Journal of Business Research 116 (2020) 535–541

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

An evolutionary perspective on adoption-diffusion theory T

Mario Gruber
King's College London, United Kingdom

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Innovations increasingly comprise combinations of different technologies, institutions, and user behaviors that
Adoption interdepend and co-evolve. Accordingly, extant adoption-diffusion theories – based on variance and process
Diffusion approaches – are increasingly limited in explaining or enabling understanding of the adoption and diffusion of
Radical radical, system-dependent innovations, such as electric mobility. Drawing on the multi-level perspective, an
Multi-level perspective
evolutionary system-approach theory, this article first identifies the limitations of extant adoption-diffusion
theories. It then uses this perspective to propose an understanding of innovation adoption and diffusion that
accounts for factors and developments beyond extant theories’ typical focus. In particular, it highlights the
evolutionary elements, such as co-evolution and whole system behavior, that should be considered for radical
innovations, whose adoption and diffusion depend on co-evolving user preferences, technology, and policy.
Overall, the article presents how the evolutionary perspective can enable researchers to better understand
adoption and diffusion and incorporate adaptations of theory in future research.

1. Introduction
Adoption-diffusion (AD) theories (e.g., Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw,
1989; Rogers, 2003; Venkatesh, Thong, & Xu, 2012) were constructed
to explain, predict, and understand the adoption and diffusion of in-
novations. Most prominently, researchers either follow a variance ap-
proach, aiming to build specific, parsimonious theory (Weber, 2012), or
formulate models to explain and predict diffusion (Peres, Muller, &
Mahajan, 2010). Typically, AD theories have been constructed in the
context of organizations and with respect to specific technologies or
focus on individuals’ adoption. However, scholars have increasingly
argued that AD theories need adapting to fit their context (Venkatesh,
Thong, & Xu, 2016). The term “context” is understood as “the sur-
roundings associated with phenomena which help to illuminate that
phenomena, typically factors associated with units of analysis above
those expressly under investigation” (Cappelli & Sherer, 1991, p. 56).
However, the usefulness and quality of AD theories depend on how well
their concepts reflect their studied phenomena, i.e., adoption and dif-
fusion (Burton-Jones, McLean, & Monod, 2015).
Extant theories are challenged by increasing complexity in their
contexts, as illustrated by radical innovations, such as in sustainability
and transport: e.g., electric mobility or shared autonomous electric
vehicles (Geels, Schwanen, Sorrell, Jenkins, & Sovacool, 2018; Sovacool
& Axsen, 2018). Radical innovations are radical in the sense that their
adoption and diffusion depend on the co-evolution and inter-
dependence of diverse elements, including technology and culture, user
behavior and skills, infrastructure, and regulation (Dijk, Kemp, &
Valkering, 2013; Kanger, Geels, Sovacool, & Schot, 2019). These in-
novations are embedded in a context of sociotechnical (ST) landscapes,
so their diffusion hinges on the development of complex systems, en-
tailing drastic technological and social change (Geels et al., 2018;
Kasmire, Korhonen, & Nikolic, 2012). This implies that the benefits of
radical innovations cannot be assumed static, but that they emerge over
time, limiting the ability of the variance approach to describe those
benefits and thus explain or predict individual adoption.
This article posits that for radical innovations research needs not
only statistically relevant measurements of AD factors or processes but
also an understanding of on-going, multi-faceted change, emergence of
properties, and system-specific influences (Burton-Jones et al., 2015;
Mignon & Bergek, 2016). Recent calls to extend the context of AD re-
search (e.g., Venkatesh et al., 2016) or to integrate more advanced
process and system approaches are still mostly confined to information
systems (Ortiz de Guinea & Webster, 2017). Meanwhile, related fields
such as markets and consumer research have recently called for the
advancement of process and system perspectives: they advocate moving
beyond set assumptions and static, linear conceptualizations to study
iterative interactions, struggles, conflicts, and system-specific patterns
of change (Giesler & Thompson, 2016; Vargo et al., 2017).
This article draws on the multi-level perspective (MLP) (Geels,
2005) – a system approach allowing researchers to build theory on
micro, meso, and macro levels of analysis – as a fitting system per-
spective to analyze how AD theory is limited and might be adapted with

E-mail address: Mario.Gruber@kcl.ac.uk.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.02.024
Received 27 November 2018; Received in revised form 10 February 2020; Accepted 14 February 2020
Available online 14 March 2020
0148-2963/ © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
M. Gruber
respect to radical innovations. In particular, it uses the MLP to con-
ceptualize the interdependence and reciprocal interactions on these
three levels that form the co-evolution and diffusion of radical in-
novations (Geels & Johnson, 2018). Furthermore, this article shows
how AD theory could benefit from more qualitative research in order to
capture complexities, rather than reducing them.
Recent literature on adoption and diffusion using ST approaches
(e.g., Geels & Johnson, 2018; Kanger et al., 2019; Sovacool, 2017) has
contrasted the two theoretical fields, but no prior study has reported in
detail how the MLP can benefit AD research.
Radical innovations such as in sustainability are critical to solving
climate change (Geels et al., 2018), while the potential value of shared
autonomous vehicles has been estimated at potentially trillions of
dollars per year (Fagnant & Kockelman, 2015). However, radical sus-
tainability and transport innovations ultimately depend on adoption by
end users. This article attempts to answer recent calls to adapt AD
theory, particularly for radical innovations, and so makes important
theoretical and practical contributions.
This article is structured as follows. Sections 2–4 present the con-
stituent elements and theoretical approaches of AD theory, as well as
key ST approaches. Section 5 then highlights the limitations of extant
AD theory based on the traits of its approaches, as well as potential
improvements from the evolutionary ST perspective. Finally, section 6
presents suggestions for how future research in the AD field can be
adapted.
2. The limitations of the factor approach in AD theory
Variance (or factor) theories in AD research follow a reductionist
philosophy and, thus, aim to summarize myriad factors as independent
variables to explain or predict individuals’ adoption behavior with high
statistical precision and parsimony (Burton-Jones et al., 2015; Weber,
2012). However, lacking the time dimension, factor-approach theories
can be understood as a “snapshot of a situation,” thus limiting re-
searchers’ understanding of how and why adoption and diffusion occur
(Ortiz de Guinea & Webster, 2017, p. 150). Moreover, variance theories
have been criticized for potentially producing overly deterministic
constructs and overly linear and mechanistic relationships, both in-
sufficiently reflective of real-world phenomena to explain, predict, and
understand adoption in some cases (Burton-Jones et al., 2015; Ortiz de
Guinea & Webster, 2017). For example, while the concepts of variance
theories can change in value (e.g., from high to low), their meanings
cannot change, which limits researchers’ understanding of how things
emerge or change (Langley, Smallman, Tsoukas, & Van de Ven, 2013).
Lastly, in cases where many enablers and barriers need to be accounted
for, the number of factors needed to accurately explain adoption can
become “theoretically bewildering” and contradictory (Shove, 2010, p.
1277).
Venkatesh et al. (2016) suggested that future research should better
contextualize by introducing a multi-level framework with micro, meso,
and macro levels of analysis, as well as introducing a “time attribute” to
distinguish between adoption, initial use, and post-adoptive use.
However, the limitations of the variance approach largely remain, and
will be elaborated in Section 5.
3. Towards better process approaches in adoption and diffusion
The process approach, focusing on “how” and “why” innovations
are adopted or diffused, allows researchers to identify sequences of
critical events: e.g., adopters being persuaded by innovation-specific
information or by a certain price-performance ratio (Montalvo & Kemp,
2008). However, when innovations and adopters cannot be assumed
stable but change simultaneously, rather than sequentially, a process
approach may be too linear or deterministic (Lyytinen & Damsgaard,
2001). For example, albeit in an organizational context, Makkonen,
Johnston, and Javalgi (2016) conceptualized adoption not as a final
536
Journal of Business Research 116 (2020) 535–541
choice but as on-going behavior and activities, such as iteratively
learning and adapting needs. As these limitations are critical for radical
innovations due to their dependence on contextual developments of the
complex systems in which they are embedded, research can benefit
from incorporating more process approaches (Hojnik & Ruzzier, 2016).
The behavior of complex systems changes and emerges as the out-
come of many interacting components, whereby the whole is greater
than the sum of its parts (Mitchell, 2009). Scholars have suggested
applying a system approach to AD theory in order to incorporate system
effects and multi-dimensional interactions between parts and wholes
(Burton-Jones et al., 2015). For example, radical innovations require
researchers to understand not only adoption behavior or aggregate at-
titudes (i.e., the parts) but also how the system (i.e., the whole) of
transport industry, infrastructure, culture, and policy, affect behavior,
and vice versa (Geels, 2018).
It is also important to note that diffusion research, despite including
the time dimension, often still focuses on producing factors rather than
processes. This is exemplified by an international review of diffusion
models for electric vehicles (Gnann et al., 2018): these models most
commonly aim to forecast diffusion or identify its most important fac-
tors, such as charging infrastructure or policy incentives.
4. The evolutionary perspective on radical innovations
Researchers of system transitions argue that neoclassical economic
assumptions of stable factors, rational actors, or complete information
may produce oversimplified conceptualizations, especially for radical
innovations: for instance, the view that social acceptance will occur if
an innovation is better than alternatives (Geels et al., 2018).
By contrast, evolutionary economics understands outcomes as re-
sulting from the cumulative effects of multiple factors, events, and
choices (which are often unpredictable and unconscious) that reinforce
one another towards a shared direction or trajectory (Nelson & Winter,
1982; Williams & Edge, 1996). The resulting path dependence (Arthur,
1988) implies that transport infrastructure, investments, laws, and
consumer preferences lay the tracks for many future developments and
thus favor incremental innovation (Whitmarsh, 2012). While AD
scholars have previously emphasized the importance of evolutionary
elements, they have still only incorporated these concepts according to
the variance approach (Fichter & Clausen, 2016), leaving evolutionary
perspectives underexplored in AD theory.
4.1. The ST approach to studying the diffusion of radical innovations
The ST approach is used to study and theorize change in and the
stability of sociotechnical systems, i.e., combinations of elements such
as technology, behavior, regulation and infrastructure that satisfy a
societal function (e.g., transport; Kanger & Schot, 2016). Change and
stability refer to the alignment of sociotechnical elements in a system
(i.e., the whole), of which adoption and diffusion can be considered
parts or sub-phenomena (Geels et al., 2018).
A central theory in the ST field is the MLP (Geels, 2005; Rip & Kemp,
1998), which is used to study processes and patterns of system transi-
tions and radical, system innovations within them (e.g., from horse-
drawn carriages to automobiles) on three different analytical levels.
First, at the macro level, the so-called sociotechnical landscape sum-
marizes factors external to an innovation or its industry, and the macro
(economic, technological, and social) trends establishing “gradients of
force” that make certain developments or actions more likely than
others (Geels & Schot, 2007, p. 403): examples include rising pro-en-
vironmentalism among the public or the improvement of battery
technology.
Second, at the meso level is the sociotechnical regime where tech-
nologies, user preferences, practices, institutions, and regulations col-
lectively form a stable functioning whole: e.g., the current regime of the
privately-owned internal combustion engine vehicle (Geels, 2005;
M. Gruber
Kanger et al., 2019; Schot, Kanger, & Verbong, 2016). Where path de-
pendence and lock-in preserve high regime stability, drastic social and
technological change are needed for radical innovations to become
diffused: individuals are much less likely to adopt radical innovations in
stable regimes (Geels et al., 2016; Schot et al., 2016; Whitmarsh, 2012).
Lastly, at the micro level is the sociotechnical niche where socio-
technical elements such as user preferences or practices and technolo-
gies are not aligned but co-evolve (Geels, 2005). Radical innovations’
benefits accumulate, or increasingly become perceived as beneficial, as
firms increase investments, experiment and learn about adaptations, as
infrastructure and regulation are established and as legitimization
among potential users increases (Kanger et al., 2019; Schot & Geels,
2008; Schot et al., 2016).
As a system approach, the MLP allows researchers to investigate
multi-dimensional interactions, such as feedback mechanisms, e.g.,
enthusiastic users providing legitimacy or political support for radical
innovations, and conflicts between actors (Geels, 2010; Roberts &
Geels, 2019; Smith & Raven, 2012). Similarly, the MLP provides a lens
to study how landscape pressures destabilize regimes and create win-
dows of opportunity for actors to increase the momentum of niches
(Figenbaum, 2017). Researchers using ST approaches such as the MLP
typically apply qualitative research methods – particularly case studies
– to capture complexities in rich narratives, rather than reducing them
(Flyvbjerg, 2006; Geels et al., 2018; Tyfield, Ely, & Geall, 2015).
Recently, some researchers have discussed applying ST approaches
to study adoption and diffusion or contrasted them with AD theory
(Geels et al., 2018; Mignon & Bergek, 2016; Sovacool & Hess, 2017;
Sovacool, 2017); others have applied them to analyze the diffusion of
radical innovations, such as sustainable energy systems (Geels &
Johnson, 2018) and electric mobility (Kanger et al., 2019). However, no
prior research has considered how ST approaches, such as the MLP, can
be used to adapt AD theory. The next section builds on and advances
the existing literature by contrasting in detail AD- and ST-specific
concepts.
5. Towards potential adaptations of AD theory for radical
innovations
5.1. Context adaptations
One category of limitations stems from the static assumptions about
the elements comprising the context of AD theories. Rather than a
single technology, an innovation can often be better understood, from a
more systemic view, as multiple, complementary technologies in com-
bination with changing user practices (Kanger & Schot, 2016). In the
illustrative case of electric mobility, this would include not only electric
vehicles but also apps and new transport behaviors such as sharing
(Sovacool, Noel, & Orsato, 2017). Regarding “adopters,” the ST ap-
proach allows researchers to capture their role beyond that of pur-
chasers or even prosumers (Schot et al., 2016), identifying how they co-
construct innovations or influence other dimensions in the system, such
as policy, industry, or culture (Geels & Johnson, 2018; Kanger et al.,
2019), e.g., by legitimizing electric vehicles. Rather than studying
“adoption” as decisions or one-time events, ST approaches investigate
behaviors multi-dimensionally as patterns of practices, meanings, and
skills constrained by the regime stability formed by technologies, in-
frastructure or regulations (Kanger & Schot, 2016; Shove, Pantzar, &
Watson, 2012; Tyfield et al., 2015).
5.2. Theoretical approach adaptations
Based on the limitations regarding the context of AD theories, an-
other category of limitations stems from the inherent inability of typical
AD theories to capture the full extent of multi-dimensionality, dynamics
and interactions in the contexts necessary for radical innovations, i.e.,
sociotechnical systems. Here, we can draw on the evolutionary system
537
Journal of Business Research 116 (2020) 535–541
approach of ST theory as a lens to understand how and why AD factors
and processes emerge, change, and lead to adoption and diffusion. More
specifically, these interactions occur at all levels of the MLP and in four
broad dimensions (i.e., parts of the system): (a) the users (adopters and
user groups), (b) policy (including regulations and politicians), (c) in-
dustry (firms and infrastructure), and (d) culture (society) (Kanger
et al., 2019; Mylan, Morris, Beech, & Geels, 2019).
Adoption factors, explaining and predicting adoption by individuals
at the micro level of analysis, can be better understood by studying the
events and interactions in the system that lead to their emergence
(Burton-Jones et al., 2015). For example, a radical innovation’s (per-
ceived) benefits (i.e., “performance expectancy”; Venkatesh et al.,
2012) are not static, but change and emerge through events, activities,
and opposing forces in the niche, regime, and the landscape (Kanger
et al., 2019; Mylan et al., 2019). In the illustrative case of electric ve-
hicles, benefits crucially depend, for example, on support in the policy
dimension, such as tax breaks (Dijk, Weels, & Kemp, 2016). However,
without a landscape pressure on the regime to break institutional or
political lock-in, such as through growing cultural support for climate
change intervention, tax breaks may not be introduced (Raven, Kern,
Verhees, & Smith, 2016; Roberts & Geels, 2019). Using this system
approach, any factor – e.g., a driver for or barrier to adoption – could
therefore be conceptualized as a trigger of positive and negative in-
teractions or feedback mechanisms that support or oppose the adoption
or diffusion of a radical innovation (Dijk et al., 2016). It is, therefore,
critical to consider how the ST approach can be used for con-
textualization, i.e., to ensure the context is sufficiently conceptualized
to study the adoption and diffusion of radical innovations.
Attempts by AD theorists to contextualize phenomena, such as the
multi-level framework by Venkatesh et al. (2016), thus directly contrast
with the MLP. For example, Venkatesh et al. (2016) suggest “environ-
mental attributes” to summarize macro-level contextual factors. How-
ever, landscapes “do not determine, but provide deep-structural ‘gra-
dients of force’” (Geels & Schot, 2007, p. 403) that allow researchers to
gain deeper understanding of how, for example, cultural or technolo-
gical developments affect the likelihood of a change in individuals’
behavior regarding adoption (Geels et al., 2018; Shove et al., 2012).
Potential adopters’ perceptions or preferences regarding, for ex-
ample, the benefits of a radical innovation cannot be assumed static as
they are not fully known ex-ante and also change over time (Schot
et al., 2016). As radical innovations carry no shared perceptions or
cultural meanings in their emergence, ST scholars draw on system-level
frames – i.e., collective sense-making that guides perceptions – to re-
duce the complexity of heterogenous consumer perceptions (Bergman,
2017; Geels & Verhees, 2011; Sovacool & Axsen, 2018). For example, as
people want cars that are safer and more functional, they tend to buy
bigger vehicles, thereby contradicting their own societal concerns over
the environment or oil dependence (Sovacool & Axsen, 2018). There-
fore, by studying frames and potential adopters’ internal perception
struggles, researchers can better understand how potential adopters
perceive innovations (Sovacool & Axsen, 2018).
Researchers have argued that typical diffusion processes can in-
troduce biases toward, for example, information and communication
(Straub, 2009) and that AD theory could benefit from including multi-
dimensional interactions instead of linear conceptualizations (Burton-
Jones et al., 2015). For instance, how potential users become persuaded
by a radical innovation depends not only on diffusion-specific processes
– i.e., the communication of information about a technology – but also
contextual, higher-level system developments (Geels et al., 2018). In-
stead of studying how individuals become persuaded, ST scholars in-
vestigate how innovations and their related niche changes attain
broader cultural legitimacy, i.e., persuading different relevant actors
and social groups that these changes are desirable (Kanger et al., 2019;
Schot et al., 2016). For radical innovations, potential adopters are not
simply persuaded in linear fashion; the legitimizing of radical innova-
tions and underlying cultural changes have to be understood as
M. Gruber
“contested processes” (Geels & Verhees, 2011, p. 910).
These changes thus occur as discursive struggles between the niche
and the regime, including industry coalitions, policy makers, user
groups, and other actors (Rosenbloom, Berton, & Meadowcroft, 2016).
Therefore, ST scholars study discourses (e.g., on the future of mobility)
and frames on specific topics (e.g., battery technology) relevant to ra-
dical innovations (Bergman, 2017; Sovacool & Hess, 2017). These
frames range from media to politics and technology, and unite different
stakeholders (Brown & Sovacool, 2017). For example, proponents of
sustainability in industry, media, politics, and the public understand it
as a solution for climate change, whereas opponents delegitimize such
innovations by arguing that batteries are environmentally harmful or
that tax subsidies are too expensive (Roberts, 2017; Rosenbloom et al.,
2016). Proponents also engage in creating positive discourses, visions,
and future expectations about the niche, aiming to further improve a
shared understanding and even enthusiasm that legitimize the radical
innovation and niche (Bergman, 2017; Geels & Verhees, 2011). In turn,
growing legitimacy and user adoption create a positive feedback me-
chanism and self-reinforcing patterns that increase investments in a
radical innovation and boost the niche’s political power, e.g., as firms’
lobbying positions are strengthened (Roberts & Geels, 2019). Hence, in
order to understand the communication process of diffusion and how
potential users become persuaded of radical innovations, researchers
need to consider the visions, discourses, and framing contests on the
MLP’s multiple levels of analysis.
Capturing such contradictions and discursive struggles is essential
as complex systems are socially constructed; accordingly, research ap-
proaches prioritizing single truths or attempting to reach closure should
be replaced by approaches incorporating different accounts of reality
and continuous change (Arthur, 2015; Ismail, 2015). This is crucial for
radical innovations as they are embedded in complex systems, such that
what constitutes a beneficial innovation is often contested and contra-
dictory. Human affairs are more open, soft, and probabilistic than sta-
tistical truth; since human affairs occur continuously and on multiple
levels of analysis, system approaches offer an alternative to variance
approaches or linear process approaches (Burton-Jones et al., 2015).
5.3. Limitations of the MLP
As this article focuses on adapting AD theory, particularly in the
context of radical innovations, care must be taken not to consider too
much of the “whole”, as the level of abstraction becomes higher when
taking the system perspective (Vargo et al., 2017). The conceptualiza-
tions of ST theories are, in fact, often metaphorical and coarse-grained,
rather than fine-grained and specific (Roberts & Geels, 2019). More-
over, the system approach has limitations in understanding specific
concepts and relationships that require the statistical precision offered
by the variance approach (Burton-Jones et al., 2015). Therefore, it is
important to preserve the advantages of AD theories. This raises the
question to what degree evolutionary elements – i.e., uncertainty,
multi-dimensional interactions, and co-evolution – should be added.
While the MLP offers a lens to study micro-contexts, e.g., particular
projects (Geels et al., 2016), it is not specialized for the demand side
alone (Shove et al., 2012). What must be identified are the patterns of
change regarding adoption and diffusion, rather than those behind
transitions of entire sociotechnical systems. Therefore, evolutionary
elements and system-perspective insights should be related to phe-
nomena of interest, such as why individuals “adopt” – become users of –
electric mobility or how electric vehicles develop perceived benefits
among potential users. Hence, the challenge for researchers lies in how
exactly to combine the different approaches and methodologies as well
as their advantages and disadvantages. The next (and final) section of
this article discusses several tentative suggestions for how to synthesize
the different approaches in future research, while Table 1 summarizes
the main strengths and limitations of the three different theoretical
approaches of AD theory with respect to radical innovations.
538
Journal of Business Research 116 (2020) 535–541
6. Synthesis: usefulness vs. complexity
6.1. Assessing research goals and benefits
How exactly to synthesize the AD and ST approaches depends on
researchers’ goals – i.e., explaining or understanding the diffusion of a
radical innovation – and theories’ ability to reflect phenomena in a
suitable manner for these goals. Therefore, researchers must balance
additional benefits against increased complexity (Burton-Jones et al.,
2015).
To guide such decisions, researchers – as well as managers and
policy makers – should recognize two main benefits of the evolutionary
system perspective using the MLP. First, it provides specialized con-
ceptualizations and rich narratives, enabling deeper understanding of
how radical innovations become adopted and diffused. Besides usefully
informing policy making or business strategy, this also facilitates ex-
plaining and predicting adoption, e.g., when “the basis of the ex-
planation is path dependence” (Ortiz de Guinea & Webster, 2017, p.
149). Second, researchers can benefit from the ST approach by using it
as a lens to guide potential adaptations to AD theory. However, they
must also consider to what degree additional complexity and abstrac-
tion should be included. The following subsection offers guidance for
decisions about adapting AD theory in future research.
6.2. Suggestions for future research
6.2.1. Methodological adaptations
This article suggests future research to build new theory through a
system perspective that views adoption and diffusion of radical in-
novations as configurations of micro-, meso-, and macro-level elements,
and allows exploration of how these elements align and interact.
Repeating configurations of relationships between multiple elements
constitute patterns, e.g., patterns of diffusion or feedback cycles (Geels,
2005; Montalvo & Kemp, 2008). Incorporating a system perspective
does, however, require researchers to make methodological changes,
such as moving from measuring co-variance and sequential processes to
mapping patterns (Gleick, 1987; Vargo et al., 2017). Future research
could draw on research methods typically used in ST approaches, such
as qualitative exploratory and explanatory methods with single or
multiple cases as units of analysis. Case studies are particularly useful to
study complex phenomena dependent on their real-world contexts (Yin,
2017), such as the adoption and diffusion of radical innovations as
explained in sections 1 and 5. For example, researchers using the MLP
commonly analyze documents – e.g., parliamentary decisions and white
papers, historical or contemporary news articles (Figenbaum, 2017) –
but also conduct and analyze in-depth interviews with experts and key
actors (Nykvist & Nilsson, 2015), providing rich and varied data to
build theory with reliability and validity (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007;
Yin, 2017).
As a key strength of extant AD theory lies in measuring AD factors
with high statistical accuracy, such factors could be used to establish
focus on phenomena of interest and thus reduce the complexity and
abstraction inherent in the MLP. As Geels and Verhees (2011, p. 916)
pointed out, “the aim is not to ‘tell the story as it really was’ but to have
a ‘more selective analytical focus’”. MLP-based studies frequently also
use quantitative data, for example to identify tipping points or as
temporal backbones (Roberts & Geels, 2019).
However, while AD and ST theories have been combined (e.g.,
Sovacool, 2017), more research is necessary to blend the different ap-
proaches’ respective advantages and to overcome their disadvantages
(Ortiz de Guinea & Webster, 2017). The following subsection suggests
key research questions that combine the approaches’ strengths and
focus on adoption and diffusion related phenomena.
6.2.2. Research questions
Researchers can use the system perspective of the MLP to “zoom
M. Gruber
out” of the context of individual adopters and micro phenomena (i.e.,
parts) in order to understand higher-level influences at the system-level
(i.e., the whole). Hence, a key future research question is: How do
system-level phenomena affect micro-level phenomena regarding the adop-
tion or diffusion of radical innovations?
The system perspective can also provide deeper understanding of
AD-specific factors, such as “perceived benefits” and “facilitating fac-
tors.” Future research could, for example, investigate how culture,
policy, and industry affect adoption factors of electric vehicles, such as
range, charging infrastructure, and other perceived range issues com-
monly synopsized as “range anxiety.” Research shows that the majority
of people drive less than 20 km a day (Sovacool, Kester, Noel, &
Zarazua de Rubens, 2018, p. 90), but also indicate that the peak of
potential adopters’ willingness to pay for range is at around 150 km
(Noel et al., 2019) and, similarly, that above a range of 200 miles more
than half of potential users consider buying an electric vehicle (Beard
et al., 2019). This could imply that while people would buy or use
electric vehicles with a lower range compared to conventional vehicles,
and therefore a considerably lower purchase price, most manufacturers
would prioritize shorter ranges. Similarly, studies suggest that the vast
majority of people currently charge their electric vehicles at home
(Figenbaum, 2018), yet some manufacturers (e.g., Tesla) argue that
rapid chargers are a priority (Tesla Inc., 2018). Researchers could, thus,
use the MLP to explore how different approaches by industry or policy
regarding range (e.g., shorter vs. longer range in the same price class)
or charging (e.g., slow or fast), as well as shared cultural meanings
(frames) of automobility affect potential adopters’ range anxiety and
ultimately their adoption or use of electric vehicles. This raises another
question for future research: How do system-level influences affect micro-
level adoption or diffusion factors?
By capturing, rather than reducing, complexities in narratives, re-
searchers can investigate the framing struggles, motivations, and
choices of different actors, as well as contradictions in patterns of
change (Langley et al., 2013), in order to gain a deeper understanding
of, for example, AD-specific events. For example, to better understand
why policy or industry choose different actions to support or oppose a
radical innovation, future research should raise the question: Why do
different adoption-diffusion relevant phenomena at the system-level occur?
The system perspective could also be used in order to study how
increasing diffusion affects other elements in the system, such as how
enthusiasm and cultural legitimacy form around specific innovation
features and provide a feedback mechanism for culture, industry, and
policy. This raises the question: How do micro-level developments affect
system-level phenomena?
Scholars could use longitudinal research methods to investigate how
properties or phenomena evolve in changing contexts and different
time periods. For example, they could explore how a radical innova-
tion’s perceived benefits emerge or change over time, and in co-evo-
lution with the context (i.e., its system). Using the MLP could, therefore,
help to answer: How do properties emerge and change over time?
By studying adoption and diffusion as configurations and how
micro-level elements align or interact with system-level elements (e.g.,
innovation characteristics and landscape trends or opportunities), re-
searchers could conceptualize AD-specific alignment patterns. This
prompts a suggestion for future research to explore: What are the
alignment patterns for adoption and diffusion? The alignment of critical
elements can increase momentum of niches and lead to accelerated
diffusion (Roberts & Geels, 2019; Kester, Noel, Zarazua de Rubens, &
Appendix A
See Table 1.
539
Journal of Business Research 116 (2020) 535–541
Sovacool, 2018). Hence, a final, tentative suggestion for future research
is to investigate the question: What alignment patterns lead to accelerated
diffusion rates?
7. Conclusion
This article presents an evolutionary perspective on AD theory and
suggests how the MLP – an evolutionary system perspective – can
provide a deeper understanding of adoption and diffusion, as well as
facilitate the adaptation of AD theory for radical innovations (e.g.,
electric mobility). Typical AD theories, which explain or predict
adoption or diffusion through factors (e.g., range anxiety) or sequences
of critical events (e.g., learning about an innovation’s benefits), are
increasingly challenged in the context of radical innovations. The
adoption or diffusion of radical innovations depend on a broader con-
text, i.e., a complex system where socio-technical elements ranging
from technology, culture and user preferences to policy and industry co-
evolve.
This article suggests that the MLP provides a useful lens to con-
textualize the phenomena of radical innovations’ adoption and diffu-
sion by transcending taken-for-granted assumptions, static factors, and
linear processes, and incorporating multi-dimensional interactions. For
example, macro-level landscape pressures, such as growing public
support for environmentalism, can destabilize meso-level regime stabi-
lity, such as political or cultural support for internal combustion engine
vehicles. Adoption-specific factors, e.g., the “perceived benefits” of ra-
dical innovations, emerge and change over time, and are thus influ-
enced by higher-level interactions in culture, policy, and industry.
System-level phenomena, such as changes in policy, can also be influ-
enced, in turn, by the feedback mechanisms of increasing diffusion and
cultural legitimacy of an innovation. Studying adoption and diffusion as
configurations of co-evolving multi-dimensional elements requires
methodological changes, for example from measuring co-variances to
mapping patterns. Furthermore, by case-studying the adoption and
diffusion of radical innovations, researchers could gain more in-depth
understanding, as rich narratives reveal not only single truths but also
the contradictions and struggles of different actors – capturing, rather
than reducing, complexities.
This article hence advances the literature in several crucial ways.
First, it answers recent calls by AD theorists to use a system approach by
showing how the MLP can be used as a lens to study adoption and
diffusion (Burton-Jones et al., 2015; Ortiz de Guinea & Webster, 2017).
Second, while scholars have previously used ST approaches to study
adoption and diffusion (e.g., Kanger et al., 2019), and combined both
approaches (e.g., Sovacool, 2017), this article specifically compared
key concepts and traits of the respective approaches to discuss in detail
how extant AD theory can be adapted for radical innovations. Third,
this article illustrates how adoption and diffusion can be conceptualized
as configurations of micro-, meso-, and macro-level elements, and
suggests several research questions to guide future explorations of the
patterns of adoption and diffusion of radical innovations. For example,
identifying the patterns of feedback mechanisms, breakthroughs, or
accelerators for diffusion would be useful to researchers, firms, and
policy makers. Finally, this article offers suggestions for combining
theoretical approaches of extant AD and ST theory, and recommends
suitable research methods, such as exploratory case studies to construct
new theory.
M. Gruber
Table 1
Strengths and limitations of the three core approaches to the adoption and diffusion of radical innovations.
Theory Strengths
Adoption-diffusion (AD) Specific contexts that enable the construction of theory focused on
theory adoption and diffusion.
Parsimony (simplicity) and high specificity of theory.
Factor approach in AD High variance and strength of prediction of individuals’ adoption or
theory rates of diffusion.
Process approach in AD Understanding how adoption and diffusion occur over time; modeling
theory growth curves and forecasting; identifying important events and
sequences in adoption and diffusion processes.
System-approach multi- Ability to include evolutionary elements such as uncertainty,
level perspective cumulative change, interdependence, and co-evolution of elements.
Allows capturing contextual factors and processes and structuring them
on multiple levels of analysis.
Building narratives that capture evolutionary elements, contextual
factors and processes, as well as interactions and contradictions,
enabling realistic understanding of adoption and diffusion for radical
innovations.
Useful for AD cases of radical innovations and where system effects
must be considered.
References
Arthur, W. B. (1988). Competing technologies: An overview. In G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R.
Nelson, G. Silverberg, & L. Soete (Eds.). Technical change and economic theory (pp.
590–607). London: Pinter.
Arthur, W. B. (2015). Complexity and the economy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Beard, G., Durrell, L., Kent, J., Skippon, S., Kinnear, N., Al-Katib, H., & Anable, J. (2019).
Consumer uptake trial report: Mainstream consumers’ attitudes and willingness to adopt
BEVs and PHEVs. Transport Research Laboratory.
Bergman, N. (2017). Stories of the future: Personal mobility innovation in the United
Kingdom. Energy Research & Social Science, 31, 184–193.
Brown, G., & Sovacool, B. K. (2017). The presidential politics of climate discourse: Energy
frames, policy, and political tactics from the 2016 Primaries in the United States.
Energy Policy, 111, 127–136.
Burton-Jones, A., McLean, E. R., & Monod, E. (2015). Theoretical perspectives in IS re-
search: From variance and process to conceptual latitude and conceptual fit. European
Journal of Information Systems, 24, 664–679.
Cappelli, P., & Sherer, P. D. (1991) The missing role of context in OB: The need for a
meso-level approach. In L. L. Cummings, & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organi-
zation behavior (Vol. 33, pp. 55–110).
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer
technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8),
982–1003.
Dijk, P., Wells, & Kemp, R. (2016). Will the momentum of the electric car last? Testing an
hypothesis on disruptive innovation. Technological Forecasting & Social Change,
105, 77–78.
Dijk, M., Kemp, R., & Valkering, P. (2013). Incorporating social context and co-evolution
in an innovation diffusion model – with an application to cleaner vehicles. Journal of
Evolutionary Economics, 23, 295–329.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities
and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.
Fagnant, D. J., & Kockelman, K. (2015). Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles:
Opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations. Transportation Research Part A:
Policy and Practice, 77, 167–181.
Fichter, K., & Clausen, J. (2016). Diffusion dynamics of sustainable innovation – insights
on diffusion patterns based on the analysis of 100 sustainable product and service
innovations. Journal of Innovation Management, 4, 30–67.
Figenbaum, E. (2017). Perspectives on Norway’s supercharged electric vehicle policy.
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 25, 14–34.
Figenbaum, E. (2018). Electromobility status in Norway. TØI-rapport 1627/2018.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case study research. Qualitative
Inquiry, 12, 219–245.
Geels, F. W. (2005). The dynamics of transitions in socio-technical systems: A multi- level
analysis of the transition pathway from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles
(1860–1930). Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 17(4), 445–476.
Geels, F. W. (2010). Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the
multi-level perspective. Research Policy, 39, 495–510.
Geels, F. W. (2018). Disruption and low-carbon system transformation: Progress and new
540
Journal of Business Research 116 (2020) 535–541
Limitations
Set assumptions in one context might be too specific to build useful
theory for adoption or diffusion cases affected by factors or processes
outside that context.
Extensions and contextualizations are needed for different, broader
contexts.
Potential biases on information, communication, rational choice, or
superiority of innovations.
Static concepts and deterministic relationships in variance models risk
overlooking contextual system influences. No time dimension, so no
understanding of how independent factors lead to dependent factors;
how factors arise; how they affect each other; how they are affected by
events; or when they are important.
Sequence of events is often too linear, i.e. cannot account for iterations
and interactions at multiple levels of analysis.
Some measurements are not possible as properties emerge or depend on
complex systems.
Danger of considering too many factors and processes outside the
relevant context.
challenges in socio-technical transitions research and the Multi-Level Perspective.
Energy Research & Social Science, 37, 224–231.
Geels, F. W., Kern, F., Fuchs, G., Hinderer, N., Kungl, G., Mylan, J., …, Wassermann, S.
(2016). The enactment of socio-technical transition pathways: a reformulated ty-
pology and a comparative multi-level analysis of the German and UK low-carbon
electricity transitions (1990–2014) Research Policy, 45, 896–913.
Geels, F. W., & Johnson, V. (2018). Towards a modular and temporal understanding of
system diffusion: Adoption models and socio-technical theories applied to Austrian
biomass district-heating (1979–2013). Energy Research & Social Science, 38, 138–153.
Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research
Policy, 36(3), 399–417.
Geels, F. W., Schwanen, T., Sorrell, S., Jenkins, K., & Sovacool, B. K. (2018). Reducing
energy demand through low carbon innovation: A sociotechnical transitions per-
spective and thirteen research debates. Energy Research & Social Science, 40, 23–35.
Geels, F. W., & Verhees, B. (2011). Cultural legitimacy and framing struggles in in-
novation journeys: A cultural-performative perspective and a case study of Dutch
nuclear energy (1945–1986). Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 78(6),
910–930.
Giesler, M., & Thompson, C. J. (2016). Process Theorization in Cultural Consumer
Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(4), 497–508.
Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Penguin.
Gnann, T., Stephens, T. S., Lin, Z., Plötz, P., Liu, C., & Brokate, J. (2018). What drives the
market for plug-in electric vehicles? - A review of international PEV market diffusion
models. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 93, 158–164.
Hojnik, J., & Ruzzier, M. (2016). What drives eco-innovation? A review of an emerging
literature. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 19, 31–41.
Ismail, A. (2015). A review of theoretical approaches on diffusion analysis: Discussing
issues involved in the adoption of ICT services in a complex socio-economic context.
Australian Journal of Sustainable Business and Society, 1(1), 97–108.
Kanger, L., Geels, F., Sovacool, B. K., & Schot, J. W. (2019). Technological diffusion as a
process of societal embedding: Lessons from historical automobile transitions for
future of electric mobility. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment,
71, 47–66.
Kanger, L., & Schot, J. (2016). User-made immobilities: A transitions perspective.
Mobilities, 11(4), 598–613.
Kasmire, J., Korhonen, J. M., & Nikolic, I. (2012). How radical is a radical innovation? An
outline for a computational approach. Energy Procedia, 20, 346–353.
Kester, J., Noel, L., Zarazua de Rubens, G., & Sovacool, B. K. (2018). Policy mechanisms to
accelerate electric vehicle adoption: A qualitative review from the Nordic region.
Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 94, 719–731.
Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Process studies of
change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow.
Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 1–13.
Lyytinen, K., & Damsgaard, J. (2001). What’s wrong with the diffusion of innovation
theory? In M. A. Ardis, & B. L. Marcolin (Eds.). Diffusing software product and process
innovations (pp. 173–190). New York: Springer.
Makkonen, H., Johnston, W. J., & Javalgi, R. G. (2016). A behavioral approach to or-
ganizational innovation adoption. Journal of Business Research, 69(7), 2480–2489.
Mignon, I., & Bergek, A. (2016). System- and actor-level challenges for diffusion of
M. Gruber
renewable electricity technologies: An international comparison. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 128, 105–115.
Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: A guided tour. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Montalvo, C., & Kemp, R. (2008). Cleaner technology diffusion: Case studies, modeling
and policy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(Supplement 1), 1–6.
Mylan, J., Morris, C., Beech, E., & Geels, F. W. (2019). Rage against the regime: Niche-
regime interactions in the societal embedding of plant-based milk. Environmental
Innovation and Societal Transitions, 31, 233–247.
Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Noel, L. D., Carrone, A. P., Jensen, A. F., Zarazua de Rubens, G., Kester, J., & Sovacool, B.
K. (2019). Willingness to pay for electric vehicles and vehicle-to-grid applications: A
Nordic choice experiment. Energy Economics, 78, 525–534.
Nykvist, B., & Nilsson, M. (2015). The EV paradox—A multilevel study of why Stockholm
is not a leader in electric vehicles. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions,
14, 26–44.
Ortiz de Guinea, A. O., & Webster, J. (2017). Combining variance and process in in-
formation systems research: Hybrid approaches. Information and Organization, 27(3),
144–162.
Peres, R., Muller, E., & Mahajan, V. (2010). Innovation diffusion and new product growth
models: A critical review and research directions. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 27(2), 91–106.
Raven, R., Kern, F., Verhees, B., & Smith, A. (2016). Niche construction and empower-
ment through socio-political work. A meta-analysis of six low-carbon technology
cases. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 18, 164–180.
Rip, A., & Kemp, R. (1998). Technological change. In: S. Rayner, & E. L. Malone (Eds.),
Human choice and climate change (Vol. 2, pp. 327–399). Columbus, Ohio: Battelle
Press.
Roberts, C. (2017). Discursive destabilisation of socio-technical regimes: Negative
storylines and the decline of the American railroads. Energy Research and Social
Science, 31, 86–99.
Roberts, C., & Geels, F. W. (2019). Conditions for politically accelerated transitions:
Historical institutionalism, the multi-level perspective, and two historical case studies
in transport and agriculture. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 140,
221–240.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Rosenbloom, D., Berton, H., & Meadowcroft, J. (2016). Framing the sun: A discursive
approach to understanding multi-dimensional interactions within socio-technical
transitions through the case of solar electricity in Ontario, Canada. Research Policy,
45(6), 1275–1290.
Schot, J., & Geels, F. W. (2008). Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation
journeys: Theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technology Analysis &
Strategic Management, 20, 537–554.
Schot, J., Kanger, L., & Verbong, G. (2016). The roles of users in shaping transitions to
new energy systems. Nature Energy.
541
Journal of Business Research 116 (2020) 535–541
Shove, E. (2010). Beyond the ABC: Climate change policy and theories of social change.
Environment and Planning A, 42(6), 1273–1285.
Shove, E., Pantzar, M., & Watson, M. (2012). The dynamics of social practice: Everyday life
and how it changes. London: SAGE.
Smith, A., & Raven, R. P. J. M. (2012). What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in
transitions to sustainability. Research Policy, 41(6), 1025–1036.
Sovacool, B. K. (2017). Experts, theories, and electric mobility transitions: Toward an
integrated conceptual framework for the adoption of electric vehicles. Energy
Research & Social Science, 27, 78–95.
Sovacool, B. K., & Axsen, J. (2018). Functional, symbolic and societal frames for auto-
mobility: Implications for sustainability transitions. Transportation Research Part A:
Policy Practice, 730–746.
Sovacool, B., & Hess, D. J. (2017). Ordering theories: Typologies and conceptual frame-
works for sociotechnical change. Social Studies of Science, 47(5), 703–750.
Sovacool, B. K., Kester, J., Noel, L., & Zarazua de Rubens, G. (2018). The demographics of
decarbonizing transport: The influence of gender, education, occupation, age, and
household size on electric mobility preferences in the nordic region. Global
Environmental Change, 52, 86–100.
Sovacool, B. K., Noel, L., & Orsato, R. J. (2017). Stretching, embeddedness, and scripts in
a sociotechnical transition: Explaining the failure of electric mobility at better place
(2007–2013). Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 123, 24–34.
Straub, E. (2009). Understanding technology adoption: Theory and future directions for
informal learning. Review of Educational Research, 79, 625–649.
Tesla Inc. (2018). Annual report 2018. Available online at: https://www.sec.gov/
Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000156459019003165/tsla-10k_20181231.htm (ac-
cessed on 2 December 2019).
Tyfield, D., Ely, A., & Geall, A. (2015). Low carbon innovation in China: From overlooked
opportunities and challenges to transitions in power relations and practices.
Sustainable Development, 23(4), 206–216.
Vargo, S. L., Koskela-Huotari, K., Baron, S., Edvardsson, B., Reynoso, J., & Colurcio, M.
(2017). A systems perspective on markets–Toward a research agenda. Journal of
Business Research, 79, 260–268.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of in-
formation technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of tech-
nology. MIS Quarterly, 36, 157–178.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2016). Unified theory of acceptance and use of
technology: A synthesis and the road ahead. Journal of the Association for Information
Systems, 17(5), 328–376.
Weber, R. (2012). Evaluating and developing theories in the information systems dis-
cipline. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13(1), 2–30.
Whitmarsh, L. (2012). How useful is the Multi-Level Perspective for transport and sus-
tainability research? Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 483–487.
Williams, R., & Edge, D. (1996). The social shaping of technology. Research Policy, 25(6),
865–899.
Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage Publications.