Innovation Diffusion in an Academic Discipline: The Case of the 'New' Geography

Innovation Diffusion in an Academic Discipline: The Case of the 'New' GeographyAuthor(s): J. W. R. WhitehandSource: Area, Vol. 2, No. 3 (1970), pp. 19-30Published by: The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20000462 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 04:48

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) is collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Area.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.141 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 04:48:32 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rgs

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20000462?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Innovation diffusion in an academic discipline: the case of the 'new' geography

J. W. R. Whitehand, University of Glasgow

With the building up of a considerable body of theory on innovation diffusion, including its spatial aspects,' and the subjecting of a wide variety of phenomena to diffusion studies, it is clear that academic disciplines themselves can benefit from a scrutiny in diffusion terms. The need for an understanding of the inno

vation-diffusion process in academic disciplines is highlighted by the apparent speeding up of the life cycle of research in certain fields to the extent that it is becoming quite short when compared with a research worker's productive life and sometimes even when compared with a new recruit's period of training.2 This paper records some preliminary findings of an investigation into the spatial aspects of innovation diffusion in geography and focuses attention on the diffusion within Britain of an innovation which is of considerable interest in the current development of the subject.

There has been a quickening in the tempo of innovation in British geography in the 1960's. Some have questioned the validity of the term 'new geography'3 but few would deny the significant impact that such developments as quanti fication and model building have had on the subject and some suggest that a new paradigm is a logical outcome.4 The increasing adoption of quantitative tech

niques in British geographical research is clear enough if the proportions of articles in the Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers using quanti tative methods5 are graphed for the 1960's (Figure 1). Although by no means all research by British geographers is published in this journal, it undoubtedly contains a good deal of that intended for the professional market. The resultant curve (three-year running means) approximates closely to the S-shaped logistic curve normally associated with scientific growth6 and with the progressive acceptance of a wide range of types of innovation.7 If the curve continues to

fulfil its hitherto logistic trend, we can predict that by 1971 the 'new' geography, if it may be called this for the sake of brevity, will have settled down to a rela

tively stable period of adult life. The youthful phases of accelerating and then

decelerating growth will thus have been accomplished within more or less a

decade.8 It is noteworthy that the proportion of quantitative papers still con

stitutes less than one third of all papers and that there is no significant down

ward trend in the number of 'traditional' papers published in the Transactions.

It may thus be that the new approaches and techniques will complement rather

than replace the old. With the overall temporal trends thus demonstrating some clearly definable

characteristics it seems appropriate to present some preliminary findings on their

spatial aspects. Figure 1 is a national aggregate of a number of marked spatial variations in the department of authorship. Of the quantitative papers almost

19



20 Diffusion of the 'New' Geography

half of the 22 of British authorship were contributed by authors attached to one

of two departments-Bristol and Cambridge. Prior to 1967 these two depart ments were in virtually a monopoly position as far as British authorship was

concerned and it is only in the last two or three years that the range of depart

ments represented has considerably widened. Approximately half of all British

Per Cent

30 -

20

10 _

1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968

Three year periods Date is central year of period

Figure 1. Articles using quantitative methods as a percentage of all articles in the 'Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers', 1961-69 (three-yearly running means). Articles in special issues have been excluded.

departments have now contributed an author or co-author of a quantitative

paper and this increase in the number of centres of activity coupled with

increased contributions from authors not based in British departments largely accounts for the marked overall increase in the proportion of quantitative papers

published between 1966 and 1968. This period thus corresponds to Hager strand's intermediate stage in the diffusion model in which the rapid increase in

acceptors over time has its counterpart in spatial expansion away from the

initial concentration.9 Although the trends indicated by the Transactions data may well be repre

sentative, publication rate in the Transactions is undoubtedly a considerable

understatement of the total amount of quantitative research in progress, not

only because of the diversity of alternative research outlets both British and

foreign, but because of the time lag between research and publication. But if the new methodology may now be said to be showing the first signs of deceleration in

its growth at the research level, this is unlikely to be true at the undergraduate level

and even less so at the school level owing to the problems of downward diffusion.

Data at the undergraduate level comparable with data for research are not

readily available for long spans of time, although Robson's data for 1964 and 1969 suggest a marked increase in the introduction of courses in statistical

methods.10 It has, however, proved possible to assemble spatial information of a



Diffusion of the 'New' Geography 21

more comprehensive kind than that for research by utilizing final-honours examination papers in geography for 1969. These provide a useful guide to course content, although it is necessary to bear in mind that there is a time lag between the introduction of a course and its examination and that not all statistical courses are examined at the final-honours level. A scrutiny of these papers enables one to calculate the proportion of questions which from their nature (subject matter, use of terms etc.) require an understanding of the 'new' geog raphy.'1 Departments have been ranked in Table I on this basis and their per centage scores have been mapped in Figure 2.12 The distribution shows features familiar to students of the spatial diffusion process, with high values in the south of England declining northward in a somewhat erratic fashion. The situation in 1969 may well be close to the stage of maximum differentiation between inno vation centre and periphery and is such that if departments are grouped region ally into a southern, a midlands-north and a Scottish region, a x2 value of 60'7 indicates that the between-region differences are significant at the 001 level.'3 If both Bristol and Cambridge, the two candidates for the title of innovation centre if judged by research output, are excluded from the south of England

Table 1 Relative Importance of 'New Geography' in Final Honours Examination Papers in 1969

One or more

No. of Papers largely Departments in 'New-Geography' Percentage of devoted to

Rank Order Questions all Questions 'New Geography' Reading 38 181 V Bristol 37.5 175 v Sussex 12 164 V Cambridge 39 11.6 a/ LSE 19 97 a/ Exeter 11.5 9 0 a/ Nottingham 6 9 0 Belfast 14 8.6 Manchester** 13 7.6 V UC Dublin 3 7.3 King's* 175 64 Leeds 8 6 0 Liverpool 8 54 V St. Andrews 5 51 Newcastle 7 4.6 Aberystwyth 13 5 4.5 Leicester 3.5 3'6 Swansea 11 3-3 Edinburgh 5 3-0 Keele 2'5 2'8 Durham 8 2'8 Glasgow 3 2 8 UCL 7 2'6 Strathclyde 2 1'7 Dundee 1 1 4 Sheffield 2 1 0 Bedford 1 0-6 Aberdeen 1 0 6

*1 paper missing **2 papers missing

Source: Papers supplied by Departments of Geography or by other official suppliers.




data the x2 score is 33-6 still significant at the 0 01 level.14 The information avail able so far is inadequate for distinguishing between Bristol and Cambridge as the innovation centre, but whichever is regarded as such the fall away from it is clearly not uniform, but gives the impression that diffusion, as is commonly the case, has proceeded in a series of jumps. Thus Belfast has a relatively high score of nearly 9 % while the papers for Bedford College, London show scarcely any evidence at all of the existence of a 'new' geography. Nevertheless, the sig nificant underlying influence of distance from the innovation centres is evident

| z.2 | ~~~~~~~~~~0 UNDER 3 |

?~~~~~~~~~~23~~~~~~~~~

0 50 100 150 200 KM. t

Figure 2. 'New Geography' questions as a percentage of all questions in final honours examination papers in 1969. Key to Departments of Geography 1- Aberdeen; 2-Dundee; 3- St. Andrews; 4-Glasgow; 5-Strathclyde; 6 Edinburgh; 7-Belfast; 8-Newcastle; 9-Durham; 10-Leeds; 11-Manchester; 12-Liverpool; 13-Sheffield; 1 4-Keele; 15-Nottingham; 1 6-Aberystwyth; 1 7-Leicester; 18-Cambridge; 19-Swansea; 20-Bristol; 21-Bedford; 22 UCL; 23-Reading; 24-King's; 25-LSE; 26-Exeter; 27-Sussex. The percentage for UC Dublin (7 3%) is omitted because of the small number of questions involved.




if extent of adoption (percentage scores) is plotted against straight-line distance from an axis drawn between Cambridge and Bristol.'5 This has been done in

Figure 3 using eight-department running means in order to smooth out local

variations. Comparison of the shape of the resultant surface with Hagerstrand's actual and hypothetical surfaces16 suggests that it may still be at a relatively early

10 9

v 7

-z E,

(00

02 5E 4.

0) 5

0~

0 100 200 300 400 500 Distance ( Km. ) from Cambridge - Bristol axis

( Eight-department running means )

Figure 3. Variations in the percentage of 'New Geography' questions with dis tance from a Cambridge-Bristol axis. The points shown are eight-department running means.

point in his 'diffusion' stage in which there is relatively little sign of a levelling in the regional contrasts. However, confirmation of this must await the com

pilation of data for other cross-sections in time. The overall correlation between extent of adoption and distance from the axis

just reaches the 0-01 significance level (pz=-050).1' However, Figure 4, in which departments are plotted in rank order according to the extent of their adoption against their straight-line distance from the Cambridge-Bristol axis, suggests that there is a distinction to be made between low and high levels of adoption. There appears to be a strong random element in the distribution of low levels of adoption up to approximately 5 0 but thereafter the extent of further adoption is to a significant degree a function of distance from the Cambridge Bristol axis (p=--0-25 for departments scoring 4*5% and under whereas p-o -0 75 for departments scoring over 4-5 %). One explanation of this might be that adoption up to approximately 5 % reflects nothing more than individual staff members, perhaps uncharacteristic of their department as a whole, infil trating small numbers of questions'8 whereas above this level something in the nature of a positive departmental decision has been made generally involving at least one optional paper being substantially devoted to some kind of quanti tative analysis (see Table 1). The latter would usually require a more receptive general climate of opinion and probably more truly reflects a departmental rather than an individual adoption.

Clearly none of the patterns we have identified can be explained without a

knowledge of how the diffusion process works. A study of innovation diffusion amongst physicians'9 confirms Haigerstrand's view20 that face to face conversa tion is of paramount importance in the dissemination of information even in a



24 Dijfuisioni of the 'New' Geography

situation in which potential adopters are bombarded with information through a variety of impersonal media. This raises the question. as to what extent distance from the Cambridge-Bristol axis, which appears to be a factor underlying the higher levels of adoption of the 'new' geography, is in fact an inhibitor of face to

20 -

19 -

18 Percentage of 'New - Geography'questions 700 17 Distance Km. from Cambridge- Bristol axis 16

' 15i 600 -2

14 CD

>, 13 050

cL12 - '9 R o

'110 1111 E 010 1 0400 3

9 E' I /I

'z8 ; 0 3 0 0i 0 7~~~~~~~~~~~~30 5 I 200

1 /0

0 0 L0

Figure 4. Departments of Geography in rank order (according to percentage of 'New Geography' questions) plotted against their distances from a Cambridge

Bristol axis.

face conversation. One index of face to face contact for geographers is the amount and direction of movement of staff from one department to another. The only objective measure of this that appears to be readily available, though now somewhat out of date, concerns permanent migration between departments associated with a change of appointment. Data on this are available from

Volume 2 of Orbis Geographicus 1964/6621 and are shown in matrix form in Figure 5. Such movements not only involve the relocation of carriers of informa tion but are likely to result in subsequent information flows between the export ing and importing departments. From the data in Figure 5 it is possible to calculate the average location of the sources of a department's in-migrants.22 This can be expressed as a distance from the Cambridge-Bristol axis and cor related with the distance of the department itself from the Cambridge-Bristol axis (p-+0 62, significant at the 0 01 level). The residuals are of interest and have been shown in Table 2. Column (a) shows the extent to which rankings for mean distance of sources of in-migrants from the axis differ from a perfect positive correlation with distance from the axis. The values may be compared with those in column (b) which shows the extent to which rankings for adoption score differ from a perfect negative correlation with distance from the axis.

Where relatively low adoption is associated with small distance from the axis (as in the case of Swansea and Leicester) the distance of mean sources of in

migrants from the axis tends to be large. Conversely, where relatively high adoption is associated with large distance from the axis (as in the case of St. Andrews and Newcastle) the mean distance of sources of in-migrants from the axis tends to be small. Exceptions to this generalization will be noted from

Table 2 but the overall correlation between the two sets of residuals (p- -0 64)




is significant at the 0 01 level. This suggests that it is worth-while correlating mean distance of sources of in-migrants from the axis with degree of adoption.

This is demonstrated by means of a scatter diagram in Figure 6. The results are

similar to those for the correlation between distance from the axis and degree of

adoption. The overall negative correlation is of a modest order (p=-0 54, narrowly failing to reach the 0 01 significance level) but above the 4-5 % adop tion level p-z -0-72. Thus, as with distance from the axis, there are signs of a strong random element in the distribution of very low order adopters overlain by a distribution of higher order adopters which is to a significant degree a

function of distance of mean source of in-migrants from the Cambridge-Bristol axis. But this last index is an extremely crude indication of face to face contact between departments. Apart from reflecting only a small proportion of actual face to face contact, it reveals nothing of the actual departments between which contact has taken place. To take a specific example, if we examine the case of King's College, London, which has a lower adoption score than we might expect

MOVEMENTS TO

|~ ~ ~ ~~~- TCDBLI _0 _ CD***1frs

Qz

| U CD UBI N _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ *' _ __ _ _ __ _ + !!S Zx21

cWQ w< c ) ~ uJ

z _C o z _ < C/) o~~~C-C)Z~0 'Z~~ %

la KABERYSTWYTH ________________ ___________*._*||||||l||1|

LU~~~~~~~~~~U--Ow

S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~V Om_ X1 << 0

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ QF?C - - M < 1 D _ 1_ 2 a 21_ _ Z _ - _ Z 1xa _ _ M cr _ 2 _x :w22 INL

1 CA NA DA __ 2 _ 3 2 _ _ _ T _ _- _j _ W

I IN MIGRATIONS FROM BRITISH 00_ _ _ _ < _ _ _ _ C _ O _O _ ON EN I |DEPARTMENTS PER NON-MOVER C __ o C OO_ O O boo C _ < O O O O 0.-cZ 00U cN0OC) <- F

Figure 5. Movements of academic staff as revealed by 'Orbis Geographicus 1964/66', Vol. 2. Departments are arranged according to their distance north and south of a Cambridge-Bristol axis.




Table 2 Ranking Differences (a) Number of rankings by which mean distance of sources of in-migrants from axis differs from a perfect positive correlation with distance from axis. (b) Number of rankings by which adoption score differs from a perfect negative correlation with distance from axis.

+ Ranking high - Ranking low

Departments ranked

according to (a) (a) (b)

Swansea +12 7 Leicester A- 8 - 5 Sheffield -I- 5 - 6 Durham A- 4 A- 1 Cambridge + 4 2 Bedford -+ 3 -16 LSE + 3 + 1

Aberystwyth + 2 - 1 Leeds + 1 + 6 Glasgow 0 + 2 UCL -1 -13 Manchester - 1 - 7 Reading 1 + 1 Nottingham - 2 + 4 King's -- 4 - 1 Aberdeen 6 0 Liverpool 6 + 6 Sussex 6 +- 8 Newcastle 7 + 6 St. Andrews 8 + 9

from its southerly mean source of in-migrants, we find that of its five recorded in-migrants23 three are from departments which are themselves low scoring (Bedford College, UCL and Keele).

Another index that ignores direction of movement but deserves mention is the ratio of staff who have never moved to sometime in-migrants, since in-move

ments of any kind, irrespective of immediate source, are liable to introduce new information. As may be seen from Figure 4 this ratio varies greatly from one department to another, ranging in the case of migrations from British depart ments from 3 to 1 for Aberdeen to 1 to 6 for Manchester.24 However, this needs to be viewed in the light of the fact that the total amount of intra-UK move

ment revealed by Orbis Geographicus is small. The number of staff who have never moved exceeds the number of movements (each move in the case of a multiple-mover scoring separately) in the ratio 54:46. If such movements, as seems likely, are a significant element in the process of information dissemina tion, time lags in the region of a decade between innovation adoption by different departments are hardly surprising. In these circumstances the move

ments of a relatively few influential individuals may take on especial signifi cance. While the quantity of data is too small to merit more than passing

mention it is noticeable that there are only two movements from the top five departments in the rank order of level of adoption to departments in the bottom half of the rank order, compared with 10 movements to departments in the top half.

There is little in the data so far examined to suggest how a hierarchical system of information dissemination such as is commonly identifiable in spatial




diffusion studies25 might operate in the present case. The logical spatial outcome of such a system would be spatial groupings of interacting departments. If these

exist in some form the obvious place to look for a sub-system would seem to be

Scotland which for certain inter-departmental purposes tends to act as a unit.

x 400

350 x x

300 3no x~~~~

g 250 -x

200 x w ~~~~~~~~x

.,n x xxx

150 x

x

100 _

x x

5 lO 15 20

Percentage

Figure 6. Relationship between percentage of 'New Geography' questions and mean distance of sources of in-migrants from a Cambridge-Bristol axis.

The internal meetings that result are themselves an important opportunity for

face to face conversation. However, the Orbis Geographicus data, scant though

they are, do not give much strength to the notion of anything approaching a closed Scottish system with respect to staff migration.

We have hitherto assumed a closed British system of information dissemina tion, whereas in reality there are considerable temporary movements, especially to and from North America, which might well interfere with this. Unfortunately the data available from Orbis Geographicus though shown in Figure 4 are too

crude to permit any worthwhile comment. A proper investigation of information flows as an explanation of the diffusion process must await more data at the level of the private information field. 'Invisible Colleges' are undoubtedly important and, as Bunge has shown for the United States,26 these may also have a spatial pattern.

It has been assumed so far that the acceptance of an innovation occurs in

immediate response to the receipt of information-that the amount of adoption is proportional to the amount of face to face exposure to the innovation. There

are, of course, various factors that distort such a state of affairs and these may be grouped under the broad heading of resistances to assimilation. Amongst the

medical profession an important distinction between profession-orientated and

patient-orientated physicians has been noted, the latter being significantly later




in adopting innovations than the former.27 It is tempting to see analogies in the academic field with research-orientated and student-orientated departments. Scottish departments are traditionally student-orientated and one wonders to what extent this has acted as a resistance to the introduction of new ideas in the subject. Apart from the technical barriers to the incorporation of innovations into courses and examination papers, individuals vary greatly in their resistance to new ideas. The roles of individual heads of departments and other influential persons could be important in this respect. Differences such as those that exist between London colleges are difficult to explain entirely in terms of variations in face to face dissemination of information; differential resistance to the innovation

must have a part to play. Both in the resistance to and in the dissemination of new ideas the roles of

individuals should not be underestimated.28 Disseminators and their information fields are to an extent identifiable from their publications and citations. Resist ances in the system are less conspicuous but in their own way contribute significantly to the moulding of the diffusion pattern. Much might be gained if patterns of information exchange amongst academic geographers could be investigated on the lines demonstrated by Tbrnqvist for personnel at various levels in Swedish industry.29

This preliminary report using improvised data touches only the tip of the ice berg. Nevertheless sufficient has been revealed to justify expanding the present study into a full investigation of the spatial aspects of the diffusion of innova tions in academic disciplines. In the case of geography, work can usefully proceed on a number of fronts. The case of the quantitative and model-building revolution with its particularly significant repercussions for the development of the subject as a whole is of especial contemporary interest and merits a full investigation. In particular improved indices of adoption and more cross sections in time are necessary in order to validate the tentative conclusions from this preliminary study. Other innovations in the subject for similar and different time periods must also be investigated in order to establish whether variations in the nature of the innovation and in the timing of its introduction affect the diffusion pattern. The key to the processes underlying these patterns is, of course, to be found in the decisions of individuals and here the importance of private information flows and resistances to acceptance will necessarily lead us into the complicated field of the case history of the individual academic with its social and psychological complexities. However, such a behavioural orientation is less daunting now that it can be set in the more general context of a rapidly growing body of geographical work of a behavioural character.

Acknowledgements The author is indebted to the various departments and individuals that supplied sets of final honours examination papers for 1969, and to Mrs S. M. Whitehand for assistance with the

abstraction of data from Orbis Geographicus. Miss Jean Forbes, Sister Mary Annette, OP, Mrs I. M. L. Robertson, Mr C. P. Lo and Mr A. M. D. Gemmell kindly gave advice on the

preparation of this preliminary report.

Notes 1. Brown, L. A. and Moore, E. G., 1969. Diffusion research in geography: a perspective.

Progress in Geography 1, 121-157. 2. Holton, G., 1962. Models for understanding the growth and excellence of scientific

research, in S. R. Graubard and G. Holton (eds.), Excellence and Leadership in a Democ racy. New York, 123.




3. Dickinson, R. E., 1969. The Makers of Modern Geography, 282. 4. Haggett, P. and Chorley, R. J., 1967. Models, paradigms and the new geography, in R. J.

Chorley and P. Haggett (eds.) Models in Geography, 19-41. 5. There are classification problems here of the type mentioned in Steel, R. W., 1961. A

review of I.B.G. publications. Trans. Inst. Brit. Geogr. 29, 136-7. All papers using statisti cal methods (other than simple descriptive statistics such as means) have been counted as quantitative together with a small number in which the quantitative methodology is implicit.

6. de Solla Price, D. J., 1963. Little Science, Big Science. New York, 20. 7. Hagerstrand, T., 1965. Quantitative techniques for analysis of the spread of information

and technology, in C. A. Anderson and M. J. Bowan (eds), Education and Economic Development. Chicago, 245.

8. Comparison with data in Lavalle, P., McConnell, H. and Brown, R. G., 1967. Certain aspects of the expansion of quantitative methodology in American geography. Ann. Assoc. Amer. Geogr. 57. Figure 3, 432 suggests that the decade 1960-70 in Britain may correspond approximately to the decade 1955-65 in the United States.

9. Hagerstrand, T., 1966. Aspects of the spatial structure of social communication and the diffusion of information. Papers Reg. Sci. Assoc. 16, 27-42.

10. Robson, B. T., 1970. The teaching of quantitative techniques. Area 1, 58-59. 11. All questions (whether compulsory or optional and irrespective of the number on the

paper and the duration of the examination) were given equal weight since it was impossible to draw up a satisfactory weighting system on the basis of the information provided on the papers. A difficult classification problem was presented by references to the forerunners of the 'new' geography, notably the 'classical' models of Thunen, Weber, Christaller and Losch and certain statistical methods used in climatology. Such references in examination papers occur in small numbers over a considerable period prior to the present wave of innovation in model building and statistical methods and on their own were not regarded as sufficient to place a question in the 'new geography' category. Terms occurring in the final honours examination papers for 1969 and considered diagnostic of the 'new' geography are listed in alphabetical order at the end of this article. Some of the terms have

more than one usage and must therefore be assessed in the context of the question in which they occur. Furthermore, in a small minority of questions the context alone (for example, the source of a quotation) was considered sufficient to justify placing the question in the 'new geography' category. It was not possible to arrive at a completely objective classi fication procedure and the author is indebted to Miss Jean Forbes, Mrs I. M. L. Robertson and Mr A. M. D. Gemmell for providing a check on subjective bias.

12. Scrutiny of Table 1 will reveal that in the case of low ranking departments in which a

relatively small number of questions are set a difference in the classification of only one question may alter the Department's ranking by several places.

13. The Irish and Welsh departments have been excluded from this calculation. 14. Comparison with the distribution of departments in the United States offering quantita

tive methods courses at Ph.D level in 1958, 1961 and 1965 (Lavalle et al., 1967, pp. 426-27) suggests that early adopters may have been less concentrated in one part of the country in the United States than is the case in Britain.

15. The use of a Cambridge-Bristol axis as a datum from which to measure distances obviates the difficulty of having two innovation centres. The pattern of distance zones that results is similar to one based on the mean of the distances from Cambridge and Bristol.

16. Hagerstrand. T., 1952. The propagation of innovation waves. Lund Studies in Geography, Series B, 4, 13-17.

17. Spearman's Rank-Order Correlation Coefficients have been used throughout. Since the data have a highly skewed distribution and in some cases the relationships are curvilinear, the Pearson's Product Moment Correlation Coefficients are in all cases markedly lower.

18. For an analogous situation of an outsider adopting a household innovation in a remote

village long before the village itself is ready to adopt the innovation, see Pedersen, P. O., Innovation diffusion in urban systems (unpublished paper presented to the Seminar on Information Systems for Regional Development, Lund, October 1969), pp. 2-3.

19. Coleman, J. S., Katz, E. and Menzel, H., 1957. The diffusion of an innovation among

physicians. Sociometry 20, 253-70. 20. Hagerstrand, T., 1967. Innovation Diffusion as a Spatial Process. Chicago, 164. This is a

translation by A. Pred of Innovationsforloppet ur Korologisk Synpunkt, Lund (1953).




21. Meynen, E. (ed.), 1967. Orbis Geographicus 1964/66, Vol. 2. Geographers by Countries, Wiesbaden. Attention was confined to the UK and Ireland sections and thus excluded movements within the British Isles of geographers affiliated to departments outside the British Isles when the volume was compiled. Only movements up until 1965 are included and unfortunately contributors of quantitative papers in the Transactions are not sufficiently well documented to permit a study of their movements.

22. Departments with less than three in-migrations recorded in Orbis Geographicus 1964/66 were omitted.

23. A sixth, Southampton, was excluded since no examination papers were available for this department.

24. If movements from outside Britain are included (especially those resulting from temporary appointments abroad) the position is in some cases markedly altered (see Figure 4).

25. Hagerstrand, 1966, 40-2. 26. Bunge, W., 1961. The structure of contemporary American geographic research. Prof.

Geogr. 13, 19-23. 27. Coleman et al., 1957. 28. Tornqvist, G. and Gould, P. Information, innovation and acceptance (unpublished paper

presented to the Seminar on Information Systems for Regional Development. Lund, October 1969), p. 10.

29. T6rnqvist, G., 1969. Personkontakter och Lokalisering. Lund: Institutionen for kultur geografi och ekonomisk geografi, described in T6rnqvist and Gould (1969), 1-5.

Terms used in final-honours examination questions in 1969 and considered diagnostic of the 'new' geography. Some of the following terms have more than one usage and must therefore be assessed in the context of the question in which they occur. abstract linear graph analysis, accessibility surface, allometric growth, analogies, analogue models, analogues, analytical techniques, analysis of point patterns, applications of statistics, behavioural approach, behavioural geography, behavioural matrix, behavioural models, behavioural theory, causal inferences, central place models, central tendency, communications system, complementarity, component analysis, computer programming, com puters, concept of movement, concept of spatial equilibrium, conceptual models, confidence limits, connectivity, contiguity, correlation, correlation analysis, correlation techniques, cost surface, cumulative causation, data collection, data-processing technology, deductive base, deductive derivation, deductive models, deductive reasoning, deductive validity, density gradients, deterministic behaviour, deterministic models, deterministic processes, diffusion models, discontinuous data, ernpirical regularities, experimental design, factor analysis, factor-analytic approach, game-theoretic approach, game-theoretic techniques, general systems approach, general systems theory, geographic theory, geometrical form, geometrical regularities, geometrician, geometry, graph theory, gravity models, hier archically 'nested' orders, Hortonian type drainage net analysis, hypotheses, inductive inquiry, inductive validity, information system, input-output model, interaction models, intervening opportunity, land-use models, land-use theory, land-use transportation models, least cost, linear programming methods, linear regression, location models, location theories, locational analysis, logical systems, Lowry algorithm, marginal locations, markov chain models

markov chain process, markov chain techniques, mathematical equations, mathematical models, mathematical reasoning, mathematics, matrix-algebra format, mean information field, models, model-building, models of geo graphic space, Monte Carlo simulation, multifactor uniform regionalization, multiple correlation, multipliers,

multivariate techniques, nearest-neighbour analysis, negative exponential function, nested hierarchial arrangement, network analysis, new paradigm, non-parametric statistical techniques, normal distribution, normative analysis, normative location theories, operational gaming, operational problems, operational procedure, optimal behaviour, optimum flows, optimum locations, paradigm, parametric stability, planning models, point line and area sampling designs, prediction, predictive power, principal components analysis, quantification, quantify, quantitative analysis, quantitative approaches, quantitative human geography, quantitative revolution, quantitative techniques, random ness, randomly located samples, random sampling, regional scientist, regression, regression analysis, regression techniques, sample estimate, sampling, sampling design, sampling experiments, sampling scheme, set of spatially distributed point-data, sets of transport networks, simulation methods, simulation study, simulation techniques, spatial analysis, spatial behaviour, spatial concept, spatial satisficer, spatial system, static models, statistical analysis, statistical design, statistical formulae, statistical inferences, statistical methods, statistical models, statistical pro cesses, statistical quarry, statistical significance, statistical techniques, statistics, stochastic models, stochastic processes, stream geometry, systems, systems analysis, systems approach, systems of cities, take-off, the numbers game, theoretical concepts, theoretical models, theoretical underpinning, theories, theories of location, trend surface, trend-surface analysis, trend-surface mapping, 'unbiased' results, urban growth models, urban land-use

models, urban rent theory, urban system, variance, variance ratio.



Documents

Innovation Diffusion in an Academic Discipline: The Case of the 'New' Geography