In this paper I will show how social network analysis techniques can be used for understanding GIS diffusion at a national scale. In particular, two network models, cohesion and structural equivalence, are explored in the context of the emerging Greek GIS community. A map of this community based on GIS teams and linkages is put forward, and two social constructs, institutional setting and disciplinary background, are used to highlight the heterogeneous context within which GIS are embedded across a whole country. The findings suggest that specific actors such as the Greek ESRI vendor and relevant social groups such as the teams with a surveying engineering background take centre stage in the diffusion of GIS innovations in Greece in the early 1990s.
References
1.
AlbaR D, 1981, “Taking stock of network analysis: A decade's results”, in Perspectives in Organisation Research Ed. BacharachS B (JAI Press, Greenwich, CT) pp 39–74
2.
AssimakopoulosD G, 1997a, “GIS diffusion in Greece”, in Geographic Information Research Eds CragliaMCouclelisH (Taylor and Francis, London) pp 111–128
3.
AssimakopoulosD G, 1997b, “Social networks and GIS diffusion in Greece”, in Networks in Transport and Communications Eds CapineriCRietveldP (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants) pp 153–174
4.
AssimakopoulosD G, 1997c, “The emergence of the Greek GIS community”, in Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on GIS Research UKSchool of Geography, Leeds University, Leeds, pp 236–241
5.
AssimakopoulosD G, 1997dThe Greek GIS Community PhD thesis, Department of Town and Regional Planning, University of Sheffield, Sheffield
6.
BernardH RKillworthPKronenfeldDSailorL, 1984, “The problem of informant accuracy: The validity of retrospective data.”Annual Review of Anthropology13495–517
7.
BijkerW ELawJ (Eds), 1992Shaping Technology/Building Society (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
8.
BijkerW EHughesT PPinchT J (Eds), 1987The Social Construction of Technological Systems (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
9.
BorgattiSEverettM GFreemanL C, 1994UCINET IV, Version 1.61 (Analytic Technologies, Columbia, SC)
10.
BurtR S, 1987, “Social contagion and innovation: Cohesion versus structural equivalence”American Journal of Sociology921287–1335
11.
CallonM, 1993, “Variety and irreversibility in networks of technique conception and adoption”, in Technology and the Wealth of Nations Eds ForayDFreemanC (Pinter, London) pp 232–268
12.
HammersleyMAtkinsonP, 1983Ethnography: Principles in Practice (Tavistock Publications, London)
13.
KrackhardtDBlytheJMcGrathK, 1994, “KrackPlot: An improved network drawing programme”Connections1753–55
14.
LawJ, 1991, “Introduction: Monsters, machines and socio-technical relations”, in A Sociology of Monsters: Essays in Power, Technology, and Domination Ed. LawJ (Routledge, London) pp 1–23
15.
RogersE M, 1983Diffusion of Innovations3rd edition (The Free Press, New York)
16.
RogersE M, 1987, “Progress, problems and prospects for network research”Social Networks9285–310
17.
RogersE M, 1993, “The diffusion of innovations model”, in Diffusion and Use of Geographic Information Technologies Eds MasserIOnsrudH (Kluwer, Dordrecht) pp 9–24
18.
RogersE MKincaidD L, 1981Communication Networks: Toward a New Paradigm for Research (The Free Press, New York)
ValenteT W, 1995Network Models of the Diffusion of Innovations (Hampton Press, Creskill, NJ)
21.
WassermanSFaustK, 1994Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
22.
WellmanB, 1988, “Structural Analysis”, in Social Structures: A Network Approach Eds WellmanBBerkowitzS D (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp 19–61
