- Air-L - lists.aoir.org

political participation and internet use
by KeithDoyon＠aol.com 19 Feb '03

19 Feb '03

> We're doing a follow-up email survey to tease out many of the finer > points of political participation and Internet use, and as we get > articles out, I'll be sure to keep you all posted. << i for one would love to hear more about the research project. ... i'd be curious to hear how your survey teases out less obvious intersections between the net and (___ fill in the blank). ... i'm thinking of folks who have used the net to gain knowledge not contained within mainstream media and the ways in which that knowledge may have influenced their participation in (___ again fill in the blanks). ... i'm thinking about how a number of folks, especially in the US, have used the net to discover that despite what the polls or media say, there is a strong and global (_____) movement growing and perhaps now's the time to join. >> Dear David and Gina, Thank you two very much for your exchanges. I am particularly interested in the application of the internet to the organization and proliferation of special-interest groups and I would sincerely appreciate being apprised of references to studies and work in the area. I do hope that you will consider keeping the group posted. And Gina, is there yet a reference to the research project of which you are a part? regards, Keith Doyon Colorado Springs

1 0

RE: [Air-l] terrorwar and the internet
by Gina Neff 19 Feb '03

19 Feb '03

Hi all, Actually, I'd like to disagree that "most of its because of the internet." I've been part of a research project studying the anti-globalization movement and the ways in which the movement has used the internet to organize demonstrations and mobilize participants. We randomly surveyed 1,500 anti-globalization protesters at five protests in three countries. We've found that only a little more than 15% reported hearing about the protest through the internet, compared to over 17% having heard about it through other media (including flyers, handbills, movement literature, etc as well as broadcast and print media). Participants in the anti-globalization protests were over twice as likely to report having heard about the protest from a social movement organization or from their friends and family than from the internet. Arguably, the anti-globalization protests are even more "run" on the internet compared to the peace movement, which has a much longer history of coalitions and cooperation among social movement organizations and church and community groups. Media reports to the contrary, old-fashioned organizing done through social movement organizations still plays a huge role in turning people out to protest, especially, we found, people traveling from out of town to large national and international protests. We're doing a follow-up email survey to tease out many of the finer points of political participation and Internet use, and as we get articles out, I'll be sure to keep you all posted. And a small point about what's getting circulated online: there has been an incredible amount of misinformation spreading on the internet about the war. How many wrong-headed petitions have been circulated by otherwise informed and engaged citizens? One stalwart of the New York left sent me the e-petition that was circulating that said the UN was collecting signatures. He said he believed it because someone he knew had sent it to him. In a very sad way, hoaxes like this one and the "25 members of Congress walked out" hoax reflect how online political engagement is not yet valued as a form of political participation. Best, Gina

2 1

February, 2003 AoIR Executive Committee Report
by Steve Jones 18 Feb '03

18 Feb '03

February 18, 2003 Report of the a(o).i.r. executive committee Prepared by Steve Jones AoIR Executive Committee President: Steve Jones Vice-President: Nancy Baym Secretary: Ulla Bunz Treasurer: Benjamin Bates Open Seats: David Silver and Barry Wellman Appointed Seats: Matthew Allen and Leslie Shade Student Seat: Lisbeth Klastrup Publications Officers: Jeremy Hunsinger and Charlie Breindahl 2002 Conference Coordinator: Monica Murero 2002 Conference Program Chair: Klaus Bruhn Jensen 2003 Conference Chair: Liss Jeffrey 2003 Conference Program Co-Chairs: Matthew Allen and David Mitchell Ethics Working Group Chair: Charles Ess Elections Working Group Chair: Mia Consalvo Net Resources Working Group Chair: Charlie Breindahl 1. Introduction & General (Jones) Below is the monthly report from AoIR executive committee members. If you aren't reading this...well, you ought to be. I know it can get lengthy, and it can get detailed, but it's the single best way to know what AoIR is up to, and to find ways to get involved with it (in any number of ways from contacting the people who report to volunteering to work on something you see mentioned to making suggestions to...). 2. Executive Officers' Reports 2.1 President (Jones) 2.1.1 I spent a marvelous few days in Toronto last week, meeting with our 2003 conference organizers, and I'm pleased to see that the planning for the conference is full-steam ahead. I stayed at the conference hotel, in fact (the Hilton in downtown Toronto) and was impressed not only with its meeting facilities and reasonable room rates (regardless of the strength of the US dollar against the Canadian one, for a downtown hotel in a major urban area it is a good deal) but also impressed with the reasonable rates ($10 CAD) for high speed Internet access in the rooms. The hotel is very near numerous restaurants, cafes, clubs and music venues, shopping areas. In short, the venue will be first-rate, and the organizers are making great progress! Registration for the conference will soon be open, in the meantime please send in your submissions for presentation, ideas for pre-conference workshops, and encourage your colleagues and others to consider submitting and attending the conference. Feel free, of course, to pass along the call for papers. You will see below in Ulla's report that the AoIR executive committee has had good discussion and voted on election related matters (thanks to the elections working group!). We will be implementing the changes voted upon very soon, as we announce the opening of nominations and schedule for elections. I wish to thank the members of the executive committee for taking this work very seriously and putting considerable effort into it. And last, but not least, the executive committee, at my instigation, has discussed the matter of a dues increase, and has passed unanimously (11/11) a small increase in dues that I proposed. The increases will be only to two categories, professional mebership and graduate student membership, increasing them to $45 and $30 (USD) respectively. In short, without a dues increase, we will be unable to do the things many are clamoring for (journal, publications, conference subsidies, etc.). It is also necessary to plan ahead for contingencies such as no longer having the good graces of a university that will host our web site and server. I will next take the proposed increase to the membership for a vote. 2.2 Vice President (Baym) 2.2.1 Nothing of particular significance to report. Just the usual thinking ahead and participating in discussions summarized elsewhere. 2.3 Secretary (Bunz) 2.3.1 I have spent much time counting votes and keeping discussions on various issues organized and summarized (see below; we made some important decisions). Of course, I also contributed to these discussions. January 13 - February 12, 2003 This month on the executive list: . The executive committee has completed its discussion of the election committee report. We have voted on each of the seven recommendations. More information will be made available on how certain changes will be instituted, but here is a brief summary of the recommendations: Recommendation a) publicize election policies (listserve, handout, website) - Result: we accept the recommendation (8/11) and will create/edit the election policies and then publish them Recommendation b) provide candidate info based on questions provided by election committee - Result: we accept the recommendation (8/11) and will provide a space on our website for candidates to post their answers Recommendation c) running for one seat only - Result: we accept the recommendation (6/11) and will add this to our election policies Recommendation d) keep nominating candidates as is (self or others can nominate) - Result: we accept the recommendation (8/11) (meaning: we will make no changes to our nominating procedures); one committee member would like to have noted his strong objection to this recommendation as he strongly favors the creation of a nominating committee Recommendation e) adopt preferential/weighted voting - Result: after intense discussion, we reject the recommendation (6/11) and will not adopt a preferential voting system at this point; the voting system will stay as is Recommendation f) asynchronous candidate forum (to answer questions pertinent to seat) - Result: we accept the recommendation (8/11) and will create an online space for this Recommendation g) create divisions to allow more member involvement - Result: we reject the recommendation (8/11) and will not create divisions at this point . The executive committee has discussed a host proposal for the 2004 conference and is overall very excited about this particular site and the people who proposed to host the 2004 conference. We are currently awaiting more information from the site. We also have two sites who have communicated interest in hosting the conference for 2005, though no formal proposals have been submitted yet. . The executive committee shared examples of AoIR's reach into even more countries and disciplines. We are excited to attract more and more people from more and more countries and create research bonds that overcome language and cultural barriers. 2.4 Treasurer (Bates) 2.4.1 No report. 2.5 Open Seats (Silver, Wellman) 2.5.1 Silver: I've been active on the listserv, discussing a number of issues including election processes and possible affiliations. 2.5.2 Wellman: I continue liasing on the October Internet Research conference between the Toronto Working Committee, the Toronto Steering Committee (which I chair), AOIR, and KMDI (local research institute which is supporting conference.) The Toronto Steering Committee had a good meeting recently. 2.6 Appointed Seats (Allen, Shade) 2.6.1 Allen: No report. 2.6.2 Shade: Nothing to report . 2.7 Student Seat (Klastrup) 2.7.1 Nothing to report. Voted. (busy finishing my dissertation, due around March 1st!) 2.8 Publications Officers (Hunsinger, Breindahl) 2.8.1 Hunsinger: January's time was spent on the submission and review process. There was discussion on the elections discussion also. Other than that, I have a bit more programming to do on the review system, which is a separate program from the submission system, but everything looks good to go. 2.8.2 Breindahl: I still spend a few hours each week reading everybody's e-mail. We get a lot of spam and such-like these days. Major changes to the AoIR site will have to wait, as I am busy with an imminent deadline and my dissertation. Also, as a computer games researcher, I have to play a few rounds of Halo now and then. 2.9 2003 Conference (Liss Jeffrey, Chair; Matthew Allen, David Mitchell, Program Co-Chairs) 2.9.1 Jeffrey (with her team: Katherine Parrish, Jason Nolan, Alex Kuskis, and steering committee chair Barry Wellman): Nothing to report. 2.9.2 Mitchell: Nothing to report. 2.10 AoIR Ethics Working Group (Charles Ess, Chair) 2.10.1 No report. 2.11 AoIR Research Annual Working Group (Mia Consalvo, Chair) 2.11.1 No report. 2.12 AoIR Net Resources Working Group (Charlie Breindahl, Chair) 2.12.1 There has been no activity in the 'Net WG. ------------------------------------end of executive committee report------------------------------ The Association of Internet Researchers is a scholarly association dedicated to the advancement of the cross-disciplinary field of Internet studies. It is a resource and support network promoting critical and scholarly Internet research independent from traditional disciplines and existing across academic borders. The association is international in scope. The association's web site is at http://www.aoir.org. Membership information is available at http://aoir.org/airjoin.html

1 0

Book request
by Lisa-Jane McGerty 18 Feb '03

18 Feb '03

I am trying to track down a copy of the following book and thought members of this list might be just the kind of people to have a copy lying around! I need: A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination John Law (ed) 1991 Routledge Apparently the book is out of print and despite much searching in book shops and elsewhere I just can't get old of a copy to buy. If you happen to have a spare copy that I could buy from you (of course I'll pay postage too) please contact me off list. I know its a long shot but... Lisa Lisa McGerty Applied Social Sciences University of Bradford, UK

3 2

Panel about Quality on the Internet
by Paul Wouters 18 Feb '03

18 Feb '03

Dear colleagues, I will be submitting a paper on the construction of scientific quality and the internet to the next conference in Toronto. It might be a nice idea to see whether we can bring together papers about quality (which may be defined in very different ways and discuss diverse aspects of "quality") in different areas together in one session or panel. So this is a call for everyone interested, especially PhD students, to send me titles and abstracts before Wednesday February 26. If there is enough interest it might become an interesting session. Looking forward to your responses! Regards Paul Wouters Dr. P. F. Wouters Programme Leader Networked Research and Digital Information (Nerdi) NIWI-KNAW The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences PO Box 95110 1090 HC Amsterdam The Netherlands T 3120 4628654 F 3120 6658013 http://www.niwi.knaw.nl/nerdi paul.wouters(a)niwi.knaw.nl

1 0

Re: [Air-l] Looking for a paper on 'bow-tie' Web space
by John Daly 18 Feb '03

18 Feb '03

I came across the Bow Tie material developed in California in a couple of stories by Declan Butler in Nature magazine: The Web Is A Bow Tie, News Feature, Nature 405, 113 (2000) http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v405/n6783/f ull/405113a0_fs.html&content_filetype=pdf Souped-Up Search Engines , Declan Butler, Nature 405, 112 - 115 (2000) http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v405/n6783/f ull/405112a0_fs.html&content_filetype=pdf John Daly http://www.geocities.com/stconsultant http://stconsultant.blogspot.com

2 1

HICSS-37 ELECTRONIC DEMOCRACY CFP
by Eric W. Welch 17 Feb '03

17 Feb '03

CALL FOR PAPERS FOR ELECTRONIC DEMOCRACY MINITRACK Part of the Electronic Government Cluster at the Thirty-seventh Annual HAWAI'I INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SYSTEM SCIENCES on the Big Island of Hawaii January 5 - 8, 2004 Additional detail on the web site: http://www2.ctg.albany.edu/conference/hicss/infomgmt.html ELECTRONIC DEMOCRACY MINITRACK The Internet and other information technologies promise to invigorate democratic processes by facilitating public discourse among citizens and between government and all stakeholders. However, these technologies can also foster anti-democratic outcomes such as limited access, reduced privacy, increased control, and reduced interaction. Moreover, it is unclear whether or how electronic democracy might invigorate democracy more broadly. Electronic voting, access equity, online interaction for public policy decision making, information reliability, political coordination among multiple stakeholders, and public monitoring of and communication with elected officials are a few of many the areas of research. This minitrack seeks research that investigates whether and how information technologies contribute to democratic processes and outcomes. It also invites papers that investigate the conditions under which technologies best encourage democratic processes and outcomes. Research from a variety of perspectives; citizen, government, stakeholder; and comparative analyses are welcome. Topics and Research Areas include (but are not limited to) Models and methods of IT-enabled public discourse Use of IT to enhance public participation in the rule-making process Communications tools for elected officials IT and civic engagement Electronic voter registration and voting Use of IT and communications technologies in election campaigns Public opinion polling IT-enabled advocacy and activism Democratic implications of the digital divide If you have further questions regarding the electronic democracy minitrack, please contact Eric Welch: ewwelch(a)uic.edu MINITRACK CO-CHAIRS Eric Welch: ewwelch(a)uic.edu Sharon S. Dawes: sdawes(a)ctg.albany.edu Michael Gisler: michael.gisler(a)bit.admin.ch IMPORTANT DEADLINES March 31, 2003 Abstracts submitted for guidance and indication of appropriate content. June 1, 2003 Full papers submitted to Minitrack Chairs. Contact minitrack chairs for submission instructions. August 31, 2003 Notice of accepted papers sent to Authors. October 1, 2003 Accepted manuscripts sent electronically to the publisher. Authors must be registered for the conference by this date. INSTRUCTIONS FOR PAPER SUBMISSION 1. Manuscripts should be 22-26 double-spaced pages, including diagrams, in Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat format. The final paper will be 10 pages, double-column, single-spaced. 2. Each paper must have a title page that includes the title of the paper, full name of all authors, and complete addresses including affiliation(s), telephone number(s), and e-mail address(es). 3. The first page of the manuscript should include the title and a 300-word abstract of the paper. 4. Papers should contain original material and not be previously published, or currently submitted for consideration elsewhere. 5. Do not submit the same manuscript to more than one Minitrack. 6. Papers should be submitted by email, to Eric Welch <ewwelch(a)uic.edu> by the deadline noted above. TRACKS AT HICSS-37 * Collaboration Systems; Co-Chair: Jay Nunamaker; E-mail: nunamaker(a)cmi.arizona.edu Co-Chair: Robert O. Briggs; E-mail: bob(a)GroupSystems.com * Complex Systems; Chair: Robert Thomas; E-mail: rjt1(a)cornell.edu * Decision Tech. for Management; Chair: Dan Dolk; E-mail: drdolk(a)nps.navy.mil * Digital Documents; Chair: Michael Shepherd; E-mail: shepherd(a)cs.cal.ca * Emerging Technologies; Chair: Ralph H. Sprague; E-mail: sprague(a)hawaii.edu * Information Technology in Health Care; Chair: William Chismar E-mail: chismar(a)cba.hawaii.edu * Internet & the Digital Economy; Co-Chair: David King; E-mail: dave(a)comshare.com Co-Chair: Alan Dennis; E-mail: ardennis(a)indiana.edu * Organizational Systems & Tech.; Chair: Hugh Watson; Email: hwatson(a)terry.uga.edu * Software Technology; Gul Agha; E-mail: agha(a)cs.uiuc.edu HICSS conferences are devoted to advances in the information, computer, and system sciences, and encompass developments in both theory and practice. Invited papers may be theoretical, conceptual, tutorial or descriptive in nature. Submissions undergo a peer referee process and those selected for presentation will be published in the Conference Proceedings. Submissions must not have been previously published. CONFERENCE ADMINISTRATION: Ralph Sprague, Conference Chair: sprague(a)hawaii.edu Sandra Laney, Conference Administrator: hicss(a)hawaii.edu Eileen Dennis, Track Administrator: eidennis(a)indiana.edu For the latest information; visit the HICSS web site at: http://www.hicss.hawaii.edu 2004 CONFERENCE VENUE: Hilton Waikoloa Village (on the Big Island of Hawaii) 425 Waikoloa Beach Drive Waikoloa, Hawaii 96738 Tel: 1-808-886-1234 Fax: 1-808-886-2900 http://www.hilton.com/hotels/KOAHWHH/index.html?show=all NOTE: December 1 is the deadline to guarantee hotel room reservation at conference rate.

1 0

Persistent Conversation at HICSS
by herring＠slis.indiana.edu 17 Feb '03

17 Feb '03

CALL FOR PAPERS FIFTH ANNUAL WORKSHOP AND MINITRACK ON PERSISTENT CONVERSATION at the HAWAI'I INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SYSTEM SCIENCES on the Big Island of Hawaii, January 5 - 8, 2004 *** AT-A-GLANCE *** TOPIC AREA: Conversation via digital media, such as email, chat, IM, texting, blogs, web boards, mailing lists, 3-D VR, multimedia computer mediated communication, etc. The focus of work may range from the analysis of structural characteristics of conversation such as turn-taking and threading, to the use of digital conversation in domains such as distance learning, knowledge management, and workplace collaboration. WHO: Researchers and designers from fields such as anthropology, computer-mediated communication, HCI, interaction design, linguistics, psychology, rhetoric, sociology, and so forth. CHAIRS: - Thomas Erickson, IBM T. J. Watson Research Center - Susan Herring, School of Library and Information Science, Indiana University IMPORTANT DATES: - Abstract submission - Monday, March 17, 2003 - Abstract feedback - by Monday, March 31, 2003 - Paper submission - Sunday, June 1, 2003 - Accept/Reject notice - Sunday, August 31, 2003 - Final papers due - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 FOR MORE INFORMATION - about the minitrack, contact: snowfall(a)acm.org, herring(a)indiana.edu - about previous years' papers and participants, see: http://www.pliant.org/personal/Tom_Erickson/HICSS_PC_History.html - this CFP: http://www.pliant.org/personal/Tom_Erickson/HICSS37pc.html - about the HICSS conference, see: http://www.hicss.org/ *** DETAILS *** ABOUT THE MINITRACK This interdisciplinary minitrack and workshop brings designers and researchers together to explore persistent conversation, the transposition of ordinarily ephemeral conversation into the potentially persistent digital medium. The phenomena of interest include human-to-human interactions carried out using chat, instant messaging, text messaging, email, mailing lists, news groups, bulletin board systems, textual and graphic MUDs, structured conversation systems, document annotation systems, etc. Computer-mediated conversations blend characteristics of oral conversation with those of written text: they may be synchronous or asynchronous; their audience may be small or vast; they may be highly structured or almost amorphous; etc. The persistence of such conversations gives them the potential to be searched, browsed, replayed, annotated, visualized, restructured, and recontextualized, thus opening the door to a variety of new uses and practices. The particular aim of the minitrack and workshop is to bring together researchers who analyze existing computer-mediated conversational practices and sites, with designers who propose, implement, or deploy new types of conversational systems. By bringing together participants from such diverse areas as anthropology, computer-mediated communication, HCI, interaction design, linguistics, psychology, rhetoric, sociology, and the like, we hope that the work of each may inform the others, suggesting new questions, methods, perspectives, and design approaches. ABOUT PAPER TOPICS We are seeking papers that address one or both of the following two general areas: * Understanding Practice. The burgeoning popularity of the internet (and intranets) provides an opportunity to study and characterize new forms of conversational practice. Questions of interest range from how various features of conversations (e.g., turn-taking, topic organization, expression of paralinguistic information) have adapted in response to the digital medium, to new roles played by persistent conversation in domains such as education, business, and entertainment. * Design. Digital systems do not currently support conversation well: it is difficult to converse with grace, clarity, depth and coherence over networks. But this need not remain the case. Toward this end, we welcome analyses of existing systems as well as designs for new systems which better support conversation. Also of interest are inquiries into how participants design their own conversations within the digital medium -- that is, how they make use of system features to create, structure, and regulate their discourse. Examples of appropriate topics include, but are not limited to: - Turn-taking, threading and other structural features of CMC - The dynamics of large scale conversation systems (e.g. USENET) - Methods for summarizing or visualizing conversation archives - Studies of virtual communities or other sites of digital talk - The roles of mediated conversation in knowledge management - Studies of the use of instant messaging in large organizations - Novel designs for computer-mediated conversation systems - Analyses of or designs for distance learning systems For other examples of appropriate topics see the list of previous years' papers: http://www.pliant.org/personal/Tom_Erickson/HICSS_PC_History.html THE WORKSHOP The minitrack will be preceded by a half-day workshop. The workshop will provide a background for the sessions and set the stage for a dialog between researchers and designers that will continue during the minitrack. The minitrack co-chairs will select in advance a publicly accessible CMC site, which each author will be asked to analyze, critique, redesign, or otherwise examine using their disciplinary tools and techniques before the workshop convenes; the workshop will include presentations and discussions of the participants' examinations of the site and its content. The workshop is primarily intended for minitrack authors, although other participants are welcome provided they are willing to prepare for it as described above. INSTRUCTIONS FOR ABSTRACT SUBMISSION 1. Submit a 250 word abstract of your proposed paper via email to the chairs: Tom Erickson <snowfall(a)acm.org>, Susan Herring <herring(a)indiana.edu> by the deadline noted above. 2. We will send you feedback on the suitability of your abstract shortly thereafter. INSTRUCTIONS FOR PAPER SUBMISSION 1. Manuscripts should be 22-26 double-spaced pages, including diagrams, in Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat format. The final paper will be 10 pages, double-column, single-spaced. 2. Each paper must have a title page that includes the title of the paper, full name of all authors, and complete addresses including affiliation(s), telephone number(s), and e-mail address(es). 3. The first page of the manuscript should include the title and a 300-word abstract of the paper. 4. Papers should contain original material and not be previously published, or currently submitted for consideration elsewhere. 5. Do not submit the same manuscript to more than one Minitrack. 6. Papers should be submitted by email, to the minitrack chairs: Tom Erickson <snowfall(a)acm.org>, Susan Herring <herring(a)indiana.edu> by the deadline noted above. ABOUT HICSS Since 1968 the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) has become a respected a forum for the substantive interchange of ideas in all areas of information systems and technology. The objective of HICSS is to provide a unique environment in which researchers and practitioners in the information, computer and system sciences can frankly exchange and discuss their research ideas, techniques and applications. Comments and feedback from each HICSS conference indicate that the conference format continues to be professionally rewarding and stimulating to everyone who attends. More information about the HICSS conference can be found at http://www.hicss.org/. Conference Administration: - Ralph Sprague, Conference Chair, sprague(a)hawaii.edu - Sandra Laney, Conference Administrator, hicss(a)hawaii.edu - Eileen Dennis, Track Administrator, eidennis(a)indiana.edu 2003 Conference Venue: Hilton Waikoloa Village (on the Big Island of Hawaii) 425 Waikoloa Beach Drive Waikoloa, Hawaii 96738 Tel: 1-808-886-1234 Fax: 1-808-886-2900 http://www.hiltonwaikoloavillage.com # # #

1 0

New Papers on opensource.mit.edu:7 Papers forthcoming in Research Policy, 2 Working Papers, 1 MS Thesis, 1 Updated Paper]
by Karim R. Lakhani 17 Feb '03

17 Feb '03

Hello All, I am pleased to let you know of the following new papers on opensource.mit.edu. First a special thanks to Eric von Hippel, Georg von Krogh and Gary Pisano in convincing the publishers of Elsevier, the publishers of Research Policy, to allow for us to post online the drafts of papers to be published in a special issue of Research Policy on open source. Please note that the papers will be taken down when the journal is published, sometime this summer. So getem while they are hot! Here are the papers: Paper 1 Authors: Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Cristina Rossi Title Why open source software can succeed http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/rp-bonaccorsirossi.pdf Abstract The paper discusses three key economic problems raised by the emergence and diffusion of open source software: motivation, coordination, and diffusion under a dominant standard. First the movement took off through the activity of a software development community that deliberately did not follow profit motivations. Second, a hierarchical coordination emerged without the support of an organization with proprietary rights. Third, Linux and other open source systems diffused in an evnvironment dominated by established proprietary standards, which benefited from significant increasing returns. The paper show that recent developments in the theory of critical mass in the diffusion of technologies with network externality may help to explain these phenomena. Paper 2 Authors Franke, Nik and Eric von Hippel Title: Satisfying Heterogeneous User Needs via Innovation Toolkits: The Case of Apache Security Software http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/rp-vonhippelfranke.pdf Abstract Manufacturers customarily provide only a few product variants to address the average needs of users in the major segments of markets they serve. When user needs are highly heterogeneous, this approach leaves many seriously dissatisfied. One solution is to enable users to modify products on their own using “innovation toolkits.” We explore the effectiveness of this solution in an empirical study of Apache security software. We find high heterogeneity of need in that field, and also find that users modifying their own software to be significantly more satisfied than non- innovating users. We propose that the user toolkits solution will be useful in many markets characterized by heterogeneous demand.d.onality on offer. We also find that users creating their own software modifications are significantly more satisfied than are non-innovating users. We conclude by suggesting that the "toolkits for user innovation" approach to enhancing user satisfaction might be generally applicable to markets characterized by heterogeneous user needs. Paper 3 Authors: Hertel, Guido, Sven Niedner & Stefanie Herrmann Title: Motivation of Software Developers in Open Source Projects: An Internet-based Survey of Contributors to the Linux Kernel http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/rp-hertelniednerherrmann.pdf Abstract: The motives of 141 contributors to a large Open Source Software project (the Linux kernel) was explored with an internet-based questionnaire study. Measured factors were both derived from discussions within the Linux community as well as from models from social sciences. Participants’ engagement was particularly determined by their identification as a Linux developer, by pragmatic motives to improve own software, and by their tolerance of time investments. Moreover, some of the software development was accomplished by teams. Activities in these teams were particularly determined by participants’ evaluation of the team goals as well as by their perceived indispensability and self-efficacy. Paper 4 Author: O'Mahony, Siobhan Title: Guarding the Commons: How Community Managed Software Projects Protect Their Work http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/rp-omahony.pdf Abstract: Theorists often speculate why open source and free software project contributors give their work away. Although contributors make their work publicly available, they do not forfeit their rights to it. Community managed software projects protect their work by using several legal and normative tactics, which should not be conflated with a disregard for or neglect of intellectual property rights. These tactics allow a project’s intellectual property to be publicly and freely available and yet, governable. Exploration of this seemingly contradictory state may provide new insight into governance models for the management of digital intellectual property. Paper 5 Authors: von Krogh, Georg, Sebastian Spaeth & Karim R. Lakhani Title Community, Joining, and Specialization in Open Source Software Innovation: A Case Study http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/rp-vonkroghspaethlakhani.pdf Abstract: This paper develops an inductive theory of the open source software innovation process by focussing on the creation of Freenet, a project aimed at developing a decentralized and anonymous peer-to- peer electronic file sharing network. We are particularly interested in the strategies and processes by which new people join the existing community of software developers, and how they initially contribute code. Analyzing data from multiple sources on the Freenet software development process, we generate the constructs of "joining script", "specialization", "contribution barriers", and "feature gifts", and propose relationships among these. Implications for theory and research are discussed. Paper 6 Author: West, Joel Title How Open is Open Enough? Melding Proprietary and Open Source Platform Strategies http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/rp-west.pdf Abstract: Computer platforms provide an integrated architecture of hardware and software standards as a basis for developing complementary assets. The most successful platforms were owned by proprietary sponsors that controlled platform evolution and appropriated associated rewards. Responding to the Internet and open source systems, three traditional vendors of proprietary platforms experimented with hybrid strategies which attempted to combine the advantages of open source software while retaining control and differentiation. Such hybrid standards strategies reflect the competing imperatives for adoption and appropriability, and suggest the conditions under which such strategies may be preferable to either the purely open or purely proprietary alternatives. Paper 7 Author: Zeitlyn, David Title: Gift economies in the development of open source software: Anthropological reflections http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/rp-zeitlyn.pdf Building on Eric Raymond’s work this article discusses the motivation and rewards that lead some software engineers to participate in the open source movement. It is suggested that software engineers in the open source movement may have sub-groupings which parallel kinship groups such as lineages. Within such groups gift giving is not necessarily or directly reciprocated, instead members work according to the ‘axiom of kinship amity’ – direct economic calculation is not appropriate within the group. What Bourdieu calls ‘symbolic capital’ can be used to understand how people work in order to enhance the reputation (of themselves and their group). **************************************************************************************** Working Papers **************************************************************************************** Paper 1 Author: Ratto, Matt Title: Re-working by the Linux Kernel developers http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/ratto.pdf Abstract: Technology design is generally a matter of re-working existing systems rather than the designing of entirely novel artifacts. In this paper I explore part of a computer operating system called Linux that is designed to be re-worked by its users, a process I call 'designing for redesign'. I examine the practices of reworking within this development effort using some concepts gleaned from activity theory, a meta-theoretical model that particularly focuses on the simultaneously material and conceptual aspects of artifacts. This work is two- fold; first to examine design as part of a larger activity of re-working, and second, to begin to put together a model of socio-technical activity that incorporates the complex epistemological and ontological conditions that characterize current human conditions. Understanding the sociality and materiality of "knowing" and "doing" in technologized society means unpacking what we mean when we talk of 'access' and understanding 'use' as often an activity of re-working. Paper 2 Author: Reis, Christian Robottom & Renata Pontin de Mattos Fortes Title An Overview of the Software Engineering Process and Tools in the Mozilla Project http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/reismozilla.pdf Abstract: The Mozilla Project is an Open Source Software project which is dedicated to development of the Mozilla Web browser and application framework. Possessing one of the largest and most complex communities of developers among Open Source projects, it presents interesting requirements for a software process and the tools to support it. Over the past four years, process and tools have been refined to a point where they are both stable and effective in serving the project’s needs. This paper describes the software engineering aspect of a large Open Source project. It also covers the software engineering tools used in the Mozilla Project, since theMozilla process and tools are intimately related. These tools include Bugzilla, a Web application designed for bug tracking, bug triage, code review and correction; Tinderbox, an automated build and regression testing system; Bonsai, a tool which performs queries to the CVS code repository; and LXR, a hypertext-based source code browser. *********************************************************************** MS Thesis Author: Rothfuss, Gregor J Title A Framework for Open Source Projects http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/rotfuss.pdf Abstract: The historical roots of Open Source are outlined. A comparison between Open Source projects and classical projects highlights strengths and weaknesses of both, and defines their attributes. Existing Open Source theories are evaluated, and the requirements for a framework for Open Source projects are determined. The framework introduces the notions of actors, roles, areas, processes and tools, and depicts their interrelationships in a matrix. Each aspect of the framework is then further developed to serve both as a conceptual foundation for Open Source and a help for organizing and managing Open Source projects. *********************************************************************** Updated Paper Author: Hawkins, Richard Title The Economics of Free Software for a Competitive Firm http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/hawkins.pdf Abstract: This paper builds a simple economic model of the profit seeking firm with a choice between producing an open source and proprietary solutions. Differences between public and viral licenses are discussed from the firm's perpective. Advocacy issues are omitted entirely, and the model requires no math beyond subtraction. The decision of a firm to adopt an open source product rather than purchase is also discussed, but is seen as a trivial and uninteresting problem. ************************************************************************* Thanks to all for their submissions!! Karim -- =============================================== Karim R. Lakhani MIT Sloan School of Management MIT Free/Open Source Software Research Project e-mail: lakhani(a)mit.edu voice: 617-851-1224 fax: 617-344-0403 http://opensource.mit.edu http://freesoftware.mit.edu http://mit.edu/lakhani/www -- =============================================== Karim R. Lakhani MIT Sloan School of Management MIT Free/Open Source Software Research Project e-mail: lakhani(a)mit.edu voice: 617-851-1224 fax: 617-344-0403 http://opensource.mit.edu http://freesoftware.mit.edu http://mit.edu/lakhani/www

1 0

Re: [Air-l] postmodern ethnography
by Andrew Herman 17 Feb '03

17 Feb '03

Actually, there has been a lot more thinking about postmodern ethnography within sociology than anthropology. One place to start would be Norman Denzin's INTERPRETIVE ETHNOGRAPHY and then the Handbook of Qualitative Research he edited with Yvonne Lincoln. Both are published by Sage. Andrew Herman, Ph. D. Visiting Associate Professor of Sociology College of the Holy Cross Worcester, MA 01610 (508) 793-2531 >>> amarkham(a)uic.edu 02/12/03 11:07AM >>> Hi Denise, It depends on what you want in reading about postmodern ethnography. Are you interested in the overall goal of ethnographic work? Or about the methods employed by ethnographers that blur the distinction between researcher, researched, and audience? Are you interested in justifying this type of work, or learning some of the possibilities for writing/researching in this vein? Many scholars writing what they call Alternative Ethnography take Tyler's concepts and develop them in intriguing ways. You can find many examples of postmodern ethnography there. Others writing about methodology discuss engagement in context, writing as inquiry, and representation of voice in ways that develop Tyler's discussions of evocation. Literature is out there, definitely. Can you give a more specific idea about what you're looking for within the broad category of postmodern ethnography? Annette Markham At 08:50 AM 2/12/2003 +0000, you wrote: >i know that Stephen Tyler has written some work on postmodern ethnography, >and also that Frank Schaap used his work in 'the words that took us there' >does anyone know any more literature on this subject? >regards and thanks in advance >denise > > >Denise Maia Carter, >CASS, >University of Hull, >Hull , >HU6 7RX >Email: denisecarter(a)denisecarter.net >Web: http://www.denisecarter.net > > > >_______________________________________________ >Air-l mailing list >Air-l(a)aoir.org >http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l ****************** Annette N. Markham, Ph.D. Department of Communication University of Illinois at Chicago 1007 W. Harrison St. (m/c 132) Chicago, IL 60607-7137 Tel: 312-413-2124 amarkham(a)uic.edu ****************** _______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l(a)aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l

7 8