which
others with whom one is in communication are believed to
adOpt the same attitudes or behaviors.

Similar to Newcomb's notion of strain toward symmetry
in individual and collective systems and Festinger's need-
generating function inducing individuals to gain "social re-
ality." Lewin (1966. p. 237) postulated that if the individ-
ual should try to diverge "too much from group standards.
he would find himself in increasing difficulties . . . ."
Most individuals. therefore. stay pretty close to the stand-
ards of the group they belong to or which they wish to belong.
In other words. the group level itself acquires value. Ac-
cording tO Lewin. the group becomes a positive valence cor-
responding tO a central force field with the forces keeping
the individual in line with the standards of the group. Thus

the nature and extent of interpersonal communication in

26

innovation diffusion will be influenced by group standards
or norms relating to technological adOption. That is. the
extent to which innovations become salient and significant
Objects for goal-attainment in a social system. to that ex-
tent innovation messages will activate channels Of interper-
sonal communication among the members in a social system.

In light Of the previous discussion (and Figure 1).
Opinion leadership is a relationship between an individual
exerting influence and those who are influenced through in-
terpersonal communication. As part Of this process. infor-
mational status is accorded to persons called Opinion lead-
ers whose decisional preferences are taken into account and
sought by other members Of the social system. If innovations
are evaluated positively by Opinion leaders. other members
involved in interpersonal communication would acquire needed
information about innovations in their decision-making pro-
cess. In this way. interpersonal influence is expected to
facilitate legitimization Of innovation acceptance and in-
ternalization of new behavior patterns.

The recurring communicative exchange of the A-B-X

type which occur between members at the dyadic level*

 

*A dyad refers to a pair of individuals engaged in communi-
cation. The communicative relationship can be either sym-
metric (AzéB) or asymmetric (A-—>B).

27

generate a communication structure. In terms of the problem
of this thesis. we shall now discuss specifically what we
mean by communication structure. its key concepts. and var-

iables.

Definitions of Key Concepts
“and Variables
What is Communication Structure?

Before we begin outlining the key elements of the
communication structure. we must define social system and
communication structure. Social system* is defined as a
set of primary group interaction processes among members who
share a common boundary and are engaged in similar problem—
solving activities. By cpmmunication structure we mean the
networks of interpersonal relationships through which infor—
mation.innovation.and influence flow among the members of a
social system. Thus the communication structure describes

not only. the patterns of communication contacts among

 

*An Indian village community is a social system as it con-
tains within its boundary informal social groups which are
characterised by networks of intimate face-to-face communi-
cation. Members of these groups are engaged in similar
problem solving activities.

28

members in the social system but also the pattern of commun-
ication contacts that occur between subgroups Of members.
However. the communication structure of a social system is
basically derived from the most fundamental interpersonal
communication relationships that exist at the dyadic level.

Communicative relationships can be differentiated in
terms of "instrumental" and "social.“ A relationship instru-
mental when the purpose of communication is to be utilized
in some future goal-oriented behavior. Instrumental commun-
ication is to be studied in terms of information-seeking con?
tacts established between social system members for Obtaining
advice about innovations. The set of instrumental communica-
tion contacts is called the "information—seeking network."

A communicative relationship is purely social or for
a consummatory purpose when the relationship is oriented to-
ward informal affective association. such as with friends.
The set of social interactions of this type are called
"friendship network.“ Thus. the communication structure can
be studied in terms Of the nature of the interpersonal rela—
tionships established between members in information-seeking
network and friendship network. As Festinger and others
(1950. p. 127) pointed out. the development of friendship

networks was indicative of active channels of communication

29

Of information and Opinions among members involved in friend—
ships. They further stated that the nature of communication
content depended upon the interest of members in certain mat-
ters and its relevance to their friendship.

Implicit in our definition of communication structure
is the notion that certain roles are positioned and distrib-
uted as part of the communication structure. It is through
these communication roles that innovations diffuse via the
interpersonal networks. These role behaviors can be viewed
as recurring actions of an individual or a set of individuals
interrelated with the repetitive and recurring activities Of
other members in the interpersonal communication network.
These recurring events Of interpersonal communication are
indeed the basis Of communication structure.

The communication structure is a complex set Of var-
iables. In line with the criteria stated earlier in this
section for the conceptualization of communication structure.
some ordering and organization of these variables is a pre—
requisite tO meaningful analysis of communication structure
in innovation diffusion. Thus the communication structure
can be mainly conceptualized in terms Of three major concepts:
(1) pattern of Opinion leadership: (2) patterns Of homophily
in dyadic communication: and (3) patterns Of communication

integration.

30

We shall now discuss in brief each of these concepts
and the variables that have been grouped under each. De—
tailed discussion of these concepts and the hypotheses con—
cerning them are given in the next chapter.

1. Patterns of Opinion Leadership. Opinion leadership
is one of the most important concepts of the interpersonal
communication structure. and has a direct bearing on the rate
of technological adOption in a given social system. We de-
fine Opinion leadership as interpersonal influence exercised
in a situation through communication process toward the at-
tainment of certain attitudes and/or behavior. Opinion leadQ‘
ers serve as interpersonal communication channel roles within
the interpersonal networks. and therefore it is logical to
expect that the rate of technological diffusion will be dif-
ferentially conditioned by the extent to which these communi—
cation channel roles are characterized by higher degree of
knowlegeability. innovativeness. cosmopoliteness. and formal
participation in one social system as compared to the other..

Two variables of Opinion leadership are included in
our conceptual framework of communication structure: Opinion
leadership concentration and polymorphism of Opinion leader—

ship. Qpinion leadership concentration is the degree to

which one or more units in a social system are perceived to

31

have relatively greater degree of interpersonal influence on
a given sc0pe or criteria than other units in that social
system. Concentration in brief might be considered a state-
ment of the power structure of a social system with refer-
ence to a given communication situation. Thus. Opinion
leadership in a social system can be either widely distrib-
uted over the entire communication structure or concentrated
in the hands Of a few individuals.

gglympfphism of Opinion leadership is the tendency
of an individual to be in the same relative influence posi-
tion in a social system across a given number of issues.
Thus. according to this definition the communication struc-
ture can either be characterized by Opinion leadership roles
which vary in specialization as the scope is varied. or it
can be characterized by Opinion leadership roles having a
generalized influence (same position) as the scope or cri-
teria is varied.

2. Patterns of HomOphily in Dyadic Communication. The
communication structure and its effect on innovation diffu-
sion in given social systems can be differentiated in terms
of the nature of communication relationship at the dyadic
level.' We consider Opinion leadership as a prOperty of the

interpersonal relationship which occur between an Opinion

32

leader and others who seek information from him. Thus. pat-
terns Of communication contacts can be conceptualized in
terms Of “who interacts with whom of what attributes and for
what purpose.” To organize these person-to-person diffusion
contacts conceptually with respect to attributes of the in-
teracting members as well as the purpose of the communicative
exchange. we intend to use the concept Of homophily. origin-
ally used by Lazarsfeld and Merton (1954. p. 23) in studying
patterns of interpersonal contacts in two U.S. communities.
Homophily is defined as the degree to which individuals with
a certain designated attribute have interpersonal communica-
tion contacts with others of similar attributes. The concept
of homOphily is to be utilized in studying both information—
seeking contacts and the friendship contacts. Furthermore.
communication structure in given social systems can be dif-
ferentiated and its effect on rate of technological diffusion
studied in terms of the frequency with which communication
contacts occur between members of dyadic pairs especially
for the purpose of information seekings on innovations.

3. Patterns of Communication Integration. The communi—
cation structure of given social systems can be conceptual-
ized and analyzed in terms Of what we call “pattern of com-

munication integration." Communication integration is

33

defined as the degree to which social system members and sub-
groups are interconnected in interpersonal communication re-
lationships. It is evident from this definition that the
concept of communication integration includes not only the
interpersonal relationships between individuals at the dyadic
level but also between individuals and subgroups and between
subgroups themselves which constitute the entire communica-
tion structure Of a social system. In other words. the in-
tent is to look at the interpersonal relationships from the
point Of view of the communication structure as a whole at
the social system level.

Studying communication structures at this level has
some inherent limitations. especially when it comes to mea-
surement. The degree of communication integration in a so-
cial system can be studied in terms of integration of social
system members into the friendship network. and the informa—
tion seeking network.

Furthermore. following the work Of Jacobson and Sea—
shore (1951) and Weiss and Jacobson (1955). the degree of
communication integration of given social systems can be dif—
ferentiated in terms of (1) subgroups which constitute a
given communication structure. (2) the pattern of communica-

tion contacts between subgroups. and (3) key communication

34

positions especially those of liaison persons. Such are de-
fined as individuals whose interpersonal contacts diffuse
through two or more subgroups thereby serving as communica-
tion linkages between subgroups. The more such liaison roles
are located in the interpersonal structure of a social system.
the greater is the degree of communication integration and
hence higher degree of technological diffusion.

It is within this conceptual framework that we seek
to outline statements of hypotheses in the next chapter by
utilizing three different units of analysis. corresponding
to the three levels of concepts and variables of the communi-
cation structure. By so doing the conceptual and analytical
framework Of this thesis is designed as follows:

1. Patterns of Opinion leadership dealt within the frame—
work Of the individual as the unit Of analysis.

2. Patterns of homOphily in dyadic communication are
studied by utilizing the dyad as the unit Of analysis.

3. Patterns Of communication integration are described
by utilizing structural analysis.

To summarize. communication structure involves a com-
plex of variables. We have attempted to present the above

conceptual framework in order to derive a meaningful picture

35

out of this complexity. The next important step is to organ-
ize the hypotheses dealing with the above concepts and vari—
ables within the framework of three different units Of analy—
sis in such a way that there is a correspondence between our

three clusters of concepts and the proposed analytical scheme.

CHAPTER II
CONCEPTS AND STATEMENTS OF HYPOTHESES

In line with the conceptual and analytical framework
discussed in Chapter I. we intend to outline statements of
hypotheses which are described under three different levels
of analyses corresponding to the three levels of variables

of the communication structure.

The Individual as the unit of Analysis

This analysis deals exclusively with individuals.
especially with regard to their roles. NO consideration is
given to the dyad or to the subgroups to which the individual
belongs. According to Berlo (1960. p. 53). this approach to
analysis is called “monadic” in that the focus is on the in-
dividual rather than on relationships among individuals. The
concepts and variables for which the individual is the unit

of analysis include patterns of opinion leadership.

Patterns of Opinion Leadership
Our concern in the present section will be on the

phenomenon of Opinion leadership. conceptualized in terms of

36

37

interpersonal influence. Merton (1957. p. 415) defines in-
terpersonal influence as the direct interaction Of persons
in so far as this affects the behavior or attitudes of par-
ticipants. In the two-step model* of communication. the
Opinion leader. through transmission and interpretation Of
messages to group members. is influential in the decisions
of his peers.

In small group research literature. the current lean-
ing is toward a focus upon interaction between individuals
and its relation to influence assertion and acceptance (Hol-
lander. 1963. p. 470). ‘

We define Opinion leadership as interpersonal influ-
ence exercised in a situation through communication process
toward the attainment of certain attitudes and/or behavior.
We consider Opinion leadership as an act of influence on
some matter relevant to the interest Of group members. and
as such it is a continuous variable which describes each

group member in terms of his degree of interpersonal influ-

ence with regard to one or more issues. Viewed in this way.

 

*The two-step model Of communication is based on the "two—
step flow" hypothesis of communication originally postu-
lated by Lazarsfeld and others (1948. p. 151). According
to this hypothesis "ideas Often flow from radio and print
to Opinion leaders and from these to the less active sec-
tions of the population."

38

leadership may be distributed among many members or it may
be concentrated in a few individuals. and it may vary from
one situation to the other.
Communication and Innovative
Behavior of Opiniop:fgaders

Basic to the definition of opinion leadership is the
fact that Opinion leaders serve communication roles by pro-
viding social system members with information. advice. and
evaluation pertaining to innovations and ideas flowing from
outside of the social system. As such. opinion leadership
is a communication role positioned in the communication
structure of a social system. It is expected that the de-
gree Of technological diffusion varies from one social sys—
tem to the other depending upon the extent to which Opinion
leaders (1) are exposed to mass media sources. (2) have
change agent contact. (3) use cosmOpolite interpersonal com—
munication channels in the process of innovation decisions.
(4) participate in formal organizations. and (5) are inno-
vative in adopting technological innovations. Following
Homans (1961. p. 314) these behavioral attributes of Opinion
leaders are rare and salient resources which are valued and
exchanged by other system members in the process of innova-

tion diffusion.

39

Katz (1957) pointed out that Opinion leaders gener-
ally expose themselves to the media appropriate to the area
of their influence. The greater exposure of Opinion leaders
to the mass media serves to relate the groups to relevant
messages emanating from the mass media. Results from dif-
fusion studies conducted in the U.S. indicate that tehcno—
logical diffusion among localities varies by the extent to
which the communication structure is such that farmers are
influenced by Opinion leaders regarded by them as highly
technologically competent and as having greater mass media
exposure (Young and Coleman. 1959; Coughenour. 1964 and 1966).
Emery and Oeser (1962. p. 49) reported that in Australian
farm communities. the Opinion leader adopted innovations and
had closer contacts with change agents. Eisenstadt (1962)
studied the communication structure in the context of three
communities and found that opinion leaders in the modern com-
munity were more exposed to specialized information and were
more differentiated in specific activities than in the case
Of traditional and transitional communities. Rogers (1964.
p. 26. 32) also found that Opinion leaders in modern commun-
ities were somewhat more exposed to mass media and were more

innovative than in traditional communities.

4O

Theoretically. it is anticipated that as the technol-
ogy comes in from sources outside of a social system. opinion
leaders are the key points Of contact in a modern community
marked by a relatively higher rate of technological diffusion.
On the other hand. opinion leaders in a traditional social
system are expected to lack external contacts seemingly be—
cause the role of an opinion leader in such settings is to
communicate messages which tend to support the existing norms
and the maintenance of status quo rather than the adoption of
technological change.

Thus we state the following hypotheses.

H Opinion leadership is more highly related to mass
media in a modern social system than in a tradi-

tional social system.

H2 Opinion leadership is more highly related to
change agent contact in a modern social system

than in a traditional sociaf system.

H Opinion leadership is more highly related to the
use of cosmOpolite intefpersonal communication
sources in the process of innovation decisions
in a modern social pystem than in a traditional

social system.

41

H Opinion leadership is more highly related to the
degree Of participation in formgf organizations
in modern social systems than in traditional so—

cial systems.

H Opinion leadership is more highly related to in-
novativeness in §_modern social system than in

a traditional social system.

Polymorphism of Opinionpfeadership

Leadership is not a general trait. It is responsive
to changing situations and an individual who is a leader in
one situation may not retain his position as the group moves
on to another situation (Gibb. 1954. p. 902). The distinc-
tiveness of leaders does not rest on their attributes as such
but on the relationship between their attributes and those of
the rest of the group. The concept situation has many dimen-
sions but one specific dimension with which we are concerned
is its "content"--that is the particular activity in which
the members of the group are engaged and seek advice and con-
sultation from those who are competent. Such Opinion leaders
guide Opinion and opinion changes rather than lead directly

into action.

42

Some opinion leaders exert their influence primarily
in one specific area such as public affairs or agriculture
or health. Merton (1957. p. 414) termed this leadership
"monomorphic." Polymorphic Opinion leadership is defined
by Merton as the degree to which a single leader is sought
for information and advice about a variety of topics such
as agriculture. health. and public affairs.

We define pgfymorphism Ofpppinion leadership as the
tendency of an individual to be in the same relative influ-
ence position in a social system for numerous tOpics or is—
sues. Since we consider Opinion leadership as a communica-
tion role. it is expected that in peasant communities a cer-
tain role structure functions to help solve certain problems
and achieve certain goals in which social system members are
involved. Following Bales' (1950. pp. 15-16) theoretic no-
tions of role differentiation it can be assumed that the com—
munication structure of groups can be understood as a system
Of solutions to the functional problems of interaction which
become institutionalized in order to reduce the tensions
growing out of uncertainty and unpredictability in certain
courses of action. But our knowledge is too limited to state
what kind of a communication role structure Operates in the

process of innovation diffusion in traditional and modern

43

social systems. and how it differs from one social system
to the other.

Research findings completed in the context of more
develOped societies indicated that there is generally little
overlap among the different types of Opinion leaders (Emery
and Oeser. 1958. p. 51). Blankenship (1964) reported that
influentials were distributed with respect to their special-
ized areas in a highly industrialized community. whereas.
influentials in a less industrialized community were not as
specialized and only a few had leadership roles in several
areas. Katz and Lazarsfeld (1955. p. 334) studied Opinion
leadership in several areas such as marketing and public
affairs. and found little support for the notion Of a gener-
alized leader. On the other hand Marcus and Bauer (1964)
reanalyzed the data Of Katz and Lazarsfeld's study. and re-
ported that there was a tendency toward some generalized
Opinion leadership.

In the context of developing societies hardly any re-
search appears tO have been conducted dealing with polymor-
phism of leadership. Rogers and van Es (1964. p. 60) found
that leadership in three modern Colombian peasant communities
was no more monomorphic than Opinion leadership in two tradi-

tional communities. However. Esienstadt (1962. p. 341)

44

reported that in the Israeli modern community. the informal
differentiation between the various opinion leaders generally
corresponded to the main institutional spheres in which they
were most prominent. There was also greater differentiation
between the bearers of various types of information. In the
case of traditional communities the structure of interper-
sonal communication was primarily served by a few elites.

According to our conceptualization a low degree Of
polymorphism means greater degree Of role differentiation
with respect to the areas over which Opinion leadership in-
fluence is distributed. It is assumed that degree Of commun-
ication role specialization in the interpersonal networks Of
a social system considerably affects the rate of technolgogi-
cal diffusion in that system. We can therefore expect that
in modern social systems. characterized by a higher rate of
technological diffusion. roles are based on functional spe-
cificity and competence whereas in a traditional social sys-
tem Opinion leadership roles are probably based on status

hierarchy rather than expertness in a given activity.

H6 Opinion leadership in modern social systemgpis

less polymorphic than in traditional sociaf

S 23 tems .

45

Opinion Leadership Concentration

Considering that opinion leadership is a continuous
variable* rather than a dichotomy of leaders and followers.
it is expected that Opinion leadership is fairly widespread.
even though it may be especially concentrated in a few indi-
viduals.

Opinion leadership concentration is the degree to
which one or more units in a given social system have rela—
tively greater degree Of interpersonal influence with respect
to a given scope or criterion than other units of that social
system. In essence. concentration is a statement of the
power structure of a social system. From a communication
point of View. concentration means that the availability of
interpersonal communication channels is restricted in a so-
cial system. In other words. there are relatively limited
Opinion leadership roles positioned in the communication

structure of a social system.

 

*An individual's degree of Opinion leadership is measured in
terms of sociometric choices received by him on a given cri-
teria. As such. sociometric choices can either be concen-
trated in a few individuals. thus indicating greater degree
of leadership concentration. or sociometric choices can be
distributed among many individuals indicating less concen-
tration of leadership.

46

From a search of the small group literature as well
as the diffusion research. it seems that the concept of lead-
ership concentration has not been given adequate attention.
In small group research. marked differences Of Opinion have
been expressed as to the consequences for group functioning
of various distributions of leadership. Since our focus is
to study how concentration Of information channels can affect
diffusion and acceptance Of new ideas and innovations in a
social system. it is perhaps advantageous to refer to the
communication network studies by Bavelas (1950) and Leavitt
(1951). who studied the effects of differential patterns of
network "designs“ (such as the wheel. the chain. and circle)
on information sharing and decision making by group members.
The attempt in these experiments was to create extremes of
communicability in that a subject could communicate to and
receive messages from all of the other subjects or a subject
could communicate to no one and receive information from
only one person. It was found that if there was a wide Open
communication pattern. there was somewhat less chance for a
group to fall into gross error and much better chance to ex-
change correct information. than. when communication was cen-
tralized. Reicken and Homans (1954. p. 808) stated that the

pattern Of interaction channels available to a group had an

47

influence on its effectiveness as measured in a number of
ways. and that a highly centralized pattern might not give
the overall effectiveness.

Although the above results were based on laboratory
experiments yet they pointed out that groups in which members
had relatively more access to interpersonal communication
channels had much better chances to exchange correct infor-
mation than groups with restricted access in the communica-
tion network. These results have some bearing on opinion
leadership concentration relative to informal social systems
in the sense that restriction of availability of communica—
tion channels in the interpersonal networks caused by con-
centration might not be conducive to effective diffusion of
new ideas in a social system. However. as Cartwright and
Zander (1953. p. 544) suggested. different degrees Of concen-
tration are required for the accomplishment of different pur-
poses under different conditions. But these conditions re-
main unspecified as yet. We intend to outline hypotheses by
stating the conditions or situations which probably require
varying degrees of Opinion leadership concentration.

1. If opinion leadership is considered as a
means toward the achievement of some specific social system

goals. or in collective innovation decisions. then we expect

48

the following hypothesis:
H7 There is greater degree of Opiniog:feadership

concentration in a modern social system than in

a traditional social system.
In other words. the hypothesis states that in the case of in-
novations which require group decisions. it is expected that
there will be greater degree of technological diffusion when
Opinion leadership is concentrated in a social system than
When it is too much distributed in a social system.

1. If Opinion leadership is considered as a
functional means toward the achievement of individgal goals
(such as seeking information and evaluation on innovations
for making individual decisions) then we suggest the follow-
ing hypothesis:

H8 There is_fess opinion leadership concentration

in a modern social systgm than in a tfaditional
sociafpsystem.

According to this hypothesis it is expected that
there should be less opinion leadership concentration in a
social system when the acceptance of innovations is a result
of individual decision-making. When there is fairly wide-

spread distribution of opinion leadership roles facilitating

a free give and take of information among members. it is

49

conceivable that there would be a greater degree of techno-
logical diffusion. Thus. we expect less Opinion leadership
concentration in a modern social system characterized by a
relatively higher rate of technological diffusion. On the
other hand if opinion leadership roles are concentrated in

a few individuals either because of social status factors.
or due to lack Of specialized information sources available
within the communication structure. then the rate of innova-
tion diffusion would be less which is likely to be so in a
traditional social system.

No Specific investigations have been conducted util-
izing the concept of opinion leadership concentration in in-
novation diffusion. but there are some indications from a few
diffusion studies which support the last hypothesis. Emery
and Oeser (1958. p. 48) stated that a fairly widespread con-
sultative link among Australian farmers was found to be Oper-
ating not on the basis of neighborhood or kinship but on the
level of competence of the Opinion leaders. and that channels
of influence functioned all the way from the top influentials.
forming a sort of communication hierarchy. the basis Of which
was competence. Rogers and van Es (1964) found that respond-
ents in more traditional communities were prone to name fewer

opinion leaders than in modern communities. Eisenstadt (1962)

50

reported that in traditional and transitional communities in
Israel. messages could be transmitted via interpersonal com-
munication only through a selected few elites.

To sum up our previous discussion dealing with pat-
terns Of Opinion leadership. it is appropriate to mention
that our main focus is on Opinion leadership as a communica-
tion role. positioned and integrated in the communication
structure of a social system. Hypotheses were stated with
respect to variations in communication behavior of Opinion
leaders. polymorphism Of Opinion leadership and concentration
of Opinion leadership. These are assumed to affect differen-
tially the degree Of technological diffusion in informal so—
cial systems. Our consideration Of Opinion leadership in the
previous hypotheses was limited only to the individual level
of analysis. However. considering Opinion leadership as a
property of interpersonal relationship. we intend to focus
on this aspect in the next section where we shall dwell upon
patterns of homophily in dyadic communication by utilizing

the "dyad" as the conceptual and analytical unit.

The_pyad;as the Unit of Anafysis

The following focus of analysis is on the dyad or the

interpersonal relationship with reference to a communication

51

situation. No consideration is given to the sub-groups to
which the dyad or the members in the dyad belong. The im-
portance of dyadic analysis was pointed out by Berlo (1960.
p. 53-54) who stated that many of the key determinants of
communication involve the relationship between source and
receiver characteristics and that a large portion of commun-

ication theory should be dyadic in nature.

Patterns of Homophily in Dyadic Communication

Since the essence of innovation diffusion in a social
system is the flow of information and influence from person
to person. it becomes essential to investigate the nature and
characteristics of dyadic communication in order to understand
how such communication structures condition the diffusion of
innovations within one social system as contrasted with an-
other social system.

As an attempt to investigate patterns of interpersonal
communication. Lazarsfeld and Merton (1954. p. 23) pointed out
that the tendency of "likes" to interact with "likes" was not
a simple statement. but was rather a complex problem of determ-
ining the degree to which selectivity in interpersonal inter-

action varied for different kinds of social attributes and

52

how it varied within different kinds of social structures.
To study bases of selectivity in interpersonal relationships.
they suggested the concept of “homOphily“ defined as the tend-
ency for friendships to form between those who are alike in
some designated respect. The concept of "hetrophily" was de-
fined as the tendency for friendships to form between those
who differ in some designated respect. Homophily and hetro-
phily are descriptive concepts rather than interpretative.
The word “tendency" does not refer to some propensity assumed
to be rooted in the individual. but is in fact an observed
correlation positive in one instance and negative in the other
between designated attributes of friends (Lazarsfeld and Mer-
ton. 1954. p. 23). Lazarsfeld and Merton sought to study
homOphily in intimate social relationships in two communities
with differing socio-cultural context and found that for the
same social attributes. the degree of homophily differed
widely between the two communities. Coleman (1959) suggested
the use of this concept in studying the basis of communication
contacts between members in social organizations.

Since our focus is on the diffusion of innovations in
peasant communities. we shall extend this concept not only to
interpersonal communication in informal friendship associa-

tions but also to relatively more goal oriented communication

53

relationships involving acquisition of information and the
flow of influence in innovation decisions. In doing so we
define homophily as the degree to which individuals with a
certain attribute have interpersonal communication with other
individuals with a similar attribute. We conceive homophily
as a relational concept. In this thesis interpersonal com-
munication relationships are to be studied in terms of socio-
metric choices that individuals make Of other individuals
for friendship. family visiting. or for seeking expert in—
formation. Thus. we seek to conceptualize communication re-
lationships within the theoretical framework suggested by
Blau (1962). who classified sociometric choices along two
general dimensions: (1) interaction vs. evaluation. and (2)
instrumental vs. social. Following Blau's scheme. four dim-
ensions of interpersonal choices can be conceptualized.
However. in view of the focus of this thesis on innovation
diffusion. our primary concern is only on interaction choices.
namely. "instrumental interaction" and "social interaction."
defined as follows:

1. "Instrumental-interaction" refers to choices of per-
sons selected specifically for the purpose of seeking infor-
mation. advice or evaluations in innovative decisions. In

this thesis the set Of interpersonal communication contacts

54

of this type is termed an information-seeking network.

2. "Social interaction" refers to choices Of persons
selected primarily for intimate and informal friendly assoc-
iation. This set of interpersonal contacts is to be referred
to as a friendship network. Festinger and others (1950. p.
125) found that friendship netWorks were active channels of
communication of information relevant to the interest of
group members. We consider such networks Of considerable
importance especially in innovation diffusion in peasant
villages.

Conceptually. these two types of communication net-
works are considered mutually exclusive. They are based on
the purpose of interpersonal communication relationship and
are similar to "instrumental purpose" and “consummatory pur-
pose“ of communications suggested by Festinger (1950) and
Berlo (1960. p. 17). The concept of homophily will be
studied within the realm of these two types of interpersonal
communication networks specifically with regard to those
attributes (of members in dyadic relationship) which we be-
lieve have relatively important bearing on innovation diffu-
sion. To the extent that dyadic communication contacts in
either of the two types of networks in a social system. have

low homophily with respect to these designated attributes.

55

then to that extent the diffusion potential is increased and
hence we expect greater degree of technological diffusion in
that system. From Figure 2. it is evident that in the inter-
personal communication situation in which seekers tend to
over-choose or under-choose persons with a specified attri-
bute. quite independently of the way the attribute relates
to the seeker. we expect a low degree of homophily which
consequently affects a relatively greater degree of techno—
logical diffusion. In this thesis the social system. having
relatively higher rate of technological diffusion. is con-
ceptualized as modern. On the other hand if the degree of
homophily is positively high. indicating communication be-
tween members of dyads having similar attributes. then dif-
fusion potential within the social system is relatively
lower. In this thesis the social system having a relatively
lower rate of technological diffusion is conceptualized as
traditional.

In general the levels of homOphily with respect to
both types of interpersonal communication networks (instru-
mental interaction and social interaction) in modern and tra-

ditional social systems can be described as follows:

Low Homophify

Seeker Sought

High High
Inno- Inno-
vative- vative-
ness ness
Low ////////a Low
Inno- Inno-
vative— vative-
ness ness

 

 

High Diffusion Potential

56

Seeker

High
Inno-
vative-

ness

Low
Inno-
vative-

ness

High Homophily

Sought

\/

 

-———..

 

\V

 

High
Inno-
vative-

ness

Low
Inno-
vative—

ness

fpwpgiffusion Potential

Figure 2.--The Relationship of Homophily and Techological
Diffusion Potential.

57

 

Homophilypin
Modern Traditional
, Social System Social System
(high diffusion) '(1ow diffusion)
rate rate
Instrumental interaction
(information seeking
network) 'Low < High
Social Interaction
(friendship network) Low < High

In view of the previous description it should be
noted that in modern social systems "low" homophily in both
instrumental interaction and social interaction does not im-
ply exactly the same degree of homophily. Same is the case
with “high“ homOphily in the traditional social system. This
is merely to indicate how in dyadic communication contacts
variations in the homophily index can affect technological
diffusion in given social systems. As a matter of fact. the
index of homophily can vary from -1 to +1. In this thesis
the statistical norm for low homophily implies a correlation
ranging from O to -l as compared with high homophily which
implies a correlation ranging from low positive value to +1.
To simplify our discussion. we intend to use the words such
as "lower" and "higher" homomphily in our statements of hy-

pothesis which indicate relative values of homOphily in

58

comparative systems. However. it should be made clear now
that variation in the index of homophily from one social
system to the other is relative to (1) the type of social
structure under investigation; (2) the type of communica-
tion relationship such as "instrumental interaction" and
"social interaction"; and (3) the specific attributes of
the interacting members in dyadic communication contacts.
There is hardly any diffusion study completed thus
far utilizing seeker—sought dyadic analysis in comparative
social systems. Thus. our hypotheses can not be substanti—
ated by much past empirical evidence. However. research
findings from various studies having relevance to the pres—

ent discussion are included.

Innovativeness

Figure 2 shows that if less innovative farmers are
involved in instrumental interaction with more innovative
farmers in a social system then the rate of technological
diffusion would be relatively greater. This is what we ex—
pect in the modern social system. In the traditional social
system there may be barriers for less innovative farmers to
seek information from more innovative farmers. Also the in-

terpersonal communiction behavior of peasants in a traditional

59

social system may not be such as to make innovation salient
and significant objects of orientation in instrumental inter—
action.

Past diffusion studies conducted in the U.S.. the
Netherlands and Colombia indicated two general tendencies:
seekers Obtained information from individuals who are (1)
generally similar in relevant characteristics or (2) more
expert and innovative than the seekers in relevant knowledge
and other characteristics (Lionberger. 1957. 1959: van den
Ban. 1963: Rogers and van Es. 1964). However. Emery and
Oeser (1959. p. 49) found that "influencers" were more inno-
vative than the "influencees" in Australian farm communities.

With respect to communication barriers in innovation
diffusion in a social system. Rogers (1964) found in Colombia.
that communication flow was impeded by seeker-sought differ—
ences in innovativeness to a greater degree in more traditonal
communities than in more modern villages. However. van den
Ban (1963) concluded that differences in innovativeness be-
tween individuals were a more important barrier in modern
than in traditional social systems in the Netherlands.
COleman and others (1966. p. 117) found that advisor network
and discussion networks Of pairs of doctors showed most pair-

simultaneity (or pair homophily) in drug adOption at the

60

beginning and then progressively declined. These research-
ers concluded that doctor's contacts with one another seem
to be strongly related to the time Of adOption of the drug.
Thus. there seems to be no one consistent finding as to how
innovativeness is related to interpersonal communication ex-
change between members in a social system. However. we state
the following hypothesis:

Hg fp the information seeking network instrumenggf
interaction contacts have higher homophifypwith
respect to innovativeness in a traditional social
system than in a modern social system.

There are other studies which. though not directly related to
the previous hypothesis. have some bearing on our present dis-
cussion. Duncan and Kreitlow (1954) found that heterogeneous
neighborhoods. i.e.. neighborhoods with low “homOphily" in
religious values and ethnic background had more favorable
attitudes toward school practices and had much higher adop-
tion scores as compared with homogeneous neighborhoods (high
homOphily). Coughenour (1966) also found that the rate of
technological diffusion varied from locality to locality

with the extent to which least competent farmers sought in-

formation and advice from most competent farmers.

61

In the case of "social interaction" choices. we ex-
pect greater homophily with respect to innovativeness in the
traditional community than in the modern community. The
assumption is that informal friendly association with others
may be a relatively more important source of social gratifi-
cation in a traditional community whereas in.a modern com—
munity social interaction may be based on mutual exchange
of ideas and solutions to problems encountered by interact-
ing members in the attainment of specific goals.

Chou (1966. pp. 48-49) examined the concept of homo-
phily in the context of Colombian communities and found a
significant relationship with respect to innovativeness in
informal friendship interaction.

We may expect differences in the degree of homOphily
in social interaction between modern and traditional commun-
ities.

Hlo fn fppyfriengppfp network. "sggfalnfnteraction"

ponfacts have a'higherpgpgree Of_homqphify with
respect to innovativeness in a tradftional so-

cial system than in a modern social system.

Mass Media Exposure
Mass media exposure as an attribute of interacting

individuals is an important factor in innovation diffusion

62

in a social system. The question with which we are con-
cerned is whether innovation and influence tend to flow

from those more exposed to mass media. to others less ex—
posed. The greater the extent to which the two-step or
multi—step flow of influence involves persons of higher and
lower degree of mass media exposure. respectively. as sought
and seekers. the more conducive is the communication struc-
ture to rapid innovation diffusion. But the extent to Which
this relay of information and influence from one person to
another takes place may vary from one social system to the
other. we expect the following hypothesis:

H11 ‘;p_fhe informgfion-seeking network. instrumental
fpfpracfion contacfs have a greater degree of
homophily with reSpegt tpppgss media exposure
in a traditional,sociafpsystem than in a modern
social system.

Research findings from the U.S. and from developing
societies indicate that Opinion leaders are more exposed to
farm magazines. professional journals and other mass media
(Katz. 1957: Menzel and Katz: 1955: Rahim. 1961. p. 58).
However. the above findings were not Obtained in comparative
social systems with varying degrees of modernism or tradi-

tionalism. However one study conducted in comparative social

63

systems in the U.S. indicated that the rate of technological
diffusion varied from one social system to the other with
the extent to which farmers with few media contacts had in-
formal contacts with other farmers having many media con-
tacts (Coughenour. 1964).

We also expect that in modern social systems friend-
ship associations involve persons with a high and low degree
of mass media exposure. whereas in traditional social systems.
such friendship associations are between those having a rela—
tively similar exposure to the mass media. There is some
support in this direction from a study conducted in five
Colombian communities. Results Of this study showed that
in traditional communities social interaction choices had
homophily with respect to mass media communication contact
(Chou. 1966. p. 49).

H12 In the friendship network. social interaction

contacts have greater degree of homophify with

respect to mass media exposure in a traditional

social system than in a modern social system.

Change Agent Contact

Change agent contact is the degree to which an indi-

vidual communicates with a change agent over a specific

64

period of time. In view of our earlier discussion. we might
expect that there will be a greater tendency for information
seeking to occur between persons having a high degree of
change agent contact and those having low change agent con-
tact. in modern than in traditional social systems. A simi-
lar tendency. although perhaps less marked. may occur in
friendship associations.

H In the information seeking network.4fnstrpmental

13

interacffon contacts have greater homophily with

 

respecf to chgnge agenfjcontact in a traditional

social systempthan in a modern social system.

Hl4 fnfpepfriengppfp network. social interaction
confacfs have_gfeatef homophily with respect to
change agent contact in a traditional sociafysys-
f§g_fhan in a modefn socia; system.

There is no direct evidence to support these two hy-
potheses. but findings from studies conducted in Australia
and the U.S. reported that instrumental interaction involved
opinion leaders who were more likely to have had a greater

degree of change agent contact than other system members

(Emery and<3eser. 1958. p. 50: Rogers and Burdge. 1962).

65

Agrigplfuralprowfedgeability

Agricultural knowledgeability is the degree to which
an individual is relatively earlier in acquiring information
about innovations than other members of the social system.
A low degree of homophily is expected with respect to agri-
cultural knowledgeability for information—seeking and infor-
mal friendly association in a modern social system because
of more specialized information needed by members in making
innovation decisions.

H fppthe information seeking network. instrumental

15

intefaction contacts have gfeater homOphily with

respect to agricultural knowledgeability in a

 

 

traditions; social system than in a modern so-

ciaffsystem.

H16, in fhe friendship network. social interaction

contacts have greater homOphily with respect to

agricultural knowledgeability in a traditional

social system than in a modern sociaf:system.

Social Status
Research findings dealing with status as an attribute
influencing the interpersonal communication relationship be-

tween the seekers and the soughts are not very consistent.

66

probably the inconsistency in findings might be due to dif-
ferences in the type of communities (modern vs. traditional)
studied. However. one generalization can be drawn from
available research findings that Opinion leaders have higher
social status than their followers (Rogers. 1962. p. 241).
But the interpersonal relationship may be differentially
conditioned by social status factors from one social system
to another. In a traditional social system. higher status
individuals may not serve as comparable "role models" for
low status members (Rogers. 1962. p. 241). Also. extreme
differences in social status between seekers and soughts
might serve as barriers to the flow of communication on ac-
count of the relatively more hierarchically structured char-
acter of social relationships in a traditional social system
as compared to a modern social system.

To the extent that status tends to inhibit the use
of certain interpersonal communication channels. the less
would be the rate of technological diffusion in a social
system. We hypothesize that:

H17 In the information seeking network. instrumental

interaction contacts have greater hompphily with

respect to social status in a traditional social

system than in a modern social system.

 

67

H18 In the friendship network. social interaction
contacts have greater degree of homophily with

respect to social status in a traditions; so—

ciafrsystempthan in a modern social system.

There is some indication for support of the previous
hypotheses from a comparative study in five Colombian commun—
ities conducted by Rogers and others (1964. p. 47). They
suggested that social status served as a more important bar-
rier in the flow of innovation and influence between the
seeker and the sought in the traditional communities than
the modern.‘ Logically. social status would serve as a more
important barrier in traditional communities with respect to
"social interaction" on an informal and personal basis. there-
by restricting interpersonal communication between those hav-
ing similar social status. Rao (1963. p. 153) conducted a
study in two Indian villages and reported that social status
barriers were quite pronounced in interpersonal communication
especially with the elites in the traditional community.
However in the modern community. interpersonal communication
was considerably widespread. resulting in higher levels of

information than in the traditional community.

68

However. we might find an artifact in interpersonal
relationships in traditional social systems especially if
there is a tendency on the part of members to identify with
the more powerful members. having high social status. and
a tendency toward separation from the less powerful having

low status.

Frgguency of_;nstfpment§prnteraction

How often members in a social system have dyadic
communication contacts with relatively more innovative
farmers for the purpose of Obtaining information and advice
on innovations. is an important factor which is expected to
affect the diffusion of new ideas. Fregpency of instrpmental
interagfion is defined as the rate at which members in a
social system initiate dyadic communication specifically or-
iented to seeking information and advice in the innovation
decision making process. The greater frequency of dyadic
communication contacts among members reflects a greater de-
gree of goal oriented communication behavior in the innova—
tion decision making process. and hence is expected to af-
fect rate of technological diffusion in a social system.
Findings from small group research indicated that the more

frequent the interaction among a group Of individuals. the

69

more they like each other and the more similar attitudes and
uniform behavior they tend to have (Homans. 1950: Newcomb
1953. 1956: Festinger. Schachter and Back. 1950. p. 130).
It seems. therefore. that a greater degree of interaction
between the less innovative and more innovative members of
a social system would tend to induce the acceptance of inno-
vations on the part of less innovative members. We expect
therefore the following hypothesis:
‘ng fn the information seeking network. there is
greater freguency of_fnst£ppental interaction
in the mpdefp_§ociaf system than in the tradi-

tional socia; system.

We now close our discussion relating to patterns of
homophily in dyadic communication. Our focus was to outline
hypotheses designed to study variations in homophily from
one social system to the other with respect to designated
attributes of interacting members in two types of dyadic
communication contacts (information seeking contacts and
friendship contacts) and the possible effect of such varia-
tions in innovation diffusion in these systems. Both con-
ceptually and analytically. our focus was primarily on the

dyad with no consideration given to the relationship of

70

the dyads to other dyads or subgroups of the communication
structure.

We shall continue with statements of hypothesis in
the next section where we intend to deal with the entire
communication structure of a social system as the conceptual
and analytical unit. We intend to deal with “communication

integration" within the framework of structural analysis.

,Structural Analysis

In structural analysis our focus is on the entire
communication structure of a social system with a major em-
phasis on the interrelationships between individuals and
subgroups. between subgroups. and the differential roles
which interrelate these subgroups to form what we call "pat-
terns of communication integration.“ We shall now define
more specifically some of these patterns of communication

integration and outline possible hypotheses.

Patterns of Communication Integrafion

Communication integration is the degree to which so-
cial system members and the subgroups formed by interpersonal

contacts among members in a social system are interconnected.

'71

It is expected that the greater the extent to which individ-
uals and subgroups are interrelated in their communication
behavior. the greater will be the rate of technological dif-
fusion in that system. In this thesis. the analysis Of the
patterns of communication integration in given social systems
is based on two approaches:

1. We intend to deal with those variables which are
descriptive of the degree of communication integration in a
social system. and which can provide some quantitative infor-
mation for comparative social system analysis. The concern
is merely to study the extent to which members in a social
system are integrated into the networks of interpersonal
communication with no consideration given to the position or
location of members within the communication structure. The
variables to be considered for this particular analysis are:
(1) integration into the information seeking network. and
(2) range Of social interaction.
fntegfation intpyfhe Information
§eeking_Network

integration into the infprmation seeking network is
the degree to which members in a social system initiate in-
strumental communication contacts with relatively more inno-

vative members in order to seek information and advice in

72

innovation decisions. This purposive interpersonal communi-
cation behavior on the part of social system members should
be expected to influence the rate of technological adOption.
Coughenour (1966) found that locality rates of technological
adOption varied with the extent to which members sought in-
formation from more competent farmers. Coleman and others
(1957) reported that the influence of social networks on drug
adOption Operated most among the doctors Who were integrated
into the community of their colleagues through ties of a
professional nature as advisors or discussion partners. These
researchers pointed out that a doctor's integration into the
medical community of his colleagues was a cause of his early
use Of a new drug (Coleman. Katz and Menzel. 1966. p. 104).

It can be assumed that the greater the extent of so-
cial system members' into the information seeking relation-
ships. the greater will be the rate of technolOgical diffusion
in that system. A greater number of members should be engaged
in information seeking contacts with Others perceived as rela—
tively more expert. only when social system norms on innova-
tiveness are favorable. Support for this notion can be drawn
from the study by Festinger and others (1950. p. 123). who
noted that when content was favorable to the member's organi-

zation. the communication process was much more active than

73

in the case;*Where the content was considered as unfavor-
able.
H20 There is greater degree of integration into the
fpformation seeking network in a modern social

system than in a traditionafysociafysystem.

Range of Social fnteraction

Range of social interaction is defined as the extent
to which an individual in a social system can initiate di-
rectly and indirectly. interpersonal contacts with other mem-
bers for the purpose of friendship. The sociometric range
of social interaction is based on the number of friends that
an individual chooses plus the friends of these friends.
Mathematically. it is the degree to which an individual is
interconnected with other members through direct and two step
chains of interpersonal contacts of the type A-€>B -€> C.

The extent to which members in a social system are
interconnected through these two step interpersonal chains
is one index of the communication integration of a social
system. because it is through these direct and indirect con-
nections that information. innovation. and influence diffuse
through a communication structure. The very existence Of

these direct and indirect interpersonal contacts among

74

members suggests that there will be sharing of information
and Opinions among the interconnected members on those mat-
ters which are salient to the needs and interests of inter-
acting members. Festinger and others (1950. p. 123) studied
rumor transmission in two housing communities and found that
the diffusion of information was considerably affected by
the direct and indirect communication links existing among
the members and the attitude of these members toward the
planted information. This experiment led these investigators
to suggest that the character and behavior of the group de-
pended in part upon the direct and indirect interpersonal
connections among members.

Thus it can be expected that the greater connected-
ness among members through direct and indirect interpersonal
contacts leads to higher potential for the diffusion of inno—
vation through such channels. if innovations are perceived
as salient and significant Objects of goal attainment by mem-
bers in a social system. Thus we state the following hypo-
thesis.

H21 The range of social interaction is greater in a

modern social system than in a traditional so-

cial system.

 

75

2. Structural Analysis. We shall analyze patterns
of sctual communication contacts which occur among individ-
uals in a social system and in terms of the patterns of com-
munication contacts which might occur among the subgroups
that are formed by interpersonal contacts among members.

The analysis is based primarily on the relative positions
of individuals and subgroups which constitute the communica-
tion structure Of a social system.

In doing so it is believed that the process of in-
novation diffusion in informal social systems can be
differentiated with regard to the internal communication
structure that Operates in these systems. especially the
subgroups constituting the structure and the differential
roles which provide intercommunicative linkages between and
among the subgroups. Our focus here is to identify the sgp:
groups p£_cligues which constitute the communication struc-
ture, and the "liaison" roles which interrelate the various
subgroups or cliques.

It is realized that the notion of opinion leadership
thus far studied in public Opinion research and diffusion is
too narrow to uncover relatively communication roles which

interrelate the various subgroups of communication structure

76

and provide the mechanisms of an interlocking and integrated
communication system. There appears to be no one research
study in which these aspects of communication structure were
studied in rural communities. A few studies were conducted
with the purpose of determining the patterns of friendship
contacts and family visiting among peasants (Loomis. 1960,
p. 480; Proctor. 1960. p. 488). But structural analysis
dealing with interconnectedness between subgroups and the
identification of "liaison" persons within a communication
structure has not been conducted thus far in diffusion
research.

To trace these aspects Of the communication structure,
it is necessary that our data should be based on those inter-
personal contacts which occur most frequently in a regular
pattern. Hence we intend to analyze subgroup and liaison
roles from informal friendship contacts which exist among
members in a social system. It is through such face—to-face
informal social groupings that many of the attitudes and norms
which affect the behavior of group members are transmitted.
Once the internal communication structure of a social system
has been differentiated with regard to the subgroups and the

liaison roles which interconnect these subgroups in informal

77

interpersonal contacts. then the logical questions that we

can raise are:

1.

How does the communication structure of one social
system differ from the other with respect to the
communication contacts between subgroups. espe-
cially the location of liaison roles which provide

interconnections between and among subgroups?

Is the differential placement of liaison individuals
and subgroups within a social system related to their
differential normative structure? In other words is
there a pattern of interrelationship between social
psychological subgroups and their normative structure

such as innovativeness?

Are there variations from one social system to the
other with regard to the interrelationship of sub—
groups and liaison roles with patterns of normative

structure?

Is the differential placement of an individual in a
liaison role in the interpersonal network related
to characteristics such as social status. innovative—

ness, mass media exposure and Opinion leadership

78

influence? If so. how does it vary from one social

system to the other?

This thesis is an attempt to examine some of these
questions with the use Of structural analysis of inter-

personal networks in two social systems.

Subgroups

A supgroup can be defined as a set of group members
who interact more frequently with members of the set than
they do with social system members outside the set. It is
on this principle that the communication structure of a
social system can be differentiated into separate subgroups.
However, to isolate subgroups and to identify their core
membership, some specific criterion as to subgroup member-
ship is a prerequisite. The bases of identifying subgroup
membership and liaison roles are discussed in the next
chapter. Subgroups generally referred to as "social cliques"
are vital constituents in the network of interpersonal com-
munication in peasant villages. Almost every peasant is a
member of such a subgroup. In traditional communities. an
individual's position is determined by the group to which
he belongs. Such subgroups have a great influence on inter-

personal communication in social. political and day-to-day

79

life Of the members of a community (Nicholas and Mukhopadhya,
1962: Loomis and Davidson. 1939). They may help accelerate
the process of diffusion or serve as barriers to the accept-
ance of innovations in a social system (Lewis, 1958. p. 20).
Subgroups may even set up mechanism to prevent exposure to
new ideas and may set up norms restricting interpersonal
communication with others outside of the subgroup. In deal-
ing with case studies of social change. Niehoff (1966. p.
226) pointed out that factionalism of course constituted
OOOperation among the members of one particular group but
this kind of cOOperation Often brought about divisiveness in
the larger social unit--the village.

From the point of view of innovation diffusion in a
social system, if the structure can be separated into sub-
groups within which there is high association but between
which there is little or none. then diffusion is restricted
to the confines of those subgroups. Now these considerations
make it apparent that for a study Of the consequences of a
given structure in which a process Of diffusion was in Oper-
ation, a crucial measure is that of the "connectedness" of
the structure, identifying the degree to which such isolated

cliques exist (Coleman. 1964, p. 433). In informal rural

80

systems of peasant societies we expect that the greater the
degree to which communication contacts exist between subgroups
in a social system. the greater is the integration of the com-
munication structure which has consequences of higher rate

of innovation diffusion in that system. The social system
with a higher rate of technological diffusion was character-
ized as a modern system and the other having a low rate of
technological diffusion was defined as a traditional system.
Thus. we are led to the following hypothesis.

H22 In a modern social system there is a greater
degree of communication contacts between sub-
gfoups than in a traditional social system.

There is some evidence (based on Observations rather
than structural analysis) from a study conducted in India by
Rao (1963. p. 137). who stated that communication in a modern
village was highly dynamic. traveling through a maze of inter-
personal relationships which made up the total community.

Rao (1963. p. 158) also reported that communication in the
traditional village was characterized by peer groups. and
was largely limited within these groups.

Communication contacts between subgroups can be
determined in terms of the interconnections provided by

liaison persons and bridges. In terms of graph theory

81

(Harary, 1959). a "bridge" denotes the communication contact
from a member of one subgroup to a member of a second sub-
group. If there is one such interconnection between two
subgroups, the bridge is single whereas if there are two
such connections which interlink two subgroups, then the
linkage is called a double bridge. The inter connections
among subgroups provided by liaison persons are more impor-
tant from the point of View of innovation diffusion in a

social system.

Liaison Roles

A liaison person is an individual who interconnects
two or more subgroups in such a way that his removal from the
communication structure would separate the two subgroups, and
that the removal of his communication contacts from one sub-
group would still keep him in communication contact with the
other subgroup(s). Individuals who serve this type of a
communication role are called liaison roles. The interper-
sonal contacts of liaison individuals permeate through two
or more subgroups in a communication structure, although a
majority of the contacts of a liaison person are in one sub-
group. It is therefore apparent that such liaison roles are
important in the diffusion of information and influence in a

given social system.

82

Jacobson and Seashore (1951) pointed out the import-
ance of liaison roles in the communication structure of or—
ganizations. These researchers stated that liaison individ-
uals were in a position to influence significantly or to
control the communications to and from certain groups. The
more such roles are positioned within the communication
structure of a social system. the higher is the communica—
tion integration of the structure and consequently the higher
would be the rate of technological diffusion in that system.
Hence. we expect the following hypothesis.

H23 In a modern social system there is a greater

 

number of liaison roles than in a traditional
system.

Furthermore. Jacobson and Seashore (1951) also re-
ported that through liaison individuals. it was possible to
trace differential influences throughout the organization
as they were reflected in differences in attitudes among the
several subgroups. In the diffusion of innovations. we
should expect that the degree to which liaison roles are
characterized by innovative behavior. has a considerable
effect on subgroup and social system norms on innovativeness.
It should also be expected that a greater degree of mass media

exposure on the part of liaison persons would considerably

83

affect diffusion of new ideas in the social system. In view
of our discussion, we expect the following hypothesis:
H24 In a modern social system. liaison individuals
are relatively more innovative than the sub-
groups of members but in a traditional social

system liaison individuals are relatively similar

in innovativeness to the subgroups of members.

H25 In a modern social system liaison individuals
have relatively a higher degree of mass media
exposure than the subgroups of members but in a
fraditiona; social system liaision individuals

have a relatively similar degree of mass media

exposure as the subgroups of members.

We have stated two categories of hypotheses. In the
first type. hypotheses based on such variables as "integration
into the information seeking network" and "range of social
interaction" were discussed with the purpose that they can
provide some quantitative dimensions for comparative analysis
of the degree of communication integration in innovation
diffusion in informal social systems.

The second category of hypotheses. relatively much

more important from the point of view of studying the degree

84

of integration of communication structures. are based on
structural characteristics such as interconnectedness be-
tween subgroups and the position of roles within a given
structure. These aSpects of the communication structure

can at best be studied by structural analysis which has to
be based on specific theoretical criteria regarding subgroups
and subgroup membership. Not much research work has been
done in studying interconnectedness between individuals and
subgroups within communication structure. To date. the con-
ceptual and analytical framework suggested by Jacobson and
Seashore (1951) and Weiss and Jacobson (1955) still remains
one of the very few attempts which dealt specifically with
the analysis of patterns of contacts between individuals

and subgroup and of the differential placement of individuals

in “liaison" roles by the use of sociometric techniques.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY AND TECHNIQUES OF MEASUREMENT

This thesis is an ex post facto scientific field
study conducted in two peasant communities in India. The
present chapter describes the criteria of selection of the
two communities and their locale: methods of data collection;
Operationalization of concepts and techniques of sociometric
measurement; the reliability of sociometric measurement; and
the methodological assumptions made: and equivalence of the
two communities.

Selection of Communities and their Locale

Locale
The locale of the present study included two farming

communities.* "Bsant Pur“ and “Arjan Pur." which are situated

 

*Instead of the original names of the two communities. each
is symbolized by the real name of its most influential Opin-
“iOn leader. “Bsant." himself an innovator and a major source
of innovation and change in the life of "Basant Pur." is rel-
atively more innovative than other community members. and so
village Bsant Pur is changing relatively faster than many
other peasant communities. "Arjan." the singlemost source
of influence. is no more innovative than his fellow commun-
ity members. and so the village of "Arjan Pur" is similar to
many other rural communities in accepting innovation and

85

86

in the District of Ludhiana. Punjab State. India. Bsant Pur
is a village community of 54 farm families. It is located

at a distance of about 25 miles from the district headquar-
ters of Ludhiana and six miles from a local marketing center.
Arjan Pur constitutes 30 farming families and is located at

a distance of about 13 miles from Ludhiana. Arjan Pur is
located at a distance of about two miles from a local market-

ing town.

Critefion of Selection

The two farm communities reported previously were
purposively selected from several communities on the basic
assumption that each of the two communities was characterized
by a different pattern of communication structure (independ-
ent variable of the study) which affected a higher rate of
technolOgical diffusion (dependent variable) in one community
as compared with the other. On the basis of ratings made by
local change agents. the community of Bsant Pur was expected
to be marked by a relatively higher rate of technolOgical

diffusion than Arjan Pur.

 

change rather slowly. The names of the two communities are
indeed symbolic of the basic underlying character of commun-
ication. innovation. and change in each of them.

87

The assumption that the two communities represented
two types of interpersonal communication systems was pure
speculation. It was based on the premise that Bsant Pur was
a relatively new settlement inhabited by farming families
who had migrated to the present place from West Pakistan at
the time of partition of the State of Punjab in 1947. whereas
the village of Arjan Pur was an old settlement in which the
present farm families had been living for centuries. However.
it should be pointed out here that the farming families now
settled in Bsant Pur originally hailed from villages located
within a radius of about five miles surrounding the present
settlement where they still owned their farms. It was about
four decades ago that these families had moved to another
area within the State of Punjab (now West Pakistan) in order
to do farming on lands distributed and sold by the government
at that time.

In brief. the two communities were selected on the
assumption that they manifested different types of social
structures producing different patterns of interpersonal
communication which concomitantly affected differential rates
of technological adOption in the two settings. However. to
pursue this problem empirically and scientifically. other

criteria were to be met inthe selection of the two communities.

88

These criteria in essence dealt with controlling the effect

of extraneous independent variables which in past diffusion

research were found to be related to technological adOption.

The purpose of control was to select two communities which

were comparatively homogeneous and similar with regard to

such extraneous independent variables as discussed below.

1.

The two communities under investigation should be
comparable with regard to respondent's age. educa—
tional levels. literacy. family literacy index.
family size. experience in farming. experience in
government service. religious. and cultural back-

ground.

The two communities should be located within the jur—
isdiction of one district administration and be
served by one and the same change agency responsible

for the introduction of innovations.

The innovations included in the study were equally
applicable to the farming conditions in the two
communities and were introduced at similar time

periods by the change agency.

Soil and climatic conditions. irrigational facilities.

and supply facilities for innovations were equally

89

similar in the two communities.

5. Both communities should be comparable in terms of
their institutional develOpment. That is. each
community had a village panchayat (an elected body
of members responsible for village development). a
cooperative credit society. and a primary school

for children.

It is believed that by controlling the previous ex-
traneous variables through equalization. their differential
influence on technological adoption in the two communities

is considerably minimized.

Method of Data Collection

It is appropriate to state here that the initial im—
petus and intellectual stimulation for conducting this study
came from Dr. Everett M. Rogers. who in January 1964. began
working in India as a consultant to the India-UNESCO communi—
cation research project. At that time the author had been
working with a Ford Foundation-sponsored research project de-
signed to study communication and adoption of agricultural

innovations in the District of Ludhiana where the "Intensive

90

Agricultural Districts Program" was being implemented. Some
of the steps that were followed in the collection of data

are summarized next.

DevelOpment of Interview Schedule
and Pretesting

In view of the focus of this study on comparative
analysis of interpersonal communication in innovation diffu-
sion. the author developed an interview schedule which in-
corporated sociometric design. In June. 1964. the schedule
along with a brief outline of the overall research design
was sent to Professor Rogers at Michigan State University
and to other research investigators in India for suggestions
to improve the research instrument. The suggestions of these
researchers helped in the further improvement of the research
design of this study.

The interview schedule was pretested in two communi-
ties. one relatively more innovative than the other. The
two communities where pretesting was conducted were under the
jurisdiction of the same change agency. but were located in
a develOpment block different from the ones where the actual
research investigation was to be conducted later on.

The pretesting of the interview schedule was conducted

by me and three trained research investigators who had been

91

working with me on the Ford Foundation research project in

India.

Some of the results which accrued from pretesting

are worth mentioning here.

1.

It was observed that some of the respondents were
reluctant to respond to sociometric questions. es—
pecially naming of friends. Some of the typical
responses in such cases were as follows:

"Everybody is my friend in this community. I
maintain good relations with everyone here."

"I don't go to anybody here in this village.
It is better to stay away from others. If I go to
some one like Mr. X. then peOple in this community
begin to think that I belong to the group led by
Mr. X."

“Why do you need such information as who our
friends are or who we go to for seeking information?
How this kind of information is going to help us in

Obtaining more credit and cheap fertilizers?"

Such responses as reported were perhaps indicative

of one of the relatively more important characteristics of

peasant community life in India. That is. they reflected

how much group rivalries and factions were involved in peas-

ant villages. The pretest responses to sociometric questions

92

also indicated the lack of mutual trust on the part of the
peasant in the sense that a respondent seemed to be afraid

of telling to an outside research investigator as to who his
friends were. Perhaps the type of reSponses reported above
could be considered as mechanisms of self defence on the

part of the respondent or as a tendency to maintain. under
the stress of interviewing situation. psychological balance
and feeling of security by withholding information. Whatever
the explanation. the peasant respondent reacted to sociometric
questions in such a style that he tended to project either
his dissociation from the rest of the community or his asso-
ciation with everybody in the community in order to "prove”
to the investigator that he had no close association with s
subgroup.

ReSponses of this kind were helpful in our later in-
vestigation as they pointed out the importance of establish-
ing a good rapport with the respondents in order to obtain
relatively more reliable information regarding sociometric
questions.

2. It was observed that when a respondent was interviewed
in the presence of other farmers. he was very likely

to name them as friends or as advisors.

93

To remove this possibility of bias in sociometric
responses. we interviewed each peasant respondent alone
either on his farm or at his residence.

3. While going through the pretested schedules. it was
found that in these communities many of the persons
named as friends or as advisors had similar names
which later on we found it difficult to identify and

locate such individuals.

Thus it helped us to improve the interview schedule
so that sociometric relationships could now be noted in terms
of the name of the person chosen and his father's name.

Following pretesting. necessary improvements were
made in the interview schedule. The interview schedule in
its final form consisted of 38 pages and five main parts.
The first part included full sheet information and some
"warm up type" questions. Sociometric questions intended
to tap interpersonal communication contacts. were then fol-
lowed in the second part. The third part consisted of ques-
tions regarding respondent's mass media exposure which was
followed by the fourth part incorporating innovativeness
scale and the innovation decision making process through
which individuals pass. Personal information regarding the

respondent such as income. level of living. credit availed.

94

etc.. and social psychological variables such as attitude
toward change. educational aspirations. occupational aspira-
tions. achievement motivation and empathy were included in
the fifth part of the interview schedule. Our concern in
this thesis is primarily with the first four parts of the

interview schedule.

sample Size apg_Qata Gathering

Since our major objective was to analyze sociometric—
cally the nature of interpersonal communication structure and
its possible effects on innovation diffusion in the two com-
munities. it was necessary to interview all the heads of farm
families so that every respondent could be located within the
network of interpersonal communication Contacts. That is.
the sociometric design of this study required "saturation
sampling." Therefore. we interviewed all the 54 heads of
farm families in the village Bsant Pur. and all of the 30
family heads in village Arjan Pur. Interviews were conducted
simultaneously in both communities with two research investi-
gators working in each. The author personally interviewed
respondents in both communities along with three other
trained research investigators who had been working as in-

terviewers for about a year in the district of Ludhiana

95

itself. The availability of trained investigators who had
experience in the context of farming communities in the dis-
trict of Ludhiana was indeed of immense help in the conduct
of this study.

Since the questions in the interview schedule were
in English it was desirable that the investigators know the
regional language "Punjabi" in order to translate and inter-
pret the questions meaningfully in the language of the re-
Spondents. There was no problem of translation or language
in interviewing farmers as the mother-tongue of all the in-
vestigators who helped in the conduct of this study was
"Punjabi."

The average time to complete one interview was about
an hour and a half. Data were gathered from all the respond-
ents in the two communities during the month of August-
September. 1964. In all 54 respondents were interviewed in
village Bsant Pur and 30 respondents were interviewed in

Arjan Pur.

Operationalization of Concepts and
Techniques of Sociometric Measurement

In this section we intend to deal first with the Op-

erationalization of the two dependent variables and then

96

continue our discussion with the concepts and variables of
the communication structure in the same order in which hy-
potheses were outlined within the conceptual and analytical
framework. The discussion includes illustrations of the
Operational measures used to study these variables. the
techniques utilized in construction of various indices.
and. the approach followed in the structural analysis of
liaison persons and communication contacts between subgroups.

1. Rate of Technological Diffusion: The extent to Which
members in a social system have adopted innovations over time.
Operationally it is the cumulative percentage of social system
members who have adopted innovations over a period of time.
The eleven innovations* which were investigated in this study
included: ammonium sulphate fertilizer. calcium ammonium
fertilizer. superphosphate fertilizer. endrine insecticide.
hybrid maize. improved plough. wheat c-273. 2-4-D weed Spray.
American cotton. desi cotton. and compost pit.

2. Adoption index: The tendency of an individual to be

early in adopting innovations. Operationally. it is the sum

 

*The Intensive Agricultural District Program popularly known
as "Package" program was being implemented in the two com-
munities where the present study was conducted. The inno—
vations constituted the core of the Package of improved farm
practices. The approach to the diffusion of Package of farm

97

of scores an individual gets for all the eleven innovations
on a six-point scale incorporating the degree to which an in-
dividual has progressed from first hearing of the innovation
to its final adOption. e.g.. an individual's adOption score
with regard to adoption of ammonium sulphate was obtained
from the following:

0. not heard

1. heard but not interested

2. interested but not tried

3. tried but rejected

4. tried and moving toward adoption

5. adOpted but discontinued

6. adopted and continuing

3. Opinion Leadership: The degree to which an individ-
ual has interpersonal influence exercised in a situation
through communication process for the attainment of know-
ledge. attitudes. or behavior. Opinion leadership was oper-
ationalized in two different ways.

In the first case an individual's Opinion leadership

score is based on direct sociometric choices received from

 

practices among farmers was based on the principle that inno-
vations should be adopted in combination as a Package in
order to maximize agricultural production (Expert Committee
on Assessment and Evaluation. 1963. p. 2).

98

other group members in regard to a specific criterion. As
for example when group members overtly express sociometric
choices for other individuals from whom they seek informa-
tion and advice on agricultural innovations. This is called
sociometric Opinion leadership.

In the second case an individual's Opinion leader-
ship score is the number of sociometric relationships that
the individual has with other group members whom he reported
to have provided information and advice on agricultural inno-
vations. This technique is known as self-perceived Opinion
leadership.

(1) Has any cultivator(s) in your village come to
you for information related to improved agricul-
tural practices? Yes__No___

Name 1 2 3

(2) How many cultivators you think come to you to

seek advice on improved practices? Number

4. Polymorphic Opinion Leadership: The tendency
of an individual to be in the same relative influence posi-
tion in a social system across a given number of criteria.
Operationally. it is the sum of scores assigned to the rela—

tive degrees of weighted sociometric Opinion leadership that

99

an individual has across each of the four criteria. plus the
number of criteria in which the individual exerts Opinion
leadership influence. In this thesis the criteria of Opinion
leadership deal with agricultural innovations. health and
medical treatment: children eduction and family matters: and
nomination on an agricultural development committee.

The weighted sociometric Opinion leadership of an in—
dividual on a given criterion is computed as the total number
of sociometric choices received by the individual divided by
the total number of choices received by all resPondents in
the social system. multiplied by 100. Once weighted socio-
metric Opinion leadership is computed for each individual on
each criterion. scores are then assigned to each individual
in terms of the relative degree of weighted sociometric Opin-
ion leadership the individual has across each criteria. The
scoring is done as follows:

0. no weighted Opinion leadership

2. five per cent or less of weighted Opinion lead-
ership

3. from 5.1 to 10 per cent of weighted opinion
leadership

etc.

100

To this score we add the number of criteria in which
an individual exerts Opinion leadership influence. That is.
if an individual is an opinion leader in one area. a score
of l is given. if in two areas. a score of 2 is given. and
so on.

Some of the typical sociometric questions which deal
with opinion leadership on a given criteria are like the one
illustrated below:

If your child or relative became sick. with whom
in your village would you consult in regard to
making necessary arrangements for medical treat-
ment?

Name

 

Social relationship

5. Opinion Leadership Concentration: The degree to which
one or more units in a social system are perceived to have
relatively greater degree of interpersonal influence with re-
gard to a Specific criterion than other units in that system.
Opinion leadership concentration is operationalized in terms
of sociometric choices received by an individual with regard
to two separate communication situations. In the first case

opinion leadership is based on sociometric choices made by

101

individuals on a criterion according to which individuals
relate themselves to Opinion leaders explicitly for meeting
their own personal needs.
Amongst your informal contacts in the village.
whose Opinion do you seek most often about new
farming practices?

Name

 

In the second situation opinion leadership is defined in re-
spect of sociometric contacts received by individuals on a
criterion primarily concerned with the attainment of changes.
improvements or goals of the social system as a whole.
If you were one of the members on an agricultural
develOpment committee for the village what two

other persons would you choose to work on the

 

committee?
1. Name
2. Name

 

Opinion leadership concentration* is measured from
the Lorenz curve by plotting the cumulative percentage dis—
tribution of sociometric choices on the ordinate against the

cumulative percentage distribution of individuals on the

 

*Similar to the notion of Opinion leadership concentration.
Coleman (1964. pp. 434-440) developed a measure of hierarch-
‘izatiOn. in order to determine the degree to which sociomet-
ric choices are concentrated in a few individuals.

102

abscissa. The Lorenz curve is drawn by rank-ordering all in-
dividuals according to the percentage of sociometric choices
that each individual has. Since both axes of the Lorenze
curve are expressed in terms of cumulative percentage distri-
bution ranging from 0 to 100. the straight line rising from
the origin indicates the line of perfect equality of distri-
bution of sociometric choices among all members (Figure 3).
The area between the Lorenz curve and the line of perfect
equality represents the degree of Opinion leadership concen-
tration in a social system. The ratio of the area between
the Lorenz curve and the line of perfect equality. to. the
total area of the triangle formed by the two axes and the
line of perfect equality. is called the Gini ratio of concen—
tration or Gini index of concentration.

In essence. the Gini index sums for each individual
in the population. the difference between where he is on the
Lorenz curve and where he would be expected to be in the case
of equal distribution of sociometric choices among all the
members. This sum is divided by its maximum possible Value
so that the Gini coefficient ranges between 0 and l. The
greater the Lorenz curve deviates from the line of equality.
the greater is the concentration. To make this discussion

clear. the following illustration of Lorenz curve and Gini

103

 

  
   
 

 

 

 

100
//// 80
. . 60
Line of perfect equality
_____r———"
,-'-------* 50
I
E 40
Lorenz curve :
_____J-————? '----"-r ------- 20
. i
: I
. l
I 4
0 2O 4O 60 80 100

Cumulative per cent of members

Figure 3.--An illustration of Lorenz Curve indicating concen-
tration of sociometric contacts.
ratio is presented in Figure 3. From the illustration in
Figure 3 it is seen that sixty per cent of the members re-
ceive only twenty per cent of the total sociometric contacts
Whereas fifty per cent of the total contacts are concen-
trated among twenty per cent of the members. The Gini ratio
of Opinion leadership concentration is

Area between the curve and the line of perfect quality

 

= Total area of the triangle formed by the two axes

104

6. Mass Media Exposure: The degree to which an individ-
ual is exposed to mass media of communication. Operationally
it is the average of the sum of standard scores an individual
obtains from (1) the number of hours that he listens to radio
per week. (2) the number of newSpapers he reads per week. (3)
the number of magazines he reads per month and (4) the number
of films he sees per year.

7. Change Agent Contact: The degree to which an indi—
vidual has contacts with change agents. Operationally it is
the sum of the number of contacts that an individual has with
various change agents during the period of one year.

8. CosmOpolite Interpersonal Channel Use in Innovation
Decisions: The degree to which an individual has external
orientation to the use of interpersonal sources of informa-
tion in his innovation decision making process. Operation-
ally it is the simple sum of the number of interpersonal
sources including change agents. salesmen. and innovators
in other villages. which the individual mentions as having
used from first hearing of an innovation to its final adop-
tion.

9. Formal Participation: The degree to Which an indi-
vidual takes part in formal organizations. Operationally it

is the average of two standard scores that an individual

105

obtains from (1) the number of years he has been a member in
various organizations within his community and (2) the number
of organizations outside of the community where he is a mem-
ber.

10. Innovativeness: The degree to which an individual
is relatively earlier in adopting an innovation than other
members of the social system. Operationally it is the aver-
age value of eleven standard scores. that an individual ob-
tains from "the number of months ago" that he adOpted each
of the eleven innovations reported earlier. It should be
noted here that the standard scores are computed for each
of the eleven innovations separately and then the average
value is obtained for each individual. In this way the av-
erage standard score that an individual obtains indicates
his general tendency to adopt innovations relatively early
or late.

11. Agricultural Knowledgeability: The degree to which
a person is relatively earlier in acquiring information about
innovations than other members of the social system. Opera—
tionally it is the average value of eleven standard scores.
each standard score computed separately from the ”number of
months ago" an individual got first knowledge of the innova-

tions under investigation.

106

12. Social Status: The amount of material attributes
that a person has. Operationally it is the average value of
standard scores that an individual obtains from (1) his level
of living measured in terms of number of items such as radio.
furniture. and other household possessions. (2) his size of
land holding. (3) his income. and (4) the quality of housing
accommodation. That is. standard scores are computed first
for each of the four indicators of social status as noted
above and then the average value is computed in order to Ob-
tain a relative and general social status index for each in-
dividual.

13. Homophily: A relational concept which describes the
degree to which individuals with a certain designated attri-
bute have communication contacts with others of similar attri-
butes. Operationally. it is an observed correlation between
the designated attributes of individuals who have dyadic com-
munication contacts. The correlations can vary from +1 through
0 to -1. With the dyad as the unit of analysis. homophily*
is operationalized with respect to such attributes as inno—

vativeness. mass media exposure. etc.. which are considered

 

*Coleman (1959) suggested a method of computing a homophily
index for dichotomous variables. but all our variables are
continuous.

107

as continuous variables. The two types of communication
contacts in which homophily is Operationalized are discussed
next.

14. Social Interaction: Interpersonal communication
contact between individuals primarily oriented to informal
and affective association. Operationally it refers to the
sociometric choices that a person gives to other individuals
on a criterion explicitly concerned with informal friendship.
The number of sociometric choices allowed an individual is
six.

"DO you have any friendly association with other
cultivators in your community?“ Yes No

"If yes. who are they"

Name: 1 2 3

15. Instrumental Interaction: Direct interpersonal com-
munication contact between members established specifically
to the attainment of goal seeking behavior. Operationally
it refers to the sociometric choices that a person makes for
another individual explicitly on a criterion which deals
with seeking information and knowledge on innovations.

16. Frequency of Instrumental Interaction: The rate at
which an individual initiates dyadic communication contacts

specifically oriented to seeking information and advice in

108

the innovation decision making process. Operationally it is
the number of times an individual seeks information and ad-
vice on innovations from other members perceived by the in-
dividual as relatively more innovative.

How often do you seek information on new farm

practices from progressive farmers in this com-

munity?

0. Never

1. Once in a cropping season

2. Twice in a cropping season

3. Thrice in a cropping season

17. Integration into the Information Seeking Network:
The extent to which individuals in a social system initiate
instrumental contacts with relatively more innovative members
in order to seek information and advice in innovation deci—
sions. Operationally it is the prOportion of social system
members who express sociometric choices for the explicit
purpose of seeking information on innovations from relatively
more progressive farmers.
18. Range of Social Interaction: The extent to Which an

individual in a social system can initiate directly and in-
directly. interpersonal contacts with other members for the

purpose of friendship. Operationally it is the sum of direct

109

and two-step indirect communication contacts a person has
with other group members.

The direct communication contacts of a person are
obtained from the row sums of the original "who to whom"
sociometric choice matrix. C. with elements cij where cij =1.
if i chooses j and cij = 0 if i does not choose j. The two-
step indirect communication contacts are obtained by manipu-
lation of the sociometric choice matrix to the power of two.
Festinger (1949) and Luce and Perry (1949) pointed out that
for matrices whose elements are 0 or 1. powers of choice ma-
trix C. have as elements the numbers of chains of correspond-
ing length going from i through intermediating links to j.
In other words if we raise the originalchoice matrix to the
power of two. then C2 = (cij(2)) where Ci: = 2k c. c

1k kj'

Each component. cik' of Cij(2) is equal to one if and only
if i chooses k and k chooses j. i.e.. there is an indirect
communication contact or a length of chain two from i to j.

(2)

In essence the entries cij of the squared choice matrix.
CZ. show the number of two-step indirect communication con-
tacts from each i to each j. The sum of such contacts in

each row gives the number of two-step indirect contacts that

each person has with other group members.

110

The sum Of direct contacts that a person has in the
original choice matrix. and the two-step indirect contacts
obtained from the squared matrix. is the amount of connected-
ness or range of social interaction of the individual with
the rest of group members. However. from this sum obtained
for each individual. we need to subtract the number of his
overlapping contacts. The overlapping contacts for each per-
son are obtained from entries along the principal diagonal
of the squared matrix which in fact indicate the number of
individual's mutual choices with other persons. We subtract
these overlapping contacts because they are already included
in the total number of direct contacts a person has from the
original choice matrix.

19. Subgroups: A set of group members who interact more
frequently with members of the set than they do with social
system members outside the set. Operationally. it is the
set of individuals who express more sociometric contacts for
informal friendShip association with each other than with
members outside the set. The basic aim of operationalizing
subgroups is to analyze the entire communication structure
of the social system eSpecially in terms of interrelation-
ships among the subgroups. As such. the definition of sub-

group in this thesis implies not only the internal contacts

111

within the subgroup but more importantly the interrelatedness
among subgroups of individuals so that we can analyze the
separateness or relatedness of the subgroups with each other.
20. Liaison Role. A liaison person is one who intercon-
nects two or more subgroups in such a way that his removal
from the communication structure would separate the two sub-
groups and that the removal of his communication contacts
from one subgroup would still keep him in communication con-
tact with the other subgroup(s). Liaison individuals who
serve this type of a communication role are called liaison
roles. Operationally he is the person who has frequent and
important sociometric contacts in two or more subgroups.

To state clearly the Operationalization of subgroups.
it is apprOpriate to discuss here the analytical technique
utilized to identify subgroups. the communication contacts
among subgroups especially in terms of liaison persons. and.
the criteria on which this analysis is based.

Before we discuss the Specifics of the technique
followed in this thesis. it should be mentioned that there
have been several methodological contributions to the socio—
metric analysis of group structures with a major focus on
the identification of subgroups or cliques. Notable among

these contributions included such techniques as the simple

112

reordering of the choice matrix (Forsyth and Katz. 1946):
matrix manipulation with the use of algebraic methods (Fes-
tinger. 1949; Luce and Perry. 1949): input-output approach
to clique analysis based on manipulation of the matrix in
which the entries were weighted (Hubble. 1965): factor ana-
lytic method to identify social cliques (Coleman and MacRae.
1960: MacRae. 1960): application of graph theory to the analy-
sis of group structures (Harary. 1959); and a communication
approach to structural analysis* of subgroups and contact be—
tween subgroups in a complex organization with the use of
sociometric methods (Weiss and Jacobson. 1955).

The distinctive feature of the approach reported by
Weiss and Jacobson is the relatively greater emphasis on
theoretical framework incorporating key structural concepts
such as communication contact between subgroups and liaison
persons which provide a basis for the sociometric analysis
of communication structure. The analysis of communication
structure by weiss and Jacobson (1955) was based on symmetri-
cal sociometric contacts whereas in the present thesis we
have sought to utilize their technique to the choice matrix

which is largely assymetrical. That is. the analysis of

 

*A detailed discussion of the method of structural analysis
is separately reported by Weiss (1956. pp. 88-108).

113

communication structure of the two peasant communities is

based on sociometric relationships. majority of which are un-

reciprocated. The technique followed in Operationalizing

subgroups. contact between subgroups. and liaison roles is

briefly outlined next.

1.

The first step dealt with the preparation of the ma-
trix of sociometric relationships derived from infor-
mal friendship choices that a person gives to other
individuals in the community. In the sociometric
question on friendship. a person could choose a maxi-

mum of six individuals.

The matrix was reordered by arranging the order of
rows and columns in such a way that individuals who
chose each other frequently cluster along the diag-
onal of the matrix. At this stage a tentative iden-
tification of liaison persons was made in terms of

their greater number of outside contacts.

The matrix was then partitioned arbitrarily into
separate segments so that individuals choosing each
other more frequently were included in each segment.

Each segment so separated had to be a square.

114

Persons who had majority of their contacts within

the segment. and also had relatively greater number

of contacts outside the segment were identified as

liaison persons. The operational criteria for iden-

tifying a liaison person were:

3.

Majority of the sociometric choices of the liai-
son person should be within a Specific subgroup.
The Operating rule. in this thesis. was that the
liaison person should at least have a total of
three or more sociometric choices within a speci-
fied subgroup. The condition of three choices
included the choices that he gave to other mem-
bers within the subgroup plus the choices that
he received from subgroup members. However. out
of these three choices there should at least be
one choice that he gave to a member within that

subgroup.

In addition to the above. the liaison person was
required to have at least two or more choices

going from him to a subgroup other than the one
in which the liaison person had the majority of

his choices.

115

Following the identification of liaison persons. they
were taken out of the matrix and the matrix was re-
ordered so as to bring persons. who reported contacts
with each other. into adjacent positions in order to
finally separate subgroups. While isolating sub-
groups. the following criteria were set forth for

subgroup membership.

a. Majority of the choices that a person gave to
others should go to the subgroup in which the
individual was located. and majority of the
choices the person received from others should

also be located within the same subgroup.

b. A less stringent condition was that the person
should make at least one sociometric choice with-
in a specific subgroup. Those who did not make
any choice for others but received sociometric
choices from members in a specific subgroup were

considered members within that subgroup.

Persons who had no sociometric choices given to or
received from members in various subgroups. but ex-
pressed choices only for liaison persons were consid-

ered as members of "liaison set." According to Weiss

116

and Jacobson (1955) a “liaison sett is a group of
liaison persons closely associated with one another.
The liaison set also includes some individuals who.
while not functioning as liaison persons. are more
closely associated with the liaison persons than with

any of the separate subgroups.

7. Once separate subgroups were differentiated. then
contact between subgroups were operationalized in
terms of sociometric contacts going from members of
one subgroup to different members in another subgroup.
In addition to these contacts between separate sub-
groups. liaison individuals also provided the mechan-

ism of interconnections between subgroups.

8. Finally a sociogram was drawn on the basis of above
structural analysis in order to obtain a microscOpic
view of the entire communication structure in terms
of the separate subgroups which constituted the com-
munication structure. contact patterns between sub-
groups and the position of liaison persons who inter-

related two or more subgroups.

Thus. the communication structure of both communities

was analysed in terms of subgroups. in terms of contacts

117

between subgroups. and in terms of liaison persons. Follow-
ing structural analysis. liaison persons were studied in

terms of such characteristics as social status. degree of in-
novativeness and degree of mass media exposure. To understand
the normative pattern of subgroups. mean index of social sta—
tus. mean degree of innovativeness and mean degree of mass
media exposure were computed for each of the subgroups which

constituted the communication structure in both communities.

Reliability of Socfometric Measprement

Since many of the variables in the present thesis
were operationalized in terms of sociometric measures. it is
essential to determine whether sociometric reSponses consti-
tuted a satisfactory reliable basis for measuring individual
differences. Consistency of sociometric choices. especially
dealing with the different criteria of Opinion leadership
was evaluated in terms of choices received by individuals
from social system members. The degree of consistency of
choice status would also provide a basis of examining whether
the criteria of sociometric choices utilized in the present
thesis were relevant. Two methods were followed to determine

consistency of choice status.

118

Single Stage Reliability

The question of reliability of sociometric measures
is concerned with determining the extent to which an indi-
vidual's choice status remains at the same position in the
choice status continuum. The method of determining relia-
bility as followed in this thesis is the single-stage relia-
bility teChnique which consists of Splitting the choosers on
an odd-even-basis and then computing two measures of choice
status for each individual in the community. one from each
of the two odd—even groups. The product moment correlation
between the two measures is then treated by Spearman-Brown
formula to yield a corrected reliability coefficient. Re-
sults are shown in Table 2. All the correlations between
the two—choice status measures based on odd and even group
responses are significantly different frOm zero at the five
per cent level of Significance. 'Oh the Whole. the results
of Table 2 demonstrate a Significant degree of reliability

of sociometric measures.

Intercorrelation among Technigues
The reliability of sociometric measures was also ob-
tained by employing two different techniques of measuring

the same dimension and then correlating the measures derived

119

Table 2. Single-stage Reliability Coefficients of Socio—
metric Measures

l

Reliability coefficient

 

 

Sociometric Technique of
criteria chOOSing Arjan Pur Bsant Pur
(N = 30) (N = 54)
Information seeking l sociometric .
agriculture choice .87 .96
Information seeking
health and medical 1 sociometric
treatment choice ' .89 .57
Information seeking
children education 2 sociometric
and family matters choices .88 .44
Nomination on agricul-
tural develOpment 2 sociometric
committee choices .90 .90

 

from each. In this case an individual's Opinion leadership

status on agriculture was measured in terms of sociometric

choices received by the individual from members of the com-

munity and interms of the extent to which an individual

perceived himself as an Opinion leader on agriculture. The

correlations in both communities are Significantly different

from zero at the five per cent level of Significance.

Thus

the following results indicate consistency between the two

measures of opinion leadership.

120

Correlation between Opinion leadership
Village N based on sociometric choices received
and seff psrceived opinion leadership

Arjan Pur 30 .423

Bsant Pur 54 .705

Methodological Assumptions

1. Sociometric measurement is based on the use of
direct choice techniques. These procedures require members
of a specified community to give overt expressions concern-
ing their reactions to one another in terms of an explicit
criterion which is uniform and standard for all the respond-
ents. When members in a community are asked to name or eval-
uate one another in terms of some criterion of choice. it
can be assumed that sociometric choices they make are appro-
priate measures for differentiating individuals. the patterns
of communication contacts between pairs of individuals and
the patterns of contacts between "sets" of individuals in
the context of informal social systems.

2. It is further assumed that interpersonal contacts
derived from sociometric measures tend to occur repeatedly
and produce distinctive patterns as to the structure and
function of interpersonal communication in given social sys—

tems.

121

3. This is a comparative study based on a virtual
census (saturation sampling) of two purposively selected
communities. one of which is assumed to represent relatively
modern and the other a traditional social system. On the
basis of sampling theory. respondents in the two communities
cannot be claimed as a random sample of similar respondents
in peasant communities in general. However. we seek to
assume that the respondents and the interpersonal contacts
among respondents in each of the two communities represent
a "sample" of similar populations in peasant communities
having characteristics Similar to the "modern" and “tradi-
tional" community "type" of our study. It is only under
this assumption that statistical tests are applied to the
analysis of data obtained from the two communities. The
tests of hypotheses are based on correlational analyses.

analysis of variance. and "t" tests.

Equivalence of the Two Communities

.Equivalence of the two communities was determined in
terms of variables dealing with respondents' characteristics
and background information. Data are presented in Table 3.

It is evident that the two communities. Arjan Pur and Bsant

122

Table 3.--Equivalence of the Two Communities withfiBegard to Variables

Dealing with Characteristics and Background Information.0f
Respondents

 

 

Arjan Pur Bsant Pur Chi Square Test

 

Characteristics N s 30 N = 54 of Significance
Age 26-35 yrs 26.7; 29.6;
36-55 yrs 46.6 51.8
56 yrs and above 26.6 18.6 .733, d.f. .-.-
100.0; 100.0; mar
Education No fermal education. 73.3 59.3
1-5 yrs schooling 6.7 11.1
6-10 yrs schooling 20.0 22.6 1.738, d.f. =
100.0; 100.0; ms
Functional Illiterate 56.6 48.2
literacy 1-6 words correct 6.7 5.6
7-9 words correct 36.1 46.2 .685, d.f. =
100.0; 100.0; n-s
Family 1-5 members 20.0 16.7
size 6-10 members 43.3 57.3
11-15 members 26.7 18.5
16-21 members 10.0 . 1.599, d.f.-
100.0; 100.0; n-s
Family All family members
literacy illiterate 6.6 5.6
index 1-33 per cent
literate 20.0 20.4
34-66 per cent
literate 26.7 33.3
67-100 per cent
literate 46.1 40.1 0.464, d.f. =
100.0; 100.0; n-s
Farming 1-10 yrs 10.0 7.5
experience 11-30 yrs 46.7 57.3
31-50 yrs 43.3 35.2 .929, d.f. =
100.0; 100.0; n-s
Experience in No eXperience 80.0 83.3
government Some experience 20.0 16.1 .007, d.f. -
military 100. 100.0$ N-S
service

 

 

 

 

* N-S indicates that Chi Square is not significant at

level of significance.

the five percent

123

Pur. are no more different than sampling error expectations
with respect to such variables as the respondents' age. edu-
cation. functional literacy. family literacy index. farming
experience. experience in government service. and family

Size.

CHAPTER IV
RES EARCH F INDINGS

We have seen in chapter III that the two communities
are comparatively Similar and homogeneous with regard to re-
spondents' age. education. functional literacy. family liter-
ary index, farming experience. experience in government
service, and family Size. The present chapter summarizes
research findings specifically dealing with (l) differences
between the two communities with regard to the criterion
variable, rate of technological diffusion and (2) tests of
hypotheses based on variations between modern and traditional
social system with respect to patterns of communication
structure which differentially affectstechnological dif-

fusion in the two social systems.

Criterion Variable

The criterion variable of the present study is tech-
nological diffusion, which was studied in terms of (1) rate
of technological diffusion in a social system, and (2) adop-

tion index of an individual. AS earlier defined, rate of

124

125

technological diffusion in a social system is the proportion
of individuals who have adopted an innovation during a cer-
tain time period. Hence rate of technological diffusion was
computed for each innovation separately. On the other hand
adoption index iS the tendency of an individual to adopt in—
novations and as such an individual's adOption index is his
total score based on the general tendency to adOpt all the
eleven innovations investigated in the present research. It
was computed in terms of the extent to which an individual
had progressed from first hearing of the innovations to
their final adoption.

It should be noted that while stating the problem of
this thesis. we assumed that the two social systems were
marked by different degrees of technological diffusion. It
was on the basis of this assumption that the two communities
were conceptualized as modern and traditional social system
types; the modern community of Bsant Pur was expected to have
relatively greater degree of technological diffusion than the

traditional community of Arjan Pur.

126

Validation of "Modern" and "Traditional" Social

System Types on the Criterion Variable

In view of the above discussion. it is apparent that
empirical validation of modern and traditional social system
types is dependent on the extent to which there are signifi-
cant differences between the two communities with regard to
the criterion variables. namely rate of technological dif-
fusion and adoption index. Table 4 presents the comparative
rate of technological diffusion of each of the eleven innova-
tions in the two communities. As can be seen from Table 4.
the rate of technological diffusion of all the innovations
(except desi cotton) was greater in Bsant Pur than Arjan Pur.
However. on the basis of chi square, results indicate that
rate of technological diffusion of four innovations is
greater in the modern community of Bsant Pur than in the
traditional community of Arjan Pur.

Considering that the diffusion and adoption of each
of the eleven innovations in a social system was an inde-
pendent adoption event. the several chi squares. computed
separately for each innovation were summed to a total chi
square with degrees of freedom equal to the sum of the
degree of freedom for the chi squares being summed. The

purpose of summing the different chi squares was to

Table 4.--Comparative Rate of Technological Diffusion in the Two Oomnities

 

Time Period of

127

Arjan Fur Bsant Pur Chi Square Test of

 

Innovation Adoption N - 30 N - 54 Significance

Ammonium 1940-55 23.3; 42.6;
sulphate 1956-62 43.4 42.6 5.135, D.r. .
fertilizer Not adopted 33.3 14.8

100.0; 100.0;

c A.N 1958-60 16.6 53.7
fertilizer 1961-64 56.7 44.4 *

Not adopted 26.1 1.9 l8.320,d.f. :
100.0; 100.0;

Phosphate 1954-60 13.4 25.9
fertilizer 1961-64 46 .6 66 .7 *

Not adopted 40.0 1.4 13.503,d.r. .
. 100.0; 100.0;

marine in- 1958-60 16.7 14.8
secticide 1961-64 10.0 42.6 *

Not adopted 13.3 _’42.6 10.060,d.f. .
100.0; 100.0;

Hybrid 1959-64 3.3 16.7

maize Not adopted 26.] 83.3 2.121, d.f. =
100.0; 100.0;

Inverting 1945-60 46.7 59.3

plough 1961-64 6.6 16.7 '
Not adopted 46.6 24.0 5.095, d.f. :
100.0; 100.0;
Wheat variety 1950-60 46.7 57.5
c273 1961-64 53.3 42.2 .893, d.f. . 1
1000“ 1000“

American 1949-64 63.4 96.3 *
cotton Not adopted 36.6 3.1 13.628,d.f. :
var iety 100 . 0; 100 . 0;

Desi cotton 1955-60 3.3 11.1
variety 1961-64 30.0 12.9

Not adopted 66.1 16.0 3.697, d.f. .
100.0; 100.0;
Compost pit Adoption up to '64 76.7 92.6
Not adopted 23.3 1.4 2.549, d.f. .
' 100.0; 100.0;

2-4D weed Adoption up to '64 0.0 14.8

Spray“ Not adopted 100.0 85.2
100.0;g 100.0;__

 

 

 

 

*Chi Square significant beyond the 5 percent level of significance

**Chi square is not computed because of a 0 entry in the contingency table.

128

determine the overall differences between the two communities
with regard to the rate of technolOgical diffusion. Thus.
the total chi square = 75.001 with degrees of freedom = 16

is significant beyond the .001 level.

The results. therefore. indicate real differences
between the two communities with regard to the rate of tech-
nological diffusion. which is relatively greater in Bsant Pur
(the modern community) than in Arjan Pur (the traditional
community).

The difference between the two communities with re-
gard to adoption index was tested by means of analysis of
variance. The mean adoption index in Bsant Pur is 55.16.
compared with a mean adoption index of 43.63 in Arjan Pur.
Results of analysis of variance* indicate that the mean
adOption index in Bsant Pur (the modern community) is sig-
nificantly greater than that in Arjan Pur (traditional
community).

Thus. it can be concluded that Bsant Pur has a
relatively higher rate of technological diffusion and higher
mean adoption index than Arjan Pur. On the Whole the pre-

vious results supported the notion that there are significant

 

*The value of F = 29.7 is significant beyond the one percent
level of Significance.

129

differences between the two communities with regard to the
criterion variable. namely the degree of technological dif-
fusion. Furthermore, in light of these differences the
conceptualization of Bsant Pur as a modern community, and
of Arjan Pur as a traditional community is validated

empirically.

Tests of Hypotheses

Research findings dealing with tests of hypotheses
are discussed under the three key pattern variables of com-
munication structure namely; patterns of opinion leadership,
patterns of homophily in dyadic communication and patterns

of communication integration.

Patterns of Opinion Leadership

Communication and Innovative
Behavior of Opinion Leaders

Five hypotheses were stated in order to determine
the variation between the traditional and modern social
system with regard to the relationship of opinion leader-
ship to indicators of communication and innovative behavior
such as mass media exposure, change agent contact, use of

cosmOpolite interpersonal sources in innovation decisions,

130

participation in formal organizations and degree of innova-
tiveness.

The general approach in testing these hypotheses is
to compute Pearsonian product-moment correlations between
the individuals' degree of opinion leadership and other
variables indicating the individuals' communication and in-
novative behavior for each social system. The two correla-
tions are then transformed into Fisher 2's in order to deter-
mine the Significance of the difference between the two cor-
relations. Table 6 presents the results for each of the

five hypotheses.

H1 Opinion leadership is more highly related to
mass media exposure in a modern social system

than in a traditional social system.

As can be seen from Table 5, the correlation between
opinion leadership and mass media exposure is relatively
higher in modern social system (r = .431) as compared with
traditional social system (r = .117). However, the z sta-
tistic based on difference between the two correlations is
not significant at the 5 percent level of significance

(2 - 1.185). Thus, the hypothesis is not supported.

131

.H0>ma some Hem o>mm was on ucmoemecmems

 

 

 

mom.H same. med. mcoflum>ossH

.ooe.m .mme. .mms. economuassmno assess
Se soflummeowusmm

«oem.a some. HHH. maoscmnu

HmsomnmmuoucH
ouwHOQOEmoo mo on:
see. mum. mmn. morocco scams coarse
mmH.H same. baa. musmomxm MHOOZ mmmz

ism u at Rom u 21
coemsmmep HMUH conSMMHO Hmoemoaocnoou
Imoaocsoou nos: SDAB 30H Aufl3 Emumxm
neoconommep Emumhm HomOOm Gumbo: HMAOOm HMGOADHOMHB msoumoa SH
HmSOADMHmHHOO .p
now use u0e>mson

Oflpmflumumln

0>Hum>ocsfl pom GOHDMOHGSEEOO mo mHODMOHocH
pom menmuopmma soficemo soo3uon msoeumaounoo

 

uofl>mnom o>wum>occH pom coeumoessaaoo mo muo
IDMOHOGH pom mermuopmoq coflcwmo cmo3uofl masmsoflumHom one on pummom ADH3 Emumhm
Hmwoom Hmsofiueomss pom Gumbo: coo3uon moocmnmmmeo coaumHonuou now seemeumumunuu.m mqm<e

132

.Ho>mH uses Hem o>flm one USOSOQ unseemecmeme

 

 

.mom.~ ammo. sew. madness seduces:
mob. moo. mma. mswpmom Hommmm3oz
.mmo.m .Hoe. Ho~.- seamodxm chose

Rem n so Rom u 21

conSMMHO

consonant Hess . Hmosooaocnooo
moOcOHOMMHO Imoaocnoou amen nuH3 30H QDHB Seaman
despaumamnuoo Seaman HMHOOm Gusto: HMHOOm Hmsowuepmua

sou usomsosouuu

 

 

"SH enamomxo seems mums mo mwoumoaOSH
pom mflsmuopmma;s0esflmo :003uon mcofiumaouuoo

muoumoeosH

 

enamomxm maps: one: mo muou

IMOHOSH can mmnmuopmoq coflcflmo somBuom menmsoflumHom one on pummom nue3 Emumxm
Hmfloom accospepmue pew cameo: cmmBumm moosmumwmeo Hmcoflumamunoo Mom oflummumumnnnn.o mqmcfi

133

However, when the relationship between Opinion
leadership and each of the separate items in the total index
of mass media exposure such as radio exposure, newspaper
reading and magazine reading were analyzed, results pre-
sented in Table 6 indicate that the correlation between
Opinion leadership and radio exposure is relatively higher
in modern social system (r - .401) than in traditional
social system (r - .201). The difference between the two
correlations is also significant beyond the 5 percent level
of significance (2 - 2.638). Similarly the correlation be-
tween Opinion leadership and magazine reading is higher in
modern social system (r - .689) as compared with traditional
social system (r - 274). Again, the 2 statistic based on
difference between the two correlations is significant be-
yond the 5 percent level of significance (2 = 2.369)

Thus it appears that opinion leadership is more
highly related to radio exposure and magazine reading in
modern social system than in traditional social system.

The previous results indicate partial support for Hypothesis

1, when it is tested in the form of three sub-hypotheses.

H2 Opinion leadership is more highly related to

change agent contact in a modern social system

than in a traditional social system.

134

Correlation between Opinion leadership and change
agent contact is slightly higher in modern social system
(r - .225) than in traditional system (r = .158). From
Table 5, it is evident that the difference between the two
correlations is not significant (2 - .714). The hypothesis

is therefore not supported.

H Opinion leadership is more highly related to the
use of cosmOpolite interpersonal sources in the
process of innovation decisions in a modern

social system than in a traditional socisf system.

Results from Table 5 indicate that the correlation between
opinion leadership and use of cosmOpolite interpersonal com-

munication sources is stronger in the modern social system

(r .450) as compared with traditional social system
(r = .111). The difference between the two correlations is
Significant at the five percent level (2 = 1.64). Thus

Hypothesis 3 is supported.

H4 ,Qpinion leadership is more highly related to
the degree of participation in formal organiza-

tion in a modern social system than in a tradi-

tional social system.

135

As can be seen from Table 5. the degree of relation-
ship between Opinion leadership and participation in formal
organizations is comparatively stronger in modern social sys-
tem (r = .799) than in traditional social system (r = .485).

It should be pointed out here that participation in formal or-
ganizations was measured in terms of the number of years that
an individual had been a participating member in Specific or-
ganizations concerned with development and change in the cOm-
munity. Perhaps this provided a better measure than the Simple
count of the organizations in which an individual was a member.

The value of z-statistic based on difference between
the two correlations is found significant beyond the five per-
cent level of significance (2 = 2.40). Thus Hypothesis 4 is
supported.

H5 Opinion leadership is more higpfy refsted to

innovativeness fn a modern socisf system than

in a trsgitional social system.

Correlation between Opinion leadership and innova-

tiveness is relatively much higher in modern social system

(r .421) than in traditional system (r = .162). However.

as is evident from Table 5. the difference between the two

136
correlations is not Significant at the five percent level

(z = 1.205). Thus Hypothesis 5 is not supported.

Polymorphism of Opinion feadership

H6 Opinion leadership in a modern social system is

less polymorphic than in a traditional social

system.

This hypothesis is tested by determining the significance of
the difference between the two social system means (§“S)CN1
the polymorphism scores(of individual members in both the
traditional and modern social systems). Results are pre-
sented in Table 7.

It is evident from Table 7 that the mean polymor—
phism score in the traditional social system (Rf: 3.26)
is greater than in the modern social system (§'= 2.07).
However, the difference between the two means is not signi-
ficant at the 5 percent level (t = 1.08). Hypothesis 6 is

not supported.

Opinion Leadership Concentration
It was expected that concentration of opinion leader-

ship would vary from modern to traditional social system

137

red-eoo

 

 

N H . m.m
. «Numuflmxufimmlamvmm nouns? How was am up "me u mcflusmEoo
How masauom one .Eoummm deacon any a“ some mouwozo mo Henson Hmuou one O» Hence 2 as no
women coHuuomoum some .msoHuuomoum unopsomopse 03» smo3uon oucouommep mo assessmesmwm mos
Icfleuouop How mosammm mm3 umou u m .EoumMm Hmwoom m as muonEoE an 0608 moowono mo Hones:
Hence 0:» mo poo poumuusoocoo one Doss moowono mo coeuuomonm was me owumu «new one sesame;

.mocmoemecmwm mo H0>0H some Hem m>wm one on usmOflmesmwms

 

mfi
«h®.H b¢b.

ow
oo.H mom.

fim
mo.H no.N

ma mooeono OAHDOEOHOOm
«0 sensed Hmuoev 2

com. AsoHnoueHo Osooomv
cowumuucoosoo mwnmuopmoa
concede mo ..osomm some

mm mooeono OHHuoEoHUOm
mo Henson asuoev z
th. Asowumuflno umuemv

coeumuucoocoo mwnmuopmoq
cowcflmo «0 ssoHumm anew

0m

2

o~.m magmuopmoq sowsemo
mo Emenmnoswaom new:

 

..: sonsmuep Have
u -monossoso has: sods
Seaman HmwOOm chemo:

El "7

Godmomwep HmuwmoHoszoou
30H £ue3 Bowman moowch
HMAOOm HMGOHuaOMHB

coaumuusoosoo mwzmuopmoq sowsflmo pom menmnopmoq GOAGAQO mo Emenmhoe
nmaom on pummom nue3 Eoummm Hmwoom Hmsowuwpmua pom Gumbo: Soo3wom McCaumaum>ll.h wands

138
depending on the nature of criterion utilized to measure
leadership. Opinion leadership was therefore measured in
terms of two different criteria. Two hypotheses, each
dealing with a different criterion of leadership were pos-
tulated. In terms of the figs; criterion, the role of
Opinion leader was to take innovation decisions for the
social system as a whole. According to the second criterion,
Opinion leadership role was considered as that of an inter-
personal channel of information and advice sought by indi-
vidual members to make individual farm decisions.

Dealing with the first criterion, the hypothesis was:

H If opinion leadership is considered as a means
toward the achievement of some specific social
system goals or in collective innovation decis-
ions, then there isggreater degree of opinion
leadership concentration in a modern social

system than in a traditional social system.

To test the above hypothesis, concentration of
Opinion leadership was computed in terms of Gini ratio which
in essence is the proportion of sociometric choices concen—

trated out of the total choices received by all members.

139

Thus, Opinion leadership concentration is based on the dis-
tribution of sociometric choices among social system members
with regard to a specific criterion.

Based on the first criterion, results of Hypothesis
7 are presented in Table 7. It can be seen from Table 7
that Gini ratio of opinion leadership concentration is rel-
atively higher in modern social system (Gini ratio = .805)
than in traditional social system (Gini ratio = .732).
Results are in the expected direction indicating greater
degree of concentration in modern social system than in the
traditional social system. Thus, when the criterion of
leadership nomination is such that it deals with issues,
goals, purposes or decisions concerning the social system
as a whole, there is relatively greater degree of concentra-
tion in modern social system than in traditional social
system. However, the difference between the two Gini ratios
is not significant at the five percent level of significance
(t = 1.00). Thus hypothesis 7 is not supported.

Dealing with the second criterion, the hypothesis was:

H8 If opinion leadership is considered as a func-

tional means toward the achievement of individ-

ual goalsy then, there is less opinion leadership

140

concentration in a modern social system than

 

in a traditional social system.

 

AS can be seen from Table 7, results indicate that
there is greater degree of opinion leadership concentration
in traditional social system (Gini ratio = .904) than in
modern social system (Gini ratio = .747). That is, tradi—
tional social system is marked by fewer opinion leaders
from whom others seek information and advice in individual
innovation decisions whereas modern social system has a
relatively greater number of opinion leaders. The differ-
ence between the two Gini ratios is significant at the five
percent level of significance (t . 1.67). Thus, hypothesis

8 is supported.

Patterns of Homophily in Dyadic
Communication
Patterns of homophily in dyadic communication were
studied in two types of communication relationships: one
involving instrumental interaction and the other involving
social interaction or informal friendly association between
members in a social system. The index of homophily in in-
strumental interaction and social interaction was obtained

by computing product moment correlation between the

141

attributes of dyad members. Thus, index of homophily as
computed from product moment correlation can vary from -1
through 0 to +1. A correlation of zero or negative magni-
tude indicates low homophily or lack of homophily whereas
a high positive correlation indicates a relative high index
of homophily. The variation in homophily index from tradi-
tional to modern social system was determined by first
transforming product moment correlations (r's) into Fisher
2's, and then computing the z statistic in order to test
the significance of difference between correlations. Re-
sults dealing with variation of homophily, from traditional
to modern social system, with respect to designated attri-
butes of members in dyadic contacts based on instrumental
interaction, are presented in Table 8. Table 9 presents
variation in homophily index between traditional and modern
social system with regard to dyadic communication contacts
based on social interaction or informal friendly associa-
tions.

On the basis of results contained in Table 8 and
Table 9, all the hypotheses dealing with variation in homo-
phily between the two social systems are now briefly analyzed
in terms of member's designated attributes namely innovative-

ness, mass media exposure, change agent contact, agricultural

142

.oocmoemecmam mo Ho>ma uses Hem o>flm we» on usmoamwsmflms

 

 

one. mHo.n mmH. sputum Hmeoom

oom.a smom.| Hma. aheaenmomoeazosx
Honouasoeum<

one. mos. mos. nososoo nosed emerge

omm. boo. moa. enamomxm maps: mmmz

mmH.H smmm.n mos. mmmcm>eum>occH

Ame u zv Asa u zv
moocouommwo coemswmeo Amos soflmSMMHp Hmoamoaocnowu
Hmsoflumamuuoo Imoaocnoou amen ADHS 30H £ue3 Seaman
How Eoummm Hmaoom cameo: Hmeoom Hmcowuepmsa

monogamous poumcmemoo

 

oaumaumumln
“CH mquEmE pomp.
mo mousnfluuum soo3uon SOHDMHOHHOO usoEoE Desmond

a

 

 

 

MuoBuoz msfixoom SOHDMEHOMSH on» SA adOADOMHoucH HousmasuumcHa so pommm
muomusoo GOADMOHSSEEOO OHOMSQ so mucosa: mo mmusnfluuua postseason on Doommom :uw3
.Eoummm Hoeoom Gumbo: pom HMSOADHOMHB smoBDOm .xoOSH haenmoaom 2H coflumaum>ll.m mqm<9

143

.oosmoawflsmflm mo Ho>OH some Hem o>eu on» us ucmowmwsmflm so: one muasmom«

 

 

com. omo. oaa. msumum Hmeoom

Hmm.l moo. moo. mueaflnmmmpoazocx
Hessuasoeum<

mam. emo. ems. osmosoo booms emerge

oae.| «ma. Hmo. mHSmomxm maps: mmmz

mmm.l who. mNo. mooso>eum>ocsH

Roma u so Ame u 21
neocoummmap SOHmSMMHO Hmoe soflmsmmmp HMOHOansnoou
. Imoaosnoou Ame: ADH3 30H £uw3 Emumxm
HmsoflumHouuoo
now Eoumwm Hmaoom cameo: HMHOOm Hmcoeuflpmna

Oeumwumum an monogamous poumcmflmoo

"SH mHoQEmE pomp mo
monogamous cooBqu «coaumaonuoo ucoEoE uospoum

xnosuoz mezmpsoeum HmsuomsH may as cofluomumusH ameoom so oommm
muomucoo OOADMOAcSESOO oflomwo SH unease: mo mousnanuum poumcmemmn on Doommmm £ue3
Eoumhm anacom Gumbo: pom Hmcofiuwomue coo3uom .xopSH haflsmoeom OH coeumeum>ll.m wands

144
knowledgeability and social status.

H9 In the information seeking network, instrgmental
interaction contacts have higher homophilygwith

respect to innovativeness in a traditional social

system than in a modern social system.

It is evident from Table 8 that in the case of dyadic com-
munication contacts based on instrumental interaction, the
product moment correlation between innovativeness scores of
the dyad members was comparatively higher in the traditional
social system (r = .103) than in the modern social system

(r - -.293). AS discussed earlier, the index of homophily
with respect to a designated attribute is mainly derived
from the magnitude and direction of product moment correla—
tion between the attributes of dyad members: the correlation
clearly indicated a relatively higher index of homophily in
instrumental interaction in a traditional social system than
in a modern social system. However, the difference between
the two correlations is not significant at the .05 level

(2 - 1.188). Thus, the hypothesis is not supported.

H In the friendship network, social interaction

10
contacts have higher degree of hompphily with

respect to mass media exposure in a traditional

145

social system than in a modern social system.

Results from Table 8 indicate relatively greater
degree of homophily in instrumental interaction in tradi-
tional social system (r = .165) compared with modern social
system (r = .047). However, the difference in homophily
between the two social systems is not Significant at the
.05 level as determined from 2 statistic (z : .350). Thus

hypothesis 11 is not supported.

H12 In the friendship networks social interaction
contacts have greater degree of homophily with
respect to mass media exposure in a traditional
social system than in a modern social system.

As can be seen from Table 9, the results are in the opposite
direction than expected. The correlation between mass media
exposure scores of members of friendship dyads is higher in
modern social system (r - .132) than in traditional social
system (r - .071). The difference between the two correla-

tions is not significant (2 - -.410). Hence hypothesis 12

is not supported.

H13 In the information seeking network, instrumental

interaction contacts have greater homophily with

146

respect to change agent contact in a traditional

social system than in a modern social system.

In light of results presented in Table 8, it is
clear that in the case of instrumental interaction, the cor-
relation between change agent contact scores of dyad members
is higher in traditional social system (r = .408) than in
modern social system (r = .103). Thus, there was greater
homophily in instrumental interaction in traditional social
system compared with modern social system. However, the
difference between the correlations is not significant at
the five percent level of significance (2 = .970).

Hypothesis 13 is not supported.

Hl4 In a friendship_network, social interaction
contacts have greater homophily with respect

to change agent contact in a traditional social

system than in a modern social system.

It is noted from Table 9 that the degree of homo—
phily with respect to change agent contact is higher in
traditional social system (r = .130) than in modern social
system (2 - .054). The difference between the two correla-
tions is not significant at the .05 level (2 : .517). Thus

hypothesis 14 is not supported.

147

H15 In the information seeking networky_instru-
mental interaction contacts have greater
homophily with respect to agriculture knowl-

edgeability in traditional social system than

in a modern social system.

It is evident from Table 8, that in the case of instru-
mental interaction there is relatively greater homophily
with respect to agricultural knowledgeability in traditional
social system (r = .151) compared with modern social system
in which the homophily index is marked by a negative cor-
relation (r = -.302). However, the difference between the
two correlations is not significant at the 5 percent level
of significance (2 - 1.360). Thus hypothesis 15 is not

supported.

H16 In the friendship networky_social interaction
contacts have greater homophily with respect
to agricultural knowledgeability in a tradi-

tional social system than in a modern social
system.

From Table 9, it is observed that there is no homophily be—
tween members of friendship dyads with respect to agricul—

tural knowledgeability in both traditional and modern social

148

systems. That is, there is no correlation between agri-
cultural knowledgeability scores of members of friendship
dyads in traditional social system (r = .005) as‘well as

in modern social system (r - .049). The difference between
the two correlations cannot be attributed to more than

sampling error. Hypothesis 16 is not supported.

H17 In the information seeking network, instru-
mental interaction contacts haye greater homo-

phily with respect to social status in a tradi-

tional social system than in a modern social
system.

It appears from Table 8, that in instrumental interaction,
there is greater degree of homophily with respect to social
status in traditional social system (r - .133) than in modern
social system (r = -.015). Although the difference between
the two correlations is in the right direction, it fails to
reach the five percent level of significance (2 = .436).

Thus hypothesis 17 is not supported.

H18 In the friendship network, social interaction
contacts have greater degree of homophily with
respect to social status in traditional social

system than in a modern social system.

149

Results given in Table 9 indicate that in social
interaction, the correlation between social status scores
of dyad members is relatively higher in traditional social
system (r - .116) compared with modern social system
(r - .036). That is, there is comparatively greater homo-
phily with respect to social status in traditional social
system than in modern system. The difference between the
two correlations is not significant at the .05 level

(2 = .544). Hence hypothesis 18 is not supported.

Freggengy of Instrumental Interaction

H19 In the information seeking networky_there is

greater frequengy of instrumental interaction

 

in a modern social system than in a traditional

social system.

To test this hypothesis, a t test was computed to
determine the difference between the mean frequency of in-
strumental interaction in traditional social system and the
mean frequency of instrumental interaction in modern social
system. Results are presented in Table 10.

As can be seen from Table 10, mean frequency of

instrumental interaction is relatively larger in modern

150

.Hm>ma usmo mom w>flw m3» cachmn unmoflmwcmflms

 

«mam.~ Hm>.oa om.m coauUMHmucw
Hmwoom mo mmsmu saw:

aoom.m nub. mow. cofiumowsssfiou
Gaucho mcHuMHuflsw mHmQEmE
Emumhm HMMUOm mo cofluuomoum

«mmm.m Hmm.m 0mm.H cofiuomumucw Hmucme
IDHumGH mo hucmskum cum:

 

 

coflmsmmap HMUH conzmmwp Hmowmoaocnomu
u Imoaocnomu no“: AMH3 30H £0H3 Emumhm mmoHUGH
Emumxm HMHUOm :Hmpoz Hmfluom Hmcofiuwcmua

E

cowuomumucH HmHoom mo mmcmm can .mxno3
lumz mcmeom coHumEHomcH oucH coflumumwucH mo mmummn .cofiuomumucH HmucmfisuumcH mo hocmsv
Imam on pommmmm sufl3 Emumhm amaoom Gumbo: cam Hmcofluapmue cmm3umm GoduMHHm>ll.oH mqméfi

151

social system (i’= 2.98) than in traditional social system
(i'a 1.93). Furthermore the difference between the two means
is in the expected direction and is found significant beyond
the 5 percent level of significance (t = 2.22). Hypothesis

19 is therefore supported.

Patterns of Communication Integration
Integration into the Information
Seeking Network
H20 There is greater degree of integration into
information seeking network in a modern
social system than in a traditional socisl
system.

To test this hypothesis, the proportion of individ-
uals, who initiated dyadic communication contacts for the
purpose of seeking information from others perceived as
relatively more innovative, was computed in each of the two
social systems. Significance of difference between the two
proportions was determined by the use of t test. Results
are presented in Table 10.

From table 10, it is evident that the proportion of

individuals who initiated dyadic communication contacts

with more innovative farmers is larger in modern social

152

system (p = .777) compared with traditional social system
(p = .466). The difference between the two proportions is
significant beyond the 5 per cent level of significance

(t = 2.90). Hypothesis 20 is supported.

Range of Social Interaction

H21 The range of social interaction is greater in a
mgdern socia; system than in a traditional so-

cial system.

Range of social interaction was earlier defined as
the sum of direct and indirect interpersonal communication
contacts that a person has with other members in the social
system. Thus. range of social interaction of an individual
member was computed by (1) first manipulating the "who to
whom" original matrix to the power of two. (2) then summing
the row entries in the squared matrix in order to obtain the
indirect two-step contacts of each individual. (3) adding
the two—step contacts so obtained with the direct contacts
that each individual had in the original matrix and finally
(4) subtracting from an individual's sum total of direct and
indirect contacts. the number of his mutual contacts if any.
in order to avoid overlapping of interpersonal contacts.

From individual's range of social interaction. mean value of

153

the range of social interaction was obtained for each social
system. To test the previous hypothesis. a t test was ap-
plied to determine the difference between the two means. The
results are given in Table 10.

It can be seen from Table 10 that mean range of so-
cial interaction is larger in modern social system (X = 10.78)
than in traditional social systems (X = 8.30). The difference
between the two means is found significant beyond the five
per cent level of significance (t = 2.818). Thus hypothesis

21 is supported.

Su rou 5
H22 Isra modsrr social systsm_thsrs_rs a greatsr
degree_gr communication conrggrs between 3gb:
grogps_rhan in §_rradirr9nal social system.

It should be noted that the test of hypothis 22 is
based primarily on structural analysis rather than on tests
of statistical significance. This is also true of the hy-
potheses that would follow next.

To test the previous hypothesis. sociometric choices
dealing with informal interpersonal contacts were arranged

in the form of a "who to whom" matrix which was manipulated

in order to differentiate sub-groups. contacts between sub-

154

groups and position of individuals especially liaison per-
sons in the interpersonal communication structure. Figure

4 and Figure 5 present an analysis of communication structure
of the modern and traditional social system respectively.

A comparative analysis of Figure 4 and Figure 5 in-
dicates clearly that communication structure of the modern
social system is characterized by a relatively larger propor—
tion of communication contacts between subgroups (.36)* than
in the traditional social systems (.16).* Five subgroups
are identified in the modern social system and two subgroups
are identified in the traditional social system.

From Figures 4 and 5 two types of communication con-
tacts between subgroups can be observed.‘ In the first type
are the dotted lines which connect a member of one subgroup
to a member in a different subgroup; as for example the con—
tacts between group members 3 and 17. and between group mem—
bers 7 and 53 shown in Figure 4. The second type of contacts
between and among subgroups are shown in Figure 4 and Figure
5 by dotted lines as well. but these contacts occur through
liaison persons such as numbers 38. 40. 19. and 47 in Figure

4. and number 18 in Figure 5.

 

*The proportion of communication contacts between subgroups
_ Number of contacts between subgroups.
Total number of contacts in the community.

155

huflCDEEoo cumpoE Hum ucmmm mnu CH coflumumwucfl coHumoHGDEEoo mo mcnmuummll.¢ musmflm
mmsoumgsm Gmm3uwn

muomucoo can mCOmHmmAulla--lmsoqu5m cmw3umn m
COmHMHH mo muomucoo uomucoo >m3 wco

meQEwE muwnfimfi mnoquSm £003»
:03 uomucou Goflumo
IflGSEEoo Hmooumflomm

 

 

 

 

 

COmHmHQ ®
\ HmQEmZ
.2... G
mm GOmHmHA
mo HmQEwE
Hm5©H>HUcH
GOmAMHA

.852 O

msoumflsm

xuficsfieoo HmcoHuHUmuu Ham cmflufi onu :H :oflumumwucfl COHumoflGSEEou mo mcumuummll m wusmflm

mmsoumnsm Gwm3uwn muomucoo paw wCOmuwm acmfimfia mo muomucoo ........

mmsoumnsm cmw3uwn uomucoo >m3 one A
muwnfiwfi msoumnsm cwm3uwn uomucoo coflumuflcsEEou Hmooumfiomm

 

ll

 

mHmDUH>Hch
muMHOmH q COmHmflA @

muwnfiwz mnwnfiwz

Hmumsmflumm msoquSm

157

Thus. an examination of communication contacts be-
tween subgroups from Figure 4 and Figure 5 clearly supports
the hypothesis that there are greater number of contacts be-
tween subgroups in the modern social system than in the tra-

ditional social system. The hypothesis is supported.

H23 In a modern socia; system. there is a grsater
number of liaison roles in the communication

structure than in a traditional sociar;system.

From an analysis of the communication structure
mapped in Figure 4 and Figure 5. it is seen that in the mod-
ern social system there are six liaison persons (numbers 19.
38. 40. 47. 16. 30) who interconnect five subgroups of fifty-
four members as compared with only one liaison person who
interlinks two subgroups of thirty members in the traditional
social system. Further examination of the position of liai-
son persons in Figure 4 indicates that liaison person number
19 is instrumental in interrelating his subgroup to liaison
persons 38 and 40 who are both interrelated to each other
through reciprocal contacts. Furthermore liaison persons 38
and 40 not only provide interlinkage between two subgroups.
but both are identified to be interrelated to another liaison

person 47. Thus. the inter-linkage among the liaison persons

158

leads to a liaison set in the modern social system. In
Figure 4. number 30 is a liaison group member who interre-
lates the subgroup to liaison persons 38 and 40. Finally.
it is observed from Figure 4 that there are some individ-
uals (numbers 18. 43. 48. 54) who have no contacts with any
subgroup but are found to be interlinked to liaison persons
38 and 40. Such individuals are also considered as members
of the liaison set.

In contrast. the communication structure of the tra-
ditional social system shown in Figure 5 is not only marked
by lack of liaison persons but is relatively more centralized.
As can be seen from Figure 5. interpersonal choices in each
of the two subgroups are concentrated mostly in one of the
subgroup members identified as numbers 9 and 14 respectively.

On the basis of structural analysis presented in
Figures 4 and 5 it can be concluded that in comparison to
the traditional social system. communication structure of
the modern social system is characterized by relatively
greater number of liaison persons. and by a higher degree
of interrelatedness among the liaison persons and through
them. among the subgroups of the communication structure.

Thus. hypothesis 23 is supported.

159

24 In a modern socia;_system. lisrson individuals
are reratively more innovative than the sub-
groups of members bur_in a traditional social
system liaison isdividpgrs are rsistiveryrsrmr:

lar in innovativensss to the subgroups of mem-

bers.

H25 In a modern social system liaison individuals

have relatively a higher degree of mass media

exposure thgn the subgroups of members but in

 

a traditional social system liaisonspersons

have arrelatively similar degree of mass media

 

exposure as the subgrogps of members.

Hypothesis 24 and Hypothesis 25 were tested on the
basis of structural analysis presented in Figures 4 and 5.
Mean scores with respect to social status. innovativeness.
and mass media exposure were computed for each of the separ-
ate subgroups identified as part of the communication struc-
ture of the two social systems. Scores with respect to so-
cial status. innovativeness. and mass media exposure were
also obtained for each of the liaison persons who interre-
lated two or more subgroups of the communication structure

in each social system. Analysis with regard to the modern

160

social system is provided in Table 11 which presents the
scores of liaison persons and the mean scores of subgroups
in terms of such characteristics as social status. innovat-
iveness and mass media exposure. Results with regard to the
traditional social system are presented in Table 12 which
describes the characteristics of liaison persons. the sub-
groups and also of the most highly chosen member in each of
the two subgroups.shown in Figure 5. It should be noted
here that the scores dealing with social status. innovative-
ness. and mass media exposure are standard scores computed
for each social system separately and hence are relative to
the specified social system.

From Table 11 and Table 12 it is possible to examine
three types of relationships: (1) the interrelationship be-
tween the characteristics of liaison person and those of the
subgroups with which the liaison person is interconnected.
(2) variation in the characteristics of liaison persons in-
terrelated to each other as a liaison set and (3) variation
among the subgroups with regard to their normative structure.
In light of the hypothesis stated previously. focus of the
present research is primarily on the first type of analysis.
The second type of relationships are also analyzed in view

of their importance in the diffusion of innovations.

161

TABLE ll.--Liaison Persons, Subgroups, and Their Characteristics in the
Modern Social System

 

 

Liaison Persons and Subgroups 3°¢181 vative- Media
Status ness 31posure
Score of liaison person, no. 16 54.2 51.2 59.3
X score of subgroup 02 in which
‘_ no. 16 is a member 53.2 49.1 47.9
X score of subgroup G1 intercon-
nected by liaison person no. 16 48.5 46.9 47.2
§core of liaison person, no. 47 41.3 52.6 58.7
X score of subgroup G3 person
_ no. 47 46.9 51.5 52.4
I score of subgroup Gk intercon-
nected by liaison person no. 47 53.8 53.3 53.0
Score of liaison person, no. 38 83.9 64.0 64.9
X.score of subgroup G4 in which
__no. 38 is a member 53.8 53.3 53.0
I score of subgroup G intercon-
nected by liaison person no. 38 46.9 51.5 52.4
§pore of liaison person, no. 40 65.9 57.4 59.5
I score of subgroup Ga in which
_ no. 40 is a member 53.8 53.3 53.0
I score of subgroup G intercon-
nected by liaison person no. 40 46.9 51.5 52.4
Ԥcore of liaison person, no. 19 63.9 53.4 49.2
I score of subgroup G5 in which
no. 19 is a member 47.6 47.6 46.5
Score of the other liaison persons
contacted by liaison person 19
Liaison person 38 83.9 64.0 64.9
Liaison person 40 65.9 57.4 59.5

 

162

TABLE l2.--Liaison Persons, Subgroups, and Their Characteristics in the
Traditional Social System

 

Social vative- Media
Status

Liaison Persons and Subgroups

 

Score of "liaison“ person, no. 18 66.5 50.4 46.3

3 score of the subgroup 61 in
which no. 18 19's member 48.7 47.7 50.4

i score of the subgroup 62 in-
terconnected by liaison person

no. 18 51.9 51.7 51.0

Score of the ”most highly chosen“4
person of subgroup 62 (person
no. 14) 68.2 50.7 53.7

i score of subgroup 62 in
which no. 14 is a member 51.9 51.7 51.0

Score of the ”most highly chosen”
person of subgroup GI (person
no. 9) 57.0 49.4 42.0

i score of the subgroup Gl in
which no. 9 is a member 48.7 47.7 50.4

 

*Since in the traditional social system the communication structure was
marked by concentration of sociometric choices in specific individuals,
it was considered pertinent to include the characteristics of the “most
highly chosen“ individual in each of the two subgroups. Such individ-
uals, by virtue of their position in the communication structure, are
highly influential in the diffusion of innovations.

163

It can be seen from Table 11 that liaison persons
in the modern social system are relatively more innovative
and have relatively higher degree of mass media exposure
than the respective subgroups of members with which the li-
aison persons are interconnected. 0n the other hand this
relationship is not so clearly observed in the case of tra-
ditional social system in which liaison person 18 is found
to have relatively higher social status but less mass media
exposure than the subgroup. From Table 12 it can also be
seen that in the traditional social system the most highly
chosen member of each of the two subgroups are no more inno-
vative than the subgroups of members. are found to have ra-
ther relatively less mass media exposure than their respec-
tive subgroups but are characterized by relatively higher
social status compared with the mean social status of the
subgroup.

Furthermore. the important characteristic of the
communication structure in the modern social system is the
interrelatedness among the liaison persons. Although social
status. innovativeness. and mass media exposure scores of
liaison persons in the modern social system vary from rela-
tively lower scores to the highest scores in the social sys-

tem (liaison person 38 has the highest scores on all the

164

three characteristics). yet the liaison persons are imbedded
in an intercommunicative linkage among themselves. Such

interrelatedness is not found in the traditional social

system.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary

The main objectives of the present thesis were two-
fold: (EED to develOp a conceptual and analytical framework
designed to study the relationship of the elements of com-

munication structure and technological diffusion in compara-

  

tive social systems: and 2 tq~utilize this framework in an
empirical investig tion of the attributes of communication
structure which differentially affect technological diffus-

ion in two social systems, which are peasant communities in

India/f;

/

The comparative study reported in the present thesis
was designed to examine variations between two informal
social systems, with regard to patterns of communication
structure which were hypothesized to have differentially
affected the rate of technological diffusion in these sys-
tems. The study was conducted in two peasant communities in
the State of Punjab, India. The selection of the two com-
munities was based on the criteria (1) that identical

165

166

programs of technological change were introduced in the two
communities, which were comparatively similar in terms of
respondents' age, education, functional literacy, family
literacy, family size, farming experience, experience in
government service, religious, ethnic and cultural background,
(2) that the two communities manifested different types of
social structures, each producing different patterns of inter-
personal communication, and (3) that different patterns of
communication structure affected the differential rate of
technological diffusion in the two communities.
rln view of the focus of the present study on the

analysis of interpersonal communication structurejf a socio-
metric design based on "saturation sampling" was employed so
that every respondent could be located within the networks
of interpersonal communication contacts.) Thus, every head
of a farm family was interviewed in both communities. In
all, 54 respondents were interviewed in the village Bsant
Pur and 30 respondents were interviewed in Arjan Pur village.

The study was comparative but limited to the analysis
of communication structure and its effect on technological
diffusion in only two communities. It was considered essen-

tial to conceptualize the two communities as "modern" and

"traditional". The assumption is that there were extreme

167

differences between the two communities with respect to the
rate of technological diffusion, the dependent variable.

This conceptualization of the two communities was a methodo—
logical device and had to be validated empirically. Results
based on empirical evidence indicated that the Bsant Pur vil-
lage, conceptualized as a "modern" social system, had a rela-
tively much higher rate of technological diffusion than the
Arjan Pur village, which was conceptualized as a traditional
social system. The differences between the two social sys-
tems with regard to rate of technological diffusion (and
mean adoption index) were statistically significant.

E The communication structure of a social system was concep-
tualized in terms of 3 main concepts: patterns of opinion

leadership*; patterns of homophily** in dyadic communica-

tion, and patterns of communication integration***.’

 

*
Opinion leadership is defined as interpersonal in-

fluence exercised in a situation through communication pro-
cess toward the attainment of certain knowledge, attitudes
and/or behavior.

*Homophily is defined as the degree to which indi-
viduals with a certain designated attribute have inter-
personal communication contacts with other individuals with
a similar attribute.

**‘k
Communication integration is defined as the
degree to which social system members and sub-groups are
interconnected in interpersonal communication relationships.
Implicit in this definition is the notion that communication

168

It is within the framework of these three categories
of concepts that hypotheses dealing with communication struc-
ture were outlined for comparative social system analysis.
Furthermore, the hypotheses were tested by utilizing three
different levels of analysijycorresponding to the three
levels of concepts. That is,fh&pothes%s dealing with pat-
terns of opinion leadership were tested by utilizing the

individual as the unit of analysis; hypotheses pertainin
M2--.fi::ahfigr“

to patterns of homophily in dyadic communication were stud-
ied by utilizing the gygg as the unit of analysis; and
hypotheses concerning patterns of communication integra-
tion were tested using the group or system as the unit of
analysisj Findings based on the variations in patterns of
communication structure between the modern and traditional

social system were as follows:

1. Patterns of Opinion Leadership
Eight hypotheses dealing with opinion leadership
were postulated and tested. The first five hypotheses were

concerned with variations between the modern and traditional

 

integration can be analyzed in terms of communication con-
tacts among individuals, in terms of contacts between sub-
groups and in terms of liaison persons who interconnect two
or more sub-groups in a given social system.

169

social systems with regard to communication and innovative
behavior of opinion leaders. The sixth hypothesis dealt
with differences in the degree of polymorphism of opinion
leadership* between the modern and traditional social system,
and the remaining two hypotheses postulated variations in
degree of opinion leadership concentration** between the two
social systems. (9

Hypothesis 1 stated that opinion leadership is more
highly related to mass media exposure in a modern social
system than in a traditional social system} Analysis showed
that the correlation between mass media exposure and opinion
leadership was significantly different from zero in modern
social system, but not in the traditional social system.
However, the value of 2 statistic based on the difference

between the two correlations was not significant at the

 

*

Polymorphism of opinion leadership is defined as
the tendency of an individual to be in the same relative in-
fluence position in a social system across a given number of

issues.

**
‘Opinion leadership concentration is the degree to

which one or more units in a given social system have rela-
tively greater degree of interpersonal influence with re-
spect to a given criterion, than other units of that social
system.

170

5 percent level of significance. Hence the hypothesis was
not supported. Further analysis indicated partial support
for the main hypothesis when tested in terms of three sub-
hypotheses. It was found that opinion leadership was more
highly related to radio exposure and, to magazine reading

in modern social system than in traditional social system.
On the basis of 2 test, the differences between the correla-
tions were significant at the .05 level.

@Z@%The expectation in Hypotheses 2 was thatgzhe relation-
ship between opinion leadership and change agent contact is
stronger in modern social system than in traditional social
system. Results indicated that the difference between the
two correlations was not significafigaatthe 5 percent level
of significance. Thus. hypothesis 2 was not supported.

Hypothesis 3 suggested that opinion leadership is
more highly related to the use of cosmopolite interpersonal
communication sources in the process of innovation decisions,
in modern social system than in traditional social systemli
It was found that the correlation between the use of cosmo-
polite interpersonal communication sources and opinion leader-
ship was significantly different from zero in the modern
serial system, but not in the traditional social system. The

difference between the two correlations was found significant

171

at the 5 percent level. Hypothesis 3 was supported.
/<>\ Also supported was Hypothesis 4, which stated that
vlfyfisrfinion leadership is more highly related to the degree of
participation in formal organization in modern social system
than in traditional social system. The correlations between
participation in formal organization and Opinion leadership
were significantly different from zero in both the modern
and traditional social systems. The difference between the

two correlations was significant beyond the 5 percent level

of significance.

.\

Hypothesis 5 postulated that fihe relationship between
Opinion leadership and innovativeness is stronger in modern
social system than in traditional social system} Analysis
showed that the correlation between innovativeness and opin-
ion leadership was significantly different from zero in the
modern social system, but not in the traditional social sys-
tem. The difference between the two correlations was in the
eXpected direction, but 2 test indicated that the difference
was not significant at the .05 level. Thus hypothesis 5 was
not supported.

According to Hypothesis 6, it was expected that

‘Fpinion leadership would be less polymorphic in modern

172

social system than in traditional social system. Analysis
showed that mean polymorphism score was larger in tradi-
tional social system than in modern social system. But

the difference between the two means was not significant at
the .05 level. Thus, hypothesis 6 was not supported.

The concern in Hypothesis 7 and Hypothesis 8 was to
test the variation between modern and traditional social
system with regard to Opinion leadership concentration.
Hypothesis 7 postulated that if leadership is considered,
as a means toWard the achievement of specific social system
goals, or, in collective innovative decisions, then there
is greater degree of Opinion leadership concentration in
modern social system than in traditional social system.

The results were in the expected direction, but the hypoth-
esis was not confirmed. (;D
+—~s

Hypothesis 8 was thatiif leadership is considered as
a process of interpersonal communication in which the main
purpose EEIEQQBQLQ~9§§§§lWEW§erS achieve individual goals /<;fé/j

lix//’ " '5 ‘ ' “ ,
(such as when members seek information and evaluation from 5
I

 

Opinion leaders for making personal decision

c s of innovation adoption), here is less Opinion leader-
.‘,,»I’

‘MHHWH

ship concentration in modern social system than in traditional

 

social system. The hypothesis was supported.

173

In brief, of the eight hypotheses dealing with
patterns of opinion leadership, three were confirmed. one
was partially supported, and the remaining four, although

in the expected direction, were not supported.

2. Patterns of Homophily in Dyadic Communication

Ten hypotheses were stated dealing with patterns of
homophily in dyadic communication. The hypotheses dealt
with variations in the degree of homophily between the
modern and traditional social system, with respect to five
designated attributes of members, and With respect to two
types of dyadic communication, namely instrumental inter—
action* and social interaction**. In addition,one hypothesis
dealing with frequency of instrumental interaction in dyadic
communication contacts was also tested.

Hypothesis 9 postulated thatyin information seeking,

instrumental interaction contacts have higher homophily

 

_,_,

* . . - - 7
“Instrumental interaction is defined as direct inter-

personal communication contact between members established
specifically to the attainment of goal seeking behavior such
as seeking information and knowledge about innovations.

**Social interaction is defined as interpersonal
communication contact between individuals primarily oriented
to intimate friendship associations.

174

with respect to innovativeness in a traditional social sys-
tem than in a modern social system. As eXpected, the cor-
relation in the modern social system was significant and
negative as compared with a positive but not significant
correlation in traditional social system. Results were in
the expected direction, but the difference between the two
correlations was not significant at the 5 percent level.
The hypothesis was not supported.

Hypothesis 10 stated that social interaction contacts
in the friendship network have a higher degree of homOphily
with respect to innovativeness in a traditional social sys-
tem than in a modern social system. The correlation in
both the modern and traditional social systems was near
zero, although it was expected that in friendship contacts,
the correlation would be positive and high in traditional
social system and low in the modern social system. Analysis
showed that although the results were in the opposite dir-
ection than expected, the difference in homophily between
the two social systems was not significant at the 5 percent
level. The hypothesis was not supported.

The expectation in Hypothesisll was that instru-
mental interaction contacts in information—seeking have a

greater degree of homophily with respect to mass media

175
exposure in a traditional social system than in a modern
social system. Analysis showed that the correlation in
the traditional social system was higher than in the modern
social system. The difference between the two correlations
was not significant at the 5 percent level. Results were
in the expected direction, but the hypothesis was not
supported.

According to Hypothesis 12, it was expected that
social interaction contacts have a higher degree of homo-
phily with respect to mass media exposure in a traditional
social system than in a modern social system. The cor-
relations in both the traditional and modern social systems
were positive; however, contrary to expectation, the cor-
relation was relatively higher in the modern social system
than in the traditional social system. Neither of the cor-
relations was significantly different from zero. Analysis
showed that the difference between the two correlations was
not significant at the 5 percent level. Thus, the hypothesis
was not supported.

Hypothesis l3 postulated that instrumental inter-
action contacts in information-seeking have a higher degree
of homophily with respect to change agent contact in a tradi-

tional social system than in a modern social system. As

176

expected, the correlation was positive and high in the
traditional social system, and positive and low in the
modern social system. The difference between the two cor-
relations was not significant at the .05 level. The hypo-
thesis was not supported, although the results were in the
expected direction.

The expectation in Hypothesis 14 was that social
interaction choices for friendship have a higher degree of
homophily with respect to change agent contact in the tra-
ditional social system than in the modern social system.

The results were in the expected direction as indicated by
a relatively higher degree of correlation in the traditional
social system as compared with the modern social system.

The difference between the two correlations was not found
significant at the 5 percent level of significance. The
hypothesis was not supported.

According to Hypothesis 15, it was suggested that
in information-seeking, instrumental interaction contacts
have a higher degree of homophily with respect to agricul-
tural knowledgeability in the traditional social system than
in the modern social system. As expected the correlation in
the modern social system was negative and high and signifi-

cantly different from zero, whereas the correlation in the

177

traditional system was positive but not significantly dif-
ferent from zero. Analysis showed that the differences be-
tween the two systems were in the expected direction, but
failed to reach the significant level of .05. The hypo-
thesis was not supported.

Hypothesis 16 stated that social interaction contacts
of friendship have greater homOphily with respect to agri-
cultural knowledgeability in the traditional social system
than in the modern social system. Results indicated almost
zero correlations in both traditional and modern social
systems. The hypothesis was not supported.

The expectation in Hypothesis 17 was that instru-
mental interaction contacts in information-seeking have
greater homOphily with respect to social status in the
traditional social system than in the modern social system.
As expected, the correlation in the traditional social sys-
tem was positive, whereas a negative correlation was ob-
tained in the modern social system. Neither of the cor-
relations was significantly different from zero. The dif-
ference between the two correlations was not significant
at the .05 level. Thus the results were in the expected

direction, but the data did not support the hypothesis.

178

Hypothesis 18 postulated that in social interaction
contacts a greater degree of homophily with respect to social
status will develOp in the traditional social system than in
the modern social system. Results showed that the correla-
tion was higher in the traditional social system as com-
pared with that in the modern social system, but neither of
the correlations was significantly different from zero.

The analysis indicated that although the difference in
homophily between the two social systems was in the expected
direction, the hypothesis was not supported at the 5 percengfry\
level of significance. {/ T: ,3

Finally, Hypothesis 19 stated that(i;.information-H M
seeking there is a greater frequency of instrumental inter-
action in the modern social system than in the traditional
social system;j The hypothesis was supported.

As a summary statement of the results of hypotheses
postulated to determine variations in patterns of homophily
between modern and traditional social system, it can be
noted that out of ten hypotheses, seven were in the ex-
pected direction, three in the Opposite direction than ex-
pected, and none of the hypotheses were confirmed. An

eleventh hypothesis dealing with frequency of instrumental

interaction in dyadic communication contacts was supported.

179

3. Patterns of Communication Integration

The research emphasis regarding communication inte-
gration was to compare the communication structure of the
two peasant social systems in terms of subgroups, in terms
of communication contacts between the subgroups, and in
terms of the key communication positions of liaison persons.
The tests of four hypotheses were primarily based on inspec-
tion of a structural analysis, rather than on statistical
criteria. In addition. two hypotheses were postulated deal-
ing with differences between the modern and traditional
social system with regard to degree of integration into
the information-seeking network, and the range of social
interaction respectively. The latter two hypotheses were
tested statistically. Thus, a total of six hypotheses

dealing with communication integration were tested.

  
  

According to Hypothesis 20, it was expected that
[there is greater degree of social system members integratidnsy'
into the information-seeking network in the modern social
system than in the traditional social system} On the basis
of a t test it was found that the proportion Of social
system members who initiated dyadic communication with rel-

atively more innovative members, was larger in the modern

social system than in the traditional social system. The

180

hypothesis was supported. ,(:;:\»
Hypothesis 21 stated that‘the range of social inter? /’/

action* is greater in the modern social system than in the

traditional social system. (The hypothesis was supported on

the basis of a t test, which indicated that the mean range

of social interaction was greater in the modern social

[xv—N.“
system than in the traditional social system. /<? I

The expectation in Hypothesis 22 was thatfghgre 56:18'
be a greater degree of communication contacts between sub-
groups in the modern social system than in the traditional
social system. On the basis of a structural analysis (pre-
sented in Figures 4 and S). the hypothesis was supported. //’*\

Hypothesis 23 postlated thatTthere was a greater nuL;§7/)
ber of liaison roles in the modern social system than in the
traditional social system? The hypothesis was supported on
the basis of an analysis of the communication structure of
the two social systems. <:::E§

._". «i /

Hypothesis 24 postulated that‘in the moderh social

system. liaison persons are relatively more innovative than

the subgroups of members. but in the traditional social system

 

*Range of social interaction is defined as the extent to which
an individual can initiate. directly and indirectly. inter-
personal contacts with other members for the purpose of in-
formal friendship association.

181

liaison persons are relatively similar in innovativeness to

the subgroups of membersji The hypothesis was supported.

,wmswn
Finally. the expectation in Hypothesis 25 was that
liaison persons in the modern social system have a relatively
higher degree of mass media exposure than the subgroups of
members. but in the traditional social system liaison persons
have a relatively similar degree of mass media exposure to
the subgroups of members. The hypothesis was supported.
In conclusion. it was found that out of six hypotheses
dealing with patterns of communication integration. two of
the hypotheses were confirmed statistically and the remaining

four were supported on the basis of inspection of a structural

analysis.

Discussion

Among the 25 hypotheses postulated. twenty-one were
tested on the basis of statistical tests of significance and
the remaining four were studied in terms of evidence primar-
ily derived from inspection of a structural analysis. Re-
sults dealing with all the 25 hypotheses are summarized in
Table 13. 0f the twenty-one hypotheses tested statistically.

eight were concerned with differences in patterns of opinion

182

TABLE l3.--Summary of Results of the 25 Hypotheses Tested in the Present
Thesis

 

 

 

Concepts and Variables esis Type of Test Result
Number
Patterns of Opinion Leadership:
Communication and innovative
behavior of opinion leaders z-test of difference Not
Mass media exposure H between two r's supported
Change agent contacts 3% ' ' ' '
Use of cosompolite inter- 2
personal sources :3 “ ' ' Supported
Formal participation 4 ' ' ' ”
Innovativeness H5 ' " ' Not supported
Polymorphism of Opinion t-test of difference
leadership H6 between two means ”
Opinion leadership concentration H7 t-test of difference .

between to proportions
Opinion leadership concentration 38 ' ' '

Patterns of Homophily in Dyadic Communication:

 

Instrumental interaction z-test of difference

(innovativeness) 39 between two r's
Social interaction(innovativeness) 10 ' ' '
Instrumental interaction (mass

media exposure) H11 ' ' '
Social interaction (mass media

exposure) £12 “ ' '
Instrumental interaction

(change agent contact) H13 ' ' '
Social interaction

(change agent contact) 314 ' ' '
Instrumental interaction (agri-

cultural knowledgeability) £15 “ ' '
Social interaction (agricul-

tural knowledgeability) 316 “ ' '
Instrumental interaction

(social status) 317 ” " '
Social interaction (social

status) H18 ' ' '
Frequency of instrumental t-test of difference

interaction 319 between two means
Patterns of CommunicationIntegration:
Integration in information t-test of difference be-

seeking H20 tween two proportions
Range of social interaction 321 t-test of difference

between two means
Communication contacts between

subgroups H22 Structural analysis
Liaison person 323 ' ' “
Characteristics of liaison

persons and the subgroups th Descriptive statistics

I I I 32") n I '0

Supported

Not
supported
I

Supported

Supported

183

leadership between the modern and traditional social system:
eleven dealt with patterns of homOphily in dyadic communica-
tion. and the remaining two dealt with patterns of communica—
tion integration. On the whole. six hypotheses were supported
and one more was partially supported on the basis of statis-
tical tests. four were supported on the basis of a structural
analysis. and fourteen were not supported. Of these. eleven
were in the expected direction and three were in the Opposite
direction to that postulated. The question therefore arises.
why were some of the hypotheses supported and others not sup-

ported?

Methodologica; Factors

1. Sample Size. Perhaps one of the important possi-
bilities responsible for a lack of significant differences
where encountered. could be that the sample size was not ade-
quate. The sample size in the case of the traditional com-
munity was 30. as compared with a sample size of 54 in the
case of the modern community.

At least three of the hypotheses dealing with differ-
ences in patterns of Opinion leadership between the two social

systems (H1. H and H6) approached significance with the pres—

SI

ent sample.

184

Similarly. in the case of the dyadic analyses dealing
with differences in homophily between the modern and tradi—
tional social systems. with respect to designated attributes
of members involved in instrumental communication contacts.
the sample size in both communities was relatively small.
There were 14 dyads in the case of the traditional community
and 42 in the case of the modern community. Although the
number of dyads was relatively small in both communities.
all the five hypotheses dealing with differences in homophily
between the two communities with respect to information-
seeking were in the expected direction and two of the hypoth-
eses (Hg and H15) approached significance.

2. Specificity of criteria in sociometric designs.
In the case of hypotheses dealing with differences in homoph-
ily with respect to social interaction or friendship contacts.
inconsistent results were obtained in spite of a relatively
larger number of dyads. which was 69 in the traditional com-
munity and 150 in the modern community. Results of this
analysis indicated almost no correlation between such mem-
bers' attributes as innovativeness. mass media exposure.
change agent contact. agricultural knowledgeability and

social status.

185

Three possibilities might explain the lack of hypoth-
esized relationships. First. the criterion of friendship on
which sociometric choices were obtained was perhaps too gen-
eral rather than specific. In other words. specificity re-
garding the exact type of friendship contact might help in
differentiating as to which attributes influence interper-
sonal contacts. A second possible explanation deals with
the number of friendship choices which an individual was
allowed to make. In the present study. an individual re-.
spondent was allowed to choose up to a maximum of six friends
among the members in his community. Perhaps homophily is
higher when the number of choices allowed is smaller. This
is an empirical question that should be explored in future
research. Third. members' attributes. such as innovativeness.
change agent contact. mass media exposure. agricultural know-
legeability. and social status which were utilized in determ—
ining the degree of homophily were not important in differen-
tiating informal friendship contacts although these very at-
tributes were found to differentiate specific goal-oriented
instrumental communication contacts to a relatively greater
extent in both the communities.

Results dealing with polymorphism of Opinion leader-

ship and concentration of Opinion leadership were in the

186

expected direction but the postulated hypotheses were not
supported. One possible explanation could be that the socio-
metric criteria utilized to measure opinion leadership were
relatively general rather than specific and salient to the
situation of peasants. In future empirical research greater
attention should be given to study of opinion leadership with
respect to more specific and discriminatory sociometric cri-
teria which can meaningfully differentiate the nature and ex-
tent of opinion leadership influence in peasant villages.

It is believed that specificity and differences in sociometric
criteria of leadership can provide a more valid basis of the
existence or non-existence of polymorphic opinion leadership

and leadership—concentration.

Theoretica; Factors

In addition to methodological factors. lack of support
for the hypotheses postulated about Opinion leadership and
homophily can be further examined in terms of theoretical
considerations from small group literature.* To be specific.
the main focus in our discussion that follows is on hypotheses

dealing with polymorphism of Opinion leadership. Opinion

 

*No discussion is contemplated with respect to hypotheses
postulated in the category of patterns of communication in-
tegration as they were all supported.

187

leadership concentration. and homophily in dyadic communica-
tion. It is apprOpriate to note that lack of empirical evi-
dence utilizing these variables in the diffusion research
context. was one limiting factor in the construction of the
present analytical framework. The hypotheses dealing with
polymorphism of opinion leadership. Opinion leadership con-
centration. and homophily. had to be formulated primarily
on the basis of parallel work from the existing literature.
Furthermore. since the hypotheses in the present research
deal with differences between modern and traditional social
systems. they are to a great degree exploratory in character.
The hypothesis that there are differences between the
modern and traditional social system with regard to the degree
of polymorphism of opinion leadership was. although in the
expected direction. not confirmed in the present thesis. Par—
allel results from small group research indicate no conclusive
and definite evidence regarding the generality or Specificity
of leadership influence on the basis of results of a factor
analytic study in which the same groups were Observed at six
different tasks. It was concluded that there were probably
families of situations for which leadership was fairly general

for any task falling in that family; but there would be other

188

families in which the leadership requirements might be fairly
independent of those in the first family of situations (Car-
ter. 1953. p. 26). Gibb (1954. p. 902) studied leadership
in small groups which were observed in eight different tasks
and concluded that leadership was not entirely specific to
the situation; neither was it wholly a general factor. Added
to these are the survey findings of opinion leadership studies
conducted by Katz and Lazarsfeld (1955). who found a tendency
toward monomorphic leadership. and by Rogers and van Es (1964).
who found no difference between modern and traditional social
systems with regard to polymorphism of Opinion leadership.
However. the findings of the present study indicate a tendency
toward polymorphism of leadership in both types of communities.
although this tendency was relatively greater in the traditional
community than in the modern community. In view of the findings
of the present research. perhaps it would be useful to study
opinion leadership in terms of more specific and more numerous
criteria. and then determine what variables (including group
structure. situational and task demands. and behavioral and
personal attributes of individuals) predict polymorphism of
leadership in peasant communities.

Groups having a relatively higher degree of leadership

concentration or a high degree of consensus on leadership were

189

found to have more effective communication and were more pro-
ductive in the achievement of group goals than groups in
which leadership was widely distributed because of a lack of
consensus among group members regarding leadership status
(Heinicke and Bales. 1953. Shelly. 1960). Directly related
to this point is Hypothesis 7 of the present study which
stated that. if leadership is concerned with social system
goals or collective innovation decisions. then there is
greater degree of Opinion leadership concentrration in the
modern social system than in the traditional social system.
Results were in the expected direction. but the hypothesis
was not supported.

Homophily in friendship association was found to be
related to similarities in attitudes and religious background
on the part of interacting members (Lazarsfeld and Merton.
1954. p. 65); whereas homophily in professional (instrumental)
contacts among medical doctors was related to drug adOption
(Coleman and others. 1966). Blau (1962) found low homophily
in instrumental interaction with respect to designated attri-
butes of a group of professional employees in a voluntary
organization.

The effect of certain status factors in the diffusion

of innovations has also been studied (Larsen and Hill. 1958;

190

Katz and Lazarsfeld. 1955; Rogers and van Es. 1964). How-
ever. there is little consistency in the results of these
studies. Lack of clear evidence on the basic question of
"who interacts with whom. in what attributes“ is apparent
from the work of Homans (1950. pp. 182-184). who postulated
tendencies both to interact vertically (that is. with those
of higher and lower status) and to interact horizontally.
However. Homans (1950) and Reicken and Homans (1954. p. 798)
pointed out that the tendency to interact vertically and
horizontally is influenced by the criterion or the particular
situation in which interpersonal interaction occurs. These
researchers postulated that individuals interact with high
ranking pe0ple in task-oriented situations and with equals
in social situations.

As partial support of Homans' statement. results in
the present thesis indicated that in instrumental communica-
tion contacts. the degree of homophily with respect to desig-
nated attributes was indeed lower in the modern social system
than in the traditional social system. Several of the hypoth-
eses dealing with homophily differences between the modern
and traditional social systems in instrumental communication
contacts approach significance. but were not supported. How—

ever. results of the present research were not consistent

191

with regard to homophily in infOrmal friendShip contacts.
perhaps due to a lack of Specificity of the friendship cri-
terion and problems of measurement.

In summary. it can be noted from the previous discus—
sion that the variables of opinion leadership concentration.
polymorphism of Opinion leadership. and homophily in dyadic
communication were relevant to the analyses of the effect of
these variables on innovation diffusion in comparative social
systems. However. the exact relevance of the latter two
variables (polymorphism of Opinion leadership and homOphily
in interpersonal interaction) is not clearly established from

the present empirical evidence.

W

To conclude the present thesis. three logical ques-
tions can be raised:

1. Why is it that a meaningful understanding of communi-
cation structure as conceptualized in the present thesis is
fundamental to explain the process of innovation diffusion
in informal social systems like peasant villages? Can the
conceptual framework of the present thesis be related logic-
ally and meaningfully to a relatively more general theory of

social action and change?

192

2. What implications does the present research have for
accelerating the diffusion of innovations in rural societies?
3. What are some of the research problems that the pres-

ent investigation brings into focus?

Communication Structure and
Innovation Diffusion

The theoretical importance of analyzing the effect of
communication structure in innovation diffusion is evident
from the basic tenet of diffusion theory which stipulates
that the process of diffusion is primarily a process of in-
terpersonal influence. i.e.. the interactional mechanisms
that occur among members in a social system (Rogers. 1962.
p. 138). Hence. the conceptual and analytical framework of
the present thesis was designed primarily from a communica-
tion point of view. to understand a specific phenomenon of
social change. namely. the diffusion of innovations in Indian
villages. However. it is believed that the communication
approach of the present thesis can also be meaningfully re-
lated to the general theory of action formulated by Parsons
(1962. p. 7). Who conceptualized social action within three
broad systems. Among the three systems of Parsons' theory.

the first two are pertinent to the present thesis.

193

First. the orientation of action of anyone given
actor and its attendant motivational processes be-
comes a differentiated and integrated system. This
system will be called the personality and we will
define it as the organized system of the orientation
and motivation of action of one individual actor.

Secondly. the action of a plurality of actors in

a common situation is a process of interaction . . .
this interaction also becomes differentiated and in-
tegrated and as such form a social system.

In the present thesis the conceptualization of Opinion
leader as a communication role can be considered as someWhat
parallel to what Parsons calls the differentiated and inte—
grated system of individual actors. whereas the patterns of
homophily in dyadic communication. and the patterns of commun-
ication integration can be compared to Parsons' second system
(the process of interaction and the related patterns of dif-
ferentiation and integration in the social system).

Opinion peader--Argifferentiated
Communication Role

Thus. opinion leadership in the present thesis was
conceptualized as a type of interpersonal influence in which
certain individuals play communication roles by providing
other members with information and evaluations about innova-
tions. Individuals who perform such roles are called opinion

leaders. These Opinion leaders are differentiated from other

actors in their social system by virtue of the communication

194

role that they play in the innovation diffusion process.
The extent to which opinion leaders can provide effective
linkage of the interpersonal structure in a social system
with the external information environment. and indeed with
new meaning areas. depends upon their orientation to the use
of mass media and other channels. Furthermore. the extent
to which opinion leaders can be influential in the diffusion
of innovations in a social system depends upon their orienta-
tion to the adoption of innovations. In other words. it is
expected that the degree of differentiation of Opinion leader
roles in a social system will influence the rate of innovation
diffusion in that system. Empirical findings from the present
research indicated a relatively greater degree of differentia-
tion of opinion leader roles in a modern social system than in
a traditional social system.
Homophily in Dyadic Communication
and 3219 Interaction

While in Parsons' (1962) conceptualization of social
action. the second component dealing with process of social
interaction refers to a general phenomenon at the social sys-
tem level. the present thesis sought to analyze. specifically
from a communication point of view. the effect of communica-

tion structure in innovation diffusion at the micro level of

195

dyadic interaction. The dyad is the most fundamental unit
of conceptualizing and analyzing the nature of communicative
exchange that occurs between two individuals. As Newcomb
(1958) stated. it is at the dyadic level that the nature of
communicative exchange between individuals oriented to com-
mon objects in the environment. can provide the microsc0pic
reality of how individuals' attitudes are formed or changed
with respect to objects of orientation.

In the present research. communicative contacts at
the dyadic level were differentiated by utilizing the concept
of homophily (defined as the degree to which actors with cer-
tain designated attributes interact with others of similar
attitudes). In terms of this conceptualization. low homophily
in communicative contacts indicated a greater degree of dif-
ferentiation between interacting individuals. whereas high
homophily indicated a low degree of differentiation. Commun-
icative exchanges which occur among members in the innovation
diffusion process. can perhaps be more appropriately consid-
ered as a role interaction between innovators and late adOpters.
between persons more exposed to specialized communication
sources and others less exposed. Role interactions (such as
between innovators and later adopters) are expected to result

in role alterations involving behavioral changes on the part

196

of actors in a social system. Such behavioral changes refer
to the acceptance of innovations by actors in a social system
over time. However. the nature and extent of behavioral
changes among members in part depends upon the degree of
homophily in communicative interaction. The empirical re-
sults of the present study indeed suggest that in instru-
mental communication. the degree of homophily was compara-t
tively lower in the modern social system than in the tradi-
tional social system.
gstterns of Communicarron.rpreqration
andrgunctional_erferentiation

In his general theory of action. Parsons (1962)
stated that the process of interaction becomes differentiated
and integrated. and as such forms a social system. Parsons
(1961) also stated that the basic element in the process of
social change is one involving qualitative and structural
change. producing what he called structural differentiation
and the concomitant development of patterns and mechanisms
which integrate the differentiated parts. Rogers (1964. p.
7) considered social change as the process by which a social
system undergoes alterations in the structure and function of
one or more of its components which are functionally differ-

entiated and integrated. The approach to the conceptualization

197

of social change. as stated by Parsons and Rogers. implies
structural differentiation. as well as integration of the
differentiated parts. as key elements in the process of
change in general.

In the present thesis. the effect of patterns of
communication integration in the diffusion of innovations in
a social system can be considered as parallel to the general
theoretic notions previously stated in terms of functional
differentiation and integration. Following the work of
Jacobson and Seashore (1951) and Weiss and Jacobson (1955).
the present study sought to analyze patterns of communication
integration in terms of communication contacts among individ-
uals. in terms of communication contacts between subgroups.
and in terms of liaison persons who interrelated two or more
subgroups constituting the communication structure of a so-
cial system. Furthermore. the degree of functional differ-
entiation of these components of the communication structure
was analyzed in terms of the interrelationship between the
normative structure of subgroups and the-degree of role
specialization of liaison persons interconnecting the sub-

groups.

198

Empirical results based on statistical and struc-
tural analyses* indicated that the communication structure
in the modern social system was communicatively more inte-
grated. and functionally more differentiated with respect
to role specialization of liaison persons. than in the tra-
ditional social system. The communication structure in the
modern social system was like a complex web of interwoven
communicative contacts among individuals and among subgroups.
but more importantly among the liaison persons. The liaison
persons in the modern system were more innovative. had a
greater degree of mass media exposure than the subgroups of
members. and regardless of social status. there was a coord-
inative link among the liaison persons.

In contrast the communication structure in the tradi-
tional social system not only lacked communicative integra-
tion among individuals and subgroups. but was characterized
by a centralized structure in which the majority of the com-

munication contacts originating from group members were.

 

*The details about the patterns of communication integration
in modern and traditional social system can be examined from
Figures 4 and 5. respectively. whereas Table 11 and Table 12
describe the normative structure of subgroups of members and
the degree of role specialization of liaison persons in re-
gard to the modern and tradition social systems.

199

directed to the highest social status members. These indi-
viduals were no more innovative and had no greater exposure
to mass media than the subgrOups of members.

In essence. our comparative analysis of patterns of
communication integration in the modern and the traditional
social system indicated two important results:

1. The modern social system was characterized by a norm-
ative consensus on innovation and change. as compared with
the traditional social system. which was marked by a norma-
tive consensus on status. Indeed. the status differential
that existed between the most highly chosen subgroup leaders
and the subgroup members in the traditional social system
brings into focus a moot question as to whether such inter-
personal contacts are really informal. Perhaps. interpersonal
contacts in the traditional.social system were oriented to the
maintenance of social relations rather than toward purposeful
communication of ideas.

2. The nature and extent of innovation diffusion in a N
social system depends upon an effective linkage of interper-
sonal communication structure with the information environ-
ment external to a social system. An effective linkage of
interpersonal communication structure with the outside infor-

mation environment is greatly influenced by a conjunctive

200

condition. implying functional differentiation of the parts
of internal communication structure as well as communicative
integration of the differentiated parts. Results of the
present research indicated that the existence of such a con-
junctive condition was perhaps a more important contributing
factor to the development of innovative norms and to the con
comitant technological diffusion in the modern social system
than in the traditional social system. This conjunctive con-
dition can be considered as an index of the variable capacity
of a social system to generate and channelize processes of
innovation diffusion.

From the previous discussions it is evident that the'
comparative analysis of communication integration was import-
ant both theoretically and empirically in terms of bringing
into focus the effect of communication structure on innova-_
tion diffusions.

As a general evaluation. it is believed that the con-
ceptual and analytical framework of the present thesis pro-
vides a meaningful perspective for looking at the effects of
communication structure on the process of innovation diffu-
sion. The present approach outlines a systematic schema to
empirically investigate elements of communication structure

in terms of three categories of concepts. each category

201

corresponding to a different unit of analysis. jThough the
conceptual scheme of the present thesis specifically deals
with elements of communication structure related to the dif-
fusion of innovations. it can be meaningfully related to
some of the general theoretic notions of social action and
change. It is also believed that the framework outlined in
the present thesis can be used to organize research findings
dealing with each of the three categories of concepts. The
study reported in the present thesis was primarily explora-
tory. but the empirical results suggest the utility and
fruitfulness of the present conceptual and analytical frame-

work in future research in comparative social systems.

Implications for Action

Results of the present research suggest that commun-
ication structure within a social system does influence the
diffusion of technological changes. Students of moderniza-
tion also agree that changes in social structure are a pre-
requisite to the acceptance of innovations and change by
members in a social system. Indeed. a historical perspec-
tive of the change process which occurred in the modern com-

munity of the present investigation perhaps suggests similarity

202

to the three change phases suggested by Lewin (l958):unfreezing
an old pattern..changing‘to a new one. and.refreezing of a new
pattern. The unfreezing of the old pattern primarily deals
with restructuring the existing social relationships. The
unfreezing phase is followed by a process of change in which
target individuals begin to identify themselves with one or
more role models in the social environment. The process of
change also occurs when the target individuals confront new
situations. through self-experimentation and adOpt favorable
attitudes to change. The refreezing phase involves internal-
ization of new behavioral patterns by the target individuals.
and maintenance in the target system of an adequate number

of role models who would serve as sources of social support
and reinforcement in the process of change.

Thus. the process of change suggested by Lewin also
requires some sort of restructuring of existing social rela-
tionships as a precondition to change. which is a difficult
goal to bring into effect. However. in light of the present‘
thesis. the comparative analysis of communication structure
of a modern and traditional social system can hopefully pro—
vide information regarding the kind of structural rearrange—
ments which might be conducive to the adOption of technolo-

gies. Furthermore. knowledge of structural arrangements

203

characterizing modern and traditional communities can also
serve as a basis to develop communication strategies designed
to accelerate the adOption of technologies in peasant commun-
ities in India.

What suggestions do the present findings offer to
administrators of change agencies responsible for the planning
and implementation of programs of technological change. and
to change agents who want to introduce innovations in peasant
communities? Results of the present study suggest the fol-
lowing considerations:

1. Management of information programs. It is essential
to provide innovating leaders and liaison persons with rele-
vant messages regarding both programs of change and technolog—
ical innovations. It is expected that innovating leaders who
are linked with the outside information environment serve as
word-of-mouth channels for the social system. The objective
should be the creation and sustenance of word-of-mouth-com-
munication channels who are receptive to change.

2. Management of organized media forums.* The success

of organized media forums in villages depends on the group

 

*The importance of organized media forums in the diffusion
of innovations is reported by Mathur and Neurath (1959) and
by Neurath (1962) who studied the effects of rural radio
forums on knowledge and attitudes of listeners in Indian
villages.

204

norms relating to innovation. on the nature of interrela-
tionships among the various subgroups. and among subgroup
leaders in the community. Individuals who serve as liaison
roles within a social system should be active leaders in
media forums. so that communication can flow through them

to the various subgroups with which they are connected. An
Objective in the organization of media forums should be to
break the centralized communication structure typical of the
traditional social system of the present study.

3. Training of change agents. The role of interpersonal
communication structure in the diffusion of innovations should
be emphasized as part of the training of change agents. The
interrelationship among individuals. communication contacts
among subgroups. and the position of liaison persons in a
social system are important structural factors which affect
not only the change agent-client;relationship. but also the
degree of innovation diffusion among members in the social
system. Results of comparative analysis of the communicative
structure (such as the present research) can provide useful
case histories dealing with the role of interpersonal commun-
icative processes in technological change. and how to maxi—

mize its role in planned change.

205

4. Manipulation of interpersonal communication contacts.
The role of change agent is not merely to establish contacts
with individuals. subgroups. and subgroup leaders. He should
rather utilize his communication contacts as a means to man-
ipulate the establishment Of contacts between subgroups and
among liaison type of persons. This procedure creates what
Lippit and others (l958.'p. 240) call. a permanent "mechanism
of changeability" in a social system. The mechanism of
changeability refers to the ability of a system to build
into its permanent structure a mechanism for performing the
functions of the change agent after the change agent termin-
ates his activities. Such a mechanism was evident in the
communication structure of the modern social system in the
present thesis.

In essence. comparative social system investigations

such as the present research bring to focus certain assump-
tions about the mechanism in which a social system can or

does not change.

Needed Research

From the experience of the present study it is evi-

dent that our knowledge is too scanty to specify what kinds

206

of structural arrangements are conducive to the diffusion of
technologies in the context of develOping societies. More
importantly. there is limited empirical evidence available
from past diffusion research with regard to the basic prob-
lem as to what variations in communication structure from
one social system to the other condition the rate of techno-
logical diffusion in these systems. The present study was
designed to analyze the effects of communication structure
in technological diffusion in comparative social systems.

The following research areas are suggested for future
investigations.

1. The analytical approach developed in the present
thesis can be usefully employed to conduct further explora—
tory studies in comparative social systems with sociometric
data. The utility of such exploratory investigations will
be to gain a better understanding of communication structures
in comparative social systems with varying degrees of modern-
ism and traditionalism in their norms.

2. The phenomenon of Opinion leadership needs to be
studied not only in terms of personality and behavioral at-
tributes of Opinion leaders. but also in terms of attributes
perceivedsby group members. and in the specific situation or

activity in which an individual will or will not be a leader.

207

3. To increase our understanding of the flow of informa—
tion and influence in dyadic communication contacts. it is
necessary that the concept of homophily be studied with re-
spect to a relatively greater number of attributes of members.
There is hardly any empirical evidence dealing with homophily
in interpersonal communication. and one aim of future research
should be to assess the determinants of homophily in dyadic
communication. Research is needed to determine how certain
attributes of seekers influence homophily with respect to des—
ignated attributes of seeker—sought dyads. An example of
such a research problem will be to analyze how social status
of seekers affects homOphily with respect to innovativeness.

a designated attribute of seeker-sought dyads.l To improve
the measure of homophily. it is suggested that sociometric
choices be obtained in terms of specific criterion. For each
criterion. the sociometric choices should preferably be lim-
ited to one or two. instead of multiple selection. Homophily
in interpersonal communication can be fruitfully utilized in
analyzing the nature of dyadic contacts between members in
informal and formal organizations.

4. In order to understand the effect of communication

structure on innovation diffusion. greater importance needs

to be given to sociometric analyses designed to map the

208

patterns of communication in terms of communication within
subgroups. in terms of contact patterns between subgroups
and in terms of the communtzation linkage of liaison persons
with the subgroups. It is suggested that the sociometric
mapping of a communication structure might be based on satur—
ation sampling so that each individual can be located within
the networks of interpersonal contacts. It is also suggested
that characteristics and behavioral attributes of liaison
persons should be analyzed in order to increase our under-
standing about the interrelationship between the liaison
person and the subgroups he links. The general purpose of
such research investigations will be to map important aspects
of the communication structure in comparative social systems
by the use of sociometric methods. The method of structural
analysis developed by weiss and Jacobson (1955) can be use-
fully employed both in informal and in formal systems.
Instead of saturation sampling. it is also possible
to incorporate sociometric designs within the framework of
survey research methods by the use of "snowball sampling."
The purpose of such research is to determine the sociometric
chains of interpersonal communication which extend among in-
dividuals in a social system. Initially a selected sample

of respondents are interviewed. The sampling plan then

209

follows out the chains of sociometric contacts in the social
system. Thus. in snowball sampling the investigator has two
populations: (1) one of individuals originally selected.
and (2) others who are sociometrically selected by them.

The incorporation of sociometric type data into survey re—
search allows the investigator to locate each interviewed
individual within the networks of voluntary relations which
surround them (Coleman. 1958).

5. Field experiments. dealing with diffusion of a spe-
cific package of information about an innovation. can also
be conducted in a limited number of comparable social systems.
The purpose of such field experiments will be to determine
the degree to which a communication structure influences the
rate of diffusion in these systems. Experiments of this na-
ture are costly because they require collection of sociomet-
ric data at two points of time. However. sociometric data
gathered in field experiments can also be fruitfully used
in computer simulation as a step toward prediction of inno-
vation diffusion.

It is important here to note that there are certain
methodological limitations insofar as direct relationships
between some sociometric measures of interpersonal communica-

tion contacts.and measures of individual behavior are concerned.

210

However. variations in communication structure between social
systems can be fruitfully utilized in the comparative analy-
sis of these systems with respect to some criterion variable.
The present thesis suggested a perspective that can be useful
in the comparative analysis of the effect of communication
structure in the diffusion of innovations in informal social

systems.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bales. R. F. Interaction Process Analysis. Cambridge:
Addison-Wesley Press. 1950.

Bavelas. A. "Communication Patterns in Task Oriented Groups.“
Journal of Acoustical Society of America. Vol. 22.
1950. pp. 725-730.

Berlo. David K. The Process of Communication: An Introduc-
tion to Theory and Practice. New York: Holt Rine-
hart and Winston. Inc.. 1960.

Blankenship. L. Vaughn. "Community Power and Decision Mak-
ing: A Comparative Evaluation of Measurement Tech-
niques." Social Forces. Vol. 43. No. 2. 1964. pp.

 

207—216.

Blau. Peter M. "Patterns of Choice in Interpersonal Rela-
tions." American Sociologica; Review. Vol. 27. 1962.
pp. 41-56.

Bose. S. P. and Basu. S. K. Influence of Reference Groups
on Adoption Behavior of Farmers. Calcutta. West
Bengal: Cultural Research Institute. 1963. pp. 62-65.

Carter. L. "Leadership and Small Group Behavior." in M.
Sherif and M. O. Wilson (Eds.). Group Rerations at
the Crossroads. New YOrk: Harper and Brothers. 1953.

Cartwright. Dorwin and Zander. Alvin. Group Dynamrgs: Re—
search and Theory. Evanston. Illinois: Row. Peter-
son and CO.. 1953.

Chou. Teresa M. Homophily in Interaction Patterns in the
Diffusion of Innovations in Corpmbian Virlsges. Un-
published Master's thesis. Department of Communica-
tion. Michigan State University. 1966.

211

212

Coleman. James S.; Katz. Elihu; and Menzel. Herbert. "The
Diffusion of an Innovation among Physicians." Soci-
ometry. Vol. 20. December 1957. pp. 253—275.

Coleman. James S. "Relational Analysis." Human Organisation.
Vol. 17. Winter 1958-1959. pp. 28-36.

Coleman. James S. and MacRae. Duncan Jr. “Electronic Pro-
cessing of Sociometric Data for Groups up to 1.000
in Size.“ American Sociological Review. Vol. 25.
1960. pp. 722-727.

Coleman. James. An_;ntroduction to Mathematical Sociology.
New York: The Free Press of Glencoe. 1964.

Coleman. James S.. Katz. Elihu. and Menzel. Herbert. Med-
ical Innovation: A Diffusion_§tudy. New York:
The Bobbs-Merril Company. Inc.. 1966.

Copp. James H.; Sill. Maurice L.; and Brown. Emory J. "The
Function of Information Sources in the Farm Practice
Adoption Process." Rura; Sociology. Vol. 23. 1958.
pp. 146-157.

Coughenour. M. C. "Group Factors and the AdOption of Agri—
cultural Innovations in Seven Commercial Farming
Localities." Paper presented at the Rural Sociolog-
ical Society. Miami Beach. 1966.

Coughenour. M. C. “The Rate of Technological Diffusion
among Locality Groups." American Journa;_of Sociol-
ogy. Vol. 69. 1964. pp. 325-339.

Davis. Richard H. Personaryand Orgsnisational Variables Re—
lated to the Adoption of Educational Innovations in
Two Liberal Arts Colleges. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis.
University of Chicago. 1965.

Deutschmann. Paul J..and Fals Borda. Orlando. Communication
and Adoption Patterns in an Andean Villags. San Jose.
Costa Rica: Programa Interamericano de Information
POpular. 1962.

213

Duncan. James A. and Kreitlow. Burton W. "Selected Cultural
Characteristics and the Acceptance of Educational
Programs and Practices." Rural Sociology. Vol. 19.
1954. pp. 349-357.

Eibler. John H. A Comparison of the Relationship between
Certain Aspects of the Structure of High School Fac-
plty and the Amount of Curriculum Innovation. Uh-
published Ph.D. thesis. University of Michigan. 1965.

Eisenstadt. S. N. "Some Problems of Communication Research
in Israel." Internationalrsocial Science Journal.
Vol. 14. No. 2. 1962. pp. 337-350.

Emery. F. E. and Oeser. O. A. gpformation. Qscision and Ac-
tion: A Study of Psychorogica;_9eterminants of
Changes in Farming Technigpes. New YOrk: Cambridge
University Press. 1962.

Expert Committee on Assessment and Evaluation. Report on
Intensive Agricultural District Program (1961-63).
New Delhi: Government of India. Department of Agri-
culture. Ministry of Food and Agriculture. 1963.

Festinger. L.; Schacter. S.; and Back. K. Social Pressures
in Informal Groups. New York: Harper and Brothers.
1950.

Festinger. L. "The Analysis of Sociograms Using Matrix
Algebra." Human Relations. Vol. 2. 1949. pp. 153-158.

Forsyth. Elaine and Katz. Leo. "A Matrix Approach to the
Analysis of Sociometric Data: Preliminary Report."
Sociometrv. Vol. 9. 1946. pp. 340-347.

Gibb. Cecil A.- “Leadership" in Gardner Lindzey (ed.) Hand-
book of Socia; Psychology. Vol. II. Cambridge. Mass:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Inc.. 1954. p. 902.

Griliches. Zoi. "Hybrid Corn: An Exploration in the Econ-
omics of Technological Change." Econometrica. Vol.
25. 1957. pp. 501-522.

214

Harary. Frank. "Graph Theoretic Methods in the Management
Sciences." Management Science. Vol. 5. 1959. pp.
387-403.

Havens. A. Eugene and Rogers. Everett M. "AdOption of Hybrid
Corn: Profitability and the Interaction Effect."
Rural Sociology. Vol. 26. 1961. pp. 409-414.

Heinicke. C. and Bales. R. F. "Developmental Trends in the
Structure of Small Groups." Sociometry. Vol. 16.
1953. pp. 7-38.

Hellander. E. P. ”Emergent Leadership and Social Influence."
in E. P. Hollander and R. G. Hunt (eds.). Current
Perspectives in Sociar:gsychology. New YOrk: Oxford
University Press. 1963. pp. 469—474.

Homans. George C. "The Human Group." New YOrk: Harcourt
Brace. 1950.

Homans. George C. Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms.
London: Routledge and Kagan Paul. 1961.

Hubbel. Charles H. “An Input-Output Approach to Clique
Identification." §ociometry. vol. 28. 1965. pp.
377- 399.

Jacobson. E. and Seashore. S. E. "Communication Practices
in Complex Organizations." Journsrrof Social Issues.
Vol. 7. 1951. pp. 28-40.

Katz. Elihu. and Lazarsfeld. Paul F. Personal Influence.
New York: The Free Press of Glencoe. 1955.

Katz. Elihu. "Traditions of Research on the Diffusion of
Innovation." American Sociorggical Review. Vol. 28.
1963. pp. 237-252.

Katz. Elihu. "The Two Step Flow of Communication: An Up-
to-date Report on an Hypothesis." Public Opinion
Quarterly. Vol. 21. Spring. 1957. pp. 61-78.

Larsen. Otto N. and Hill. Richard J. "Social Structure and
Interpersonal Communication." American Journal of
Sociology. Vol. 63. 1958. pp. 497-505.

215

Lazarsfeld. Paul F. and Merton. Robert K. "Friendship and
Social Processes: A Substantive and Methodological
Analysis." in Morror Berger. Theodore Abel and
Charles H. Page (eds.) Freedom and Control in Modern
Society. New York: Octogon Books. Inc.. 1954. pp.
18-66.

Lazarsfeld. Paul F.; Berelson. Bernard: and Gaudet. Hazel.
The Peopre's Choice. New YOrk: Columbia University
Press. 1949.

Leavitt. H. J. "Some Effects of Certain Communication Pat—
terns on Group Performance." Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychgrogy. Vol. 46. 1951. pp. 38-50.

Lewin. Kurt. "Quasi-Stationary Social Equilibria and the
Problem of Permanent Change" in Warren G. Bennis.
Kenneth D. Benne and Robert Chin (eds.) The Planning
of Changs. New YOrk: Holt. Rinehart and Winston.
1966. pp. 235-38.

Lewin. Kurt. "Group Decision..and. Social Change" in E. E.
Maccoby. T. M. Newcomb. and E. L. Hartley (eds.)
Readings in Social Psychgrggy. New York: Holt Rine-
hart and Winston. 1958. pp. 197-211.

Lewis. Oscar. Village ere in Northern India: Studies in
a Delhi Village. Urbana: University of Illinois
Press. 1958.

Lionberger. Herbert F. "Community Prestige and the Choice
of Sources of Farm Information." Public Opinion
Quarterly. Vol. 23. 1959. p. 118.

Lionberger. Herbert F and Coughenour. M. C. Socis; Struc-
ture andyQiffusion of Information. Columbia: Mis-
souri Agricultural Experiment Station Research Bul-
letin 631. 1957.

Lionberger. Herbert F and Campbell. Rex. R. The Potential
of Interpersonal Communicative Networks_ror Message
Transfer from Outside Information Sources: A Study
of Two Missouri Communities. Columbia: University
of Missouri. Agricultural Experiment Station Research
Bulletin 842. September 1963.

 

216

Lippit. Ronald; Watson. Jeanne; and Westley. Bruce. The
Dynamics of Planned Change. New York: Harcourt.
Brace and World. Inc.. 1958.

Loomis. Charles and Davidson. Dwight. “Sociometrics and
the Study of New Rural Communities.“ Sociometry.
Vol. 2. 1939. pp. 55-76.

Loomis. Charles P. "Tapping Human Power Lines.“ in J. L.
Moreno (ed.) The Sociometry Reader. Illinois: The
Free Press of Glencoe. 1960. pp. 479—483.

Luce. R. B. and Perry. A. D. "A Method of Matrix Analysis
of Group Structure." Psychometrika. Vol. 14. 1949.
pp. 95-116.

MacRae. Duncan Jr. "Direct Factor Analysis of Sociometric
Data." Sociometry. Vol. 23. 1960. pp. 360-371.

Marcus. Alan S. and Bauer. Raymond A. "Yes. There are Gen-
eralised Opinion Leaders." Public Opinion Quarterly.
Vol. 28. Winter 1964. pp. 628-632.

Marsh. Paul C. and Coleman. A. Lee. "Group Influences and
Agricultural Innovations." American Journal of So—
ciology. Vol. 61. 1956. pp. 588-594.

Marsh. Paul C. and Coleman. A. Lee. "The Relation of Neigh-
borhood of Residence to AdOption of Recommended Farm
Practices." Rural Sociorpgy. Vol. 19. 1954. pp. 385-
389.

Mathur. J. C. and Neurath. Paul. An Indian Experiment in
Farm Radio Forums. Paris: UNESCO. 1959.

Menzel. Herbert and Katz. Elihu. "Social Relations and In-
novation in the Medical Profession: The Epidemiol-
ogy of a New Drug." Public Opinion Quarterly. Vol.
19. 1955. pp. 337-352.

Merton. Robert K. Social Theoryrand Social Structure. New
York: The Free Press of Glencoe. 1957.

217

Myren. D. T. "The Rural Communication Media as a Determinant
of the Diffusion of Information about Improved Farm-
ing Practices in Mexico." Paper presented at Rural
Sociological Society. Washington. D. C.. 1962.

Neurath. Paul M. "Radio Farm Forum as a Tool of Change in
Indian Villages." Economic stelOpment and Cultural
Change. Vol. 10. 1962. pp. 275-283.

Newcomb. Theodore M. "The Prediction of Interpersonal Rela-
tions." American Psychologist. Vol. 11. 1956. pp.
575—587.

Newcomb. Theodore M. “An Approach to the Study of Communi-
cative Acts." Psychorogica; Review. Vol. 60. 1953.
pp. 393—404.

Nicholas. Ralph P. and MukhOpadhyay. T. "Politics and Law
in Two West Bengal Villages. India." Bulletin of
Anthrppological Survey of India. NO. l. 1962. pp.
15-40.

Niehoff. Arthur H. A Casebook of Socisl Change. Chicago:
Aldine Publishing Company. 1966.

 

Parsons. Talcott. "Some Considerations in the Theory of
Social Change.“ Rural Sociology. Vol. 26. 1961. p.
229.

Parsons. Talcott and others. Toward a General Theory of
Action. New York: Harper and Row. Harper Torch
Books. 1962.

Pool. Ithiel de Sola. "The Mass Media and Politics in the
Modernization Process" in Lucian W. Pye (ed.) Egg:
munications and Poriticalrpevelopment. Princeton.
N. J.: Princeton University Press. 1963. pp. 234-
253.

Proctor. Charles H. “Informal Social Systems" in J. L.
Moreno (ed.) The Sociometry Reader. Illinois: The
Free Press of Glencoe. 1960. pp. 484-489.

218

Pye. Lucian W. “Models of Traditional. Transitional and
Modern Communications Systems" in Lucian W. Pye (ed.)
Communications and Political_pevelopment. Princeton.
N. J.: Princeton University Press. 1963. pp. 25-29.

Rahim. S. A. The Diffusion and Adoption of Agricultural
Practices: A Study in a Village in Esst Pakistan.
Comila: Pakistan Academy of Rural Development. 1961.

Rao. Y. V. L. Communication and stelopment: A Study of
TWO‘IndianHVillsges. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis.
University of Minnesota. 1963.

Riecken. Henry W. and Homans. George C. "Psychological As-
pects of Social Structure.“ in Gardner Linzey (ed.)
Handbook of Social Psychgrggy. Cambridge. Mass.:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Inc.. 1954. pp.
786-829.

Rogers. Everett M. "Categorizing the AdOpters of Agricul-
tural Practices." Rural Sociology. Vol. 23. 1958.
pp. 345-354.

Rogers. Everett M. and Beal. George M. "The Importance of
Personal Influence in the AdOption of Technological
Change." Social Forces. Vol. 36. 1958. pp. 329-335.

Rogers. Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. New YOrk:
The Free Press of Glencoe. 1962.

Rogers. Everett M. and Burdge. Rahel J. Communiterorms.
Opinion Leadership apd Innovativeness Among Truck
Growers. WOOster: Ohio Agricultural Experiment
Station Research Bulletin. 1962.

Rogers. Everett M. and van Es. Johannes C. Opinion Leader—
ship in Traditional and Modern Colombian Peasant
Communities. East Lansing: Department of Communi-
cation. Michigan State University. Diffusion of In-
novations Research Report No. 2. 1964.

Rogers. Everett M. and Mynen. Wicky L. "Communication Sources
for 2-4-D Weed Spray among Colombian Peasants." Rural
SOCiOloqyo V01. 30: N0. 2: 1965: pp. 213-218.

219

Ross. Donald H. Administration for Adaptabirity: A Source
Bpok Drawing together the Results of more than 150
Individual Studies Related to theruestion of Why
and How Schools Improve. New York: Metropolitan
School Study Council. 1958.

Ryan. Bryce and Gross. Neal C. "The Diffusion of Hybrid
Seed Corn in Two Iowa Communities.“ Rural Sociology.
Vol. 8. 1943. pp. 15-24.

Shelly. H. P. "Status Consensus. Leadership and Satisfac-
tion with the Group." Journal of Social Psychology.
Vol. 51. 1960. pp. 157-164.

Taylor. Carl C.; Ensminger. Douglas; Johnson. Helen W.:
and Joyce. Jean. lndia's Roots of Democracy.
Calcutta: Orient Longmans. Ltd.. 1965.

van den Ban. Anne W. De Communicatie Van NiewerLandbouwr
methoden. Assen. Netherlands. Royal Vansgorsum.
1963.

van den Ban. A. W. "Locality Group Differences in the Adop-
tion of New Farm Practices.“ Rural Sociology. Vol.
25: 1960: pp. 308-320.

Weiss. R. S. and Jacobson. Eugene. "A Method for the Analy-
sis of the Structure of Complex Organizations."
American Sociological Review. Vol. 20. December 1955.
pp. 661-668.

Weiss. Robert S. Processes of Organization. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Survey Research Centre and
Institute for Social Research. 1956. pp. 88—108.

Wilkening. Eugene A. "Roles of Communicating Agents in
Technological Change in Agriculture.“ Social Forces.
Vol. 34. 1956. pp. 361-367.

Young. James and Coleman. A. Lee. "Neighborhood Norms and
the Adoption of Farm Practices.“ Rural Sociology.
1959. Vol. 24. pp. 372-380.

"‘lllll2142424‘5