Adoption as a process of negociation
Alvaro Pina Stranger 04/11/2026
Use the Listen button to hear the transcript. You can pause and resume the audio, and stop it at any time.
Note: You need to mute the video to hear the transcript in other languages instead of English or it will overlap with the video audio.
Please also keep in mind not all languages are supported by the TTS engine.
Beyond Rogers’ Linear Model
In 1876, Alexander Graham Bell invents the telephone. Western Union Telegraph Company refuses to buy the patent for 100,000 dollars, declaring: “This device has no value for us. The telephone is defective as a means of communication.” This anecdote, shocking in retrospect, illustrates that innovation is rarely obvious at the outset.
The classical view of adoption, inherited from Rogers, presents a linear process: an innovation appears, innovators adopt it, then early adopters, then the majority, then laggards. A simple S-curve.
This model is useful but too simple. It assumes that the innovation is stable and that one merely needs to convince successive groups. In reality, adoption is far more complex. It involves conflict and negotiation.
The Social Construction of Innovation
As Callon and Latour explain within the framework of actor-network theory, an innovation has no meaning in itself. Actors construct that meaning together.
Bell’s telephone is a good example. Twitter is another: designed as a micro-blogging tool, it became a real-time information network. Users transformed it.
Negotiation of Technical Standards
When multiple technologies compete, which one becomes the norm? The best does not always win. VHS beat Betamax in the 1980s, although Betamax was technically superior. JVC built better partnerships and a larger ecosystem.
Standards are as much political as they are technical. Their establishment results from power relations, strategic alliances, investments in compatibility and interoperability.
Negotiation of Usage Rules and Social Norms
Who can use the innovation? In what context? With what rules? These questions generate debates and regulation.
When the automobile appeared, many considered it dangerous and inappropriate for women. It took decades for driving to become a normal activity for all. The adoption of the automobile was not simply the purchase of a vehicle; it was the transformation of social norms relating to mobility, gender, and urban space.
Relevant Social Groups
Bijker (1995) developed the concept of relevant social groups to analyze the social construction of technologies. Each group possesses its own vision and its own interests. Adoption results from negotiation between these groups.
Designers want the innovation to spread according to their plan. They invest, lobby. But they do not control everything. Apple wanted a closed iPhone; hackers created jailbreak; Apple had to adapt and opened the App Store.
Users are active. They transform the innovation. SMS was first designed for technicians; teenagers made it a mass communication tool. Companies had to follow.
Interest groups resist when innovation threatens them. Taxis fought Uber. Hotels fought Airbnb. Doctors resisted telemedicine. This resistance defends economic interests and professional identities. Often, the result is a compromise.
Regulators also negotiate. Should they support innovation for competitiveness? Protect jobs? Defend consumers and the environment? These choices are political. The GDPR results from long negotiations among technology companies, governments, citizens, and activists.
Opinion leaders influence adoption. A doctor recommending a treatment. A YouTuber testing a product. A researcher validating a technique. Their voice matters. Companies negotiate with them to gain legitimacy.
Media and civil society shape the narrative. Is the innovation perceived as progress or a risk? This perception exercises a major influence. GMOs are a clear example: many scientists support them, yet they are rejected in several countries.
Arenas and Mechanisms of Negotiation
How does this negotiation unfold? Through controversies, standards, and experiments.
Public controversies expose tensions. Linky meters in France illustrate this: supporters speak of energy efficiency, opponents of data protection and health risks. These debates force adjustments.
Standardization bodies—ISO, IEEE, etc.—constitute formal arenas where companies, experts, and governments negotiate specifications. These decisions shape entire markets.
Experiments and pilot projects test innovations under real conditions. They reveal resistances and actual uses. They allow deployment to be adjusted. 5G is tested in several cities before large-scale deployment.
Compromises frequently appear. Innovations evolve to integrate demands. Electric cars added artificial sound for the safety of blind people. The final product becomes a hybrid solution.
Regulatory sandboxes constitute another tool. Innovators and regulators shape rules together, in real time.
A New Understanding of Innovation
Adoption is not a question of technical superiority. It is a social process. Different actors redefine what the innovation is, how it is used, and by whom.
This changes our understanding of innovation. Innovation is not a fixed object that spreads naturally. It is a dynamic and political process. It requires alliances, negotiation, adaptation, and legitimacy.
For innovators, this has practical consequences. Success depends on understanding the social ecosystem. Identifying key actors. Anticipating interests and resistances. Building alliances. And adapting the innovation throughout the process.
Innovation is not merely about technology. It is about sociology. It is the art of transforming an invention into a new social norm