![](bg2.png)
are perfectly complementary to each other. The
purpose of this paper is to illustrate this
complementariness and the enrichment of combining
the more quantitative generalizing research approach
of diffusionism with the more qualitative in-depth
SST research approach. Based on user research
conducted on mobile TV, we illustrate how this
combination of approaches and methods resulted in
a prediction of potential as well as usage of this new
technology. This way, we intend to illustrate the
theoretical, methodological, managerial as well as
policy relevance of this plea for a more mutual
shaping or interactionist approach on predicting user
acceptance (see Boczkowski, 2004: 255).
2 TWO COMPLEMENTARY
FRAMEWORKS
The oldest of the two theoretical frameworks is the
‘diffusion framework’, of which Everett M. Rogers
(1962) is assumed to be the founding father.
According to this framework, the diffusion of
innovations in a social system always follows a bell-
shaped normal distribution, in which there can be
successively distinguished between Innovators
(2.5%), Early Adopters (13.5%), Early Majority
(34%), Late Majority (34%) and Laggards (16%). A
person’s innovativeness is assumed to be determined
by the perception of the following set of innovation
characteristics: relative advantage, complexity,
compatibility, trialability and observability (Rogers,
2003). Since the early 60’s the theory’s assumptions
on segment sizes, diffusion pattern and determinants
have been a basis for different types of (mostly)
quantitative research such as econometric diffusion
modelling or innovation scales (Goldsmith &
Hofacker, 1991; Meade & Islam, 2006; Moore &
Benbasat, 1991; Parasuraman & Colby, 2001;
Venkatsh, Morris, Davis & Davis, 2003).
Since the mid 80’s however, questions about its
technological determinism and lack of attention to
the user and usage of the innovation have induced
Rogers to adjust his approach to the adoption
decision process, but have also led to the rise of new
paradigms such as domestication focussing on the
‘way the use in households is being socially
negotiated and becomes meaningful, within the
social context of class, gender, culture or lifestyle’
(Van Den Broeck, Pierson, Pauwels, 2004: 103;
Haddon, 2007; Silverstone & Haddon, 1996) or ‘the
process of taming and house training ‘wild’
technological objects, by adapting them to the
routines and rituals of the household and thus giving
them a more or less natural and taken-for-granted
place within the microsocial context of that
household’ (Frissen, 2000: 67; Jankowski & Van
Selm, 2001: 37). Domestication thus refers to
integration of new technologies in the daily patterns,
structures and values of users, relying on a more
social determinism (Bouwman, Van Dijk, Van den
Hooff & van den Wijngaert, 2002).
Methodologically, the SST and domestication
paradigm relies more on a qualitative tradition of
methods such as in-depth interviews, ethnographic
observation and diary studies.
In the past, these two major paradigms have
mostly been regarded as opposite and competing,
with convinced advocates from the two sides
engaging in vicious debates. However, with
diffusionism as the more quantitative tradition with
the focus on acceptance and adoption decisions and
the domestication tradition as more qualitative with
a focus on the use and appropriation of technologies,
both paradigms are clearly complementary (Punie,
2000). Or, as Boczkowski (2004: 255) states, ‘two
sides of the same innovation coin’. To date a
dialectical approach, which considers the
development and diffusion of ICT innovations as
‘joint processes of technological construction and
societal adoption’ (Boczkowski, 2004: 257), gains
ground. Instead of thinking in terms of diffusionism
or social shaping, the mutual shaping or
interactionism approach (Boczkowski, 2004;
Lievrouw & Livingstone, 2006; Trott, 2003)
appeared in the late 90’s as a dynamic middle path
between the two previous linear deterministic
predecessors. By integrating both quantitative and
qualitative research outcomes within this paper, we
aim to illustrate the enrichment of such an
interactionist approach for the development and roll-
out of mobile TV in Flanders, the northern and
Dutch-speaking part of Belgium.
Relying on the difference between ‘adoption
diffusion’ and ‘use diffusion’ (Shih & Venkatesh,
2004), we believe that the prediction of ‘adoption
diffusion’ should rely on (1) a quantitative diffusion
approach by means of (intention) surveys and
modelling to gain insight in the innovation’s
potential in terms of percentage of the target market,
penetration pattern and profiles of the different
adopter segments; and (2) the prediction of ‘use
diffusion’, based on more qualitative techniques
such as diary studies, focus group interviews,
observational and ethnographic techniques (if
possible in a field trial or living lab setting).
ADOPTION VERSUS USE DIFFUSION - Predicting User Acceptance of Mobile TV in Flanders
125