Premium
technical innovation in the New England fin‐fishing industry: an examination of the Downs and Mohr hypothesis
Author(s) -
ACHESON JAMES M.,
REIDMAN ROBERT
Publication year - 1982
Publication title -
american ethnologist
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.875
H-Index - 78
eISSN - 1548-1425
pISSN - 0094-0496
DOI - 10.1525/ae.1982.9.3.02a00060
Subject(s) - context (archaeology) , fishing , innovation diffusion , ethnography , early adopter , diffusion , marketing , economics , business , industrial organization , sociology , political science , geography , law , anthropology , archaeology , physics , thermodynamics
Studies of the diffusion of innovations have produced very inconsistent results. Downs and Mohr state that the problem lies in the way innovation is conceived and argue that the diffusion of innovations can only be understood by considering the match, or compatability, between the innovations and their potential adopters, and not by studying the innovations or adopters separately and out of context. Our study of the diffusion of 18 technical innovations in the New England fin‐fishery supports this viewpoint. Most of the data from our study make no sense except in terms of the Downs and Mohr hypothesis. We reach two conclusions: (1) there is no one group of fishermen who is more prone to adopt these innovations; and (2) the ethnography and a regression analysis indicate that innovations are adopted when they match the needs of the adopter. Downs and Mohr also recommend a methodology that leads to a general model of innovation. Our study indicates that their suggested methodology is flawed. [innovation, fishing, New England, diffusion, methodology]