The study was conducted in an accessible (village - 1l) and a remote village (village-2) of the North West Frontier Province in Pakistan.The main objectives were to examine the differential patterns of diffusion and adoption and the social and communication networks in the two villages.All the farmers present during the interview period (72 in accessible and 60 in remote village), were personally interviewed with the help of a pre-tested questionnaire in Urdu, during September-November 1981.Data was processed and analysed on a PDP-10 computer using relevant tests from a Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).Twelve innovations related to the High Yielding Varieties (HYV) of wheat were selected for testing individually and as a package. The findings are :1. Farmers in th.e accessible village became aware of HYV three years earlier (1967) than those in the remote village (1970).2. Some of the farmers in the accessible village adopted HYV in the same year as their first awareness, but it took two years after awareness for the early adopters to plant HYV in the remote village.3. On average, the time lag between awareness and adoption of HYV in the accessible village was 21 months, compared to 50 months in the remote village.4. Although farmers' rate of awareness in 1980 (14 years after first awareness) was the same (98%) in both villages, a significantly higher level of adoption, and a larger number of adopters (92%) of HYV was found in the accessible village than in the remote village (70%)5. Chemical fertilizer was adopted 10 years earlier in the accessible village (1960) than the remote village (1970). The level of fertilizer adoption and the number of fertilizer users was significantly higher in the accesssible village (97%) than the remote village (78%).6. Because of the lack of cash, fertilizer users were not consistent in their adoption behaviour and created a category of temporary adopters or non-adopters.7. No significant difference in the level of adoption or the number of adopters of seed treatment and weed control measures was found because of recent introduction of chemicals and frequent shortages. However, the number of herbicides users was greater (20%) in the accessible village than in the remote village (11%) .8. Total adoption of the package was significantly higher in the accessible village with the majority (86%) , having an adoption score of nine to 17 (mean 11. 4), as compared to the remote village with the majority (84%), having an adoption score of one to eight (mean 5.7). Overall, significantly more farmers adopted a larger number of practices from the package in the accessible village than in the remote village. ..................