Community-based evaluation in online communities: Considering the materiality of (making) "best practice"

Purpose The idea of “best practice” is very much built into information systems and the ways in which they organise and structure work. The purpose of this paper is to examine how “best practice” may be identified (produced) through a community-based evaluation process as opposed to traditional expert-based evaluation frameworks. The paper poses the following research questions: how does “best practice” (e)valuation in online communities differ depending on whether they are produced by community members or experts? And what role play these two practices of valuation for online community performance? Design/methodology/approach The paper is based on a three-year ethnographic study of a large-scale online community initiative run by the European Commission. Participant observation of online and offline activities (23 events) was complemented with 73 semi-structured interviews with 58 interviewees. The paper draws on Science and Technology Studies, and in particular actor-network theory. Findings Promoting the idea of “best practice” is not just an exercise about determining what “best” is but rather supposes that best is something that can travel across sites and be replicated. The paper argues that it is crucial to understand the work performed to coordinate multiple practices of producing “best practice” as apparatuses of valuation. Hence if practices are shared or circulate within an online community, this is possible because of material-discursive practices of dissociation and association, through agential cuts. These cuts demarcate what is important – and foregrounded – and what is backgrounded. In so doing new “practice objects” are produced. Research limitations/implications The research was conducted in the European public sector where participants are not associated through shared organisational membership (e.g. as employees of the same organisation). An environment for determining “best practice” that is limited to an organisation’s employees and more homogeneous may reveal further dynamics for “best practice” production. Practical implications This paper sheds light on why it is so difficult to reach commensuration in crowd-sourced environments. Originality/value The paper provides an analysis of how online community members collaborate in order to identify relevant and meaningful user-generated content. It argues that “best practice” is produced through a process of commensuration.

[1]  M. Lamont Toward a Comparative Sociology of Valuation and Evaluation , 2012 .

[2]  J. Orr Ten Years of Talking About Machines , 2006 .

[3]  J. Brown,et al.  Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation , 1991 .

[4]  Karen Barad Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning , 2007 .

[5]  Terri L. Griffith,et al.  Supporting Technologies and Organizational Practices for the Transfer of Knowledge in Virtual Environments , 2006 .

[6]  Ben Williamson Governing software: networks, databases and algorithmic power in the digital governance of public education , 2015 .

[7]  Claudio Ciborra,et al.  Interpreting e-government and development: Efficiency, transparency or governance at a distance? , 2005, Inf. Technol. People.

[8]  R. McDermott Understanding practice: The acquisition of a child by a learning disability , 1993 .

[9]  Michel Callon,et al.  Introduction: Absence — Presence, Circulation, and Encountering in Complex Space , 2004 .

[10]  Luc Boltanski,et al.  On Justification , 2006 .

[11]  A. Breiter Datafying education: How digital assessment practices reconfigure the organisation of learning , 2016 .

[12]  Ana Peraica,et al.  Big Data, Little Data, No Data: Scholarship in the Networked World , 2016, Leonardo.

[13]  Annemarie Mol,et al.  Complexities: An Introduction , 2002, Complexities.

[14]  A. Bruni,et al.  Reassembling the Social—An Introduction to Actor Network Theory , 2007 .

[15]  J. Lave Apprenticeship in Critical Ethnographic Practice , 2011 .

[16]  Daniel G. Bobrow,et al.  Community Knowledge Sharing in Practice: The Eureka Story , 2002 .

[17]  Noriko Hara,et al.  Knowledge-sharing in an online community of health-care professionals , 2007, Inf. Technol. People.

[18]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  What Happens When Evaluation Goes Online? Exploring Apparatuses of Valuation in the Travel Sector , 2014, Organ. Sci..

[19]  A. Kieser,et al.  Trading “best practices”—a good practice? , 2011 .

[20]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[21]  Libby Hemphill,et al.  Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions, 2nd ed , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[22]  Neil Pollock,et al.  Ranking Devices: The Socio-Materiality of Ratings , 2012 .

[23]  Lucas D. Introna Algorithms, Governance, and Governmentality , 2016 .

[24]  Annemarie Mol,et al.  Actor-Network Theory: sensitive terms and enduring tensions , 2010 .

[25]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  The Algorithm and the Crowd: Considering the Materiality of Service Innovation , 2015, MIS Q..

[26]  Nathalie N. Mitev,et al.  In and out of actor-network theory: a necessary but insufficient journey , 2009, Inf. Technol. People.

[27]  Terrie Lynn Thompson,et al.  Work-learning in informal online communities: evolving spaces , 2011, Inf. Technol. People.

[28]  Carla O'Dell,et al.  If Only We Knew What We Know: Identification and Transfer of Internal Best Practices , 1998 .

[29]  Geoff Walsham,et al.  Trans-Situated Learning: Supporting a Network of Practice with an Information Infrastructure , 2009, Inf. Syst. Res..

[30]  J. Law After Method: Mess in Social Science Research , 2004 .

[31]  J. Brown,et al.  Knowledge and Organization: A Social-Practice Perspective , 2001 .

[32]  Clay Shirky Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations , 2008 .

[33]  W. Espeland,et al.  Rankings and Reactivity: How Public Measures Recreate Social Worlds1 , 2007, American Journal of Sociology.

[34]  A. Mol The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice , 2003 .

[35]  J. Orr,et al.  Talking About Machines: An Ethnography of a Modern Job. , 1997 .

[36]  Susan V. Scott,et al.  Great Expectations: the materiality of commensurability in social media , 2012 .

[37]  Richard J. Boland,et al.  Knowledge management technology and the reproduction of knowledge work practices , 2000, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst..

[38]  Wiebe E. Bijker,et al.  Science in action : how to follow scientists and engineers through society , 1989 .

[39]  Richard Baskerville,et al.  Durability of online teamworking: patterns of trust , 2006, Inf. Technol. People.

[40]  Robert M. Davison,et al.  From government to e-government: a transition model , 2005, Inf. Technol. People.

[41]  C. Kimble Communities of Practice: Never Knowingly Undersold , 2006 .

[42]  Grant Blank,et al.  Critics, Ratings, and Society: The Sociology of Reviews , 2006 .

[43]  D. Wellman,et al.  Talking About Machines: An Ethnography of a Modern Job. , 1997 .

[44]  E. Löffler,et al.  Best-practice cases reconsidered from an international perspective , 2000 .

[45]  Carsten S. Østerlund,et al.  Relations in Practice: Sorting Through Practice Theories on Knowledge Sharing in Complex Organizations , 2005, Inf. Soc..

[46]  Rob Kitchin,et al.  The data revolution : big data, open data, data infrastructures & their consequences , 2014 .

[47]  Juliane Jarke "Networking" a European Community: The Case of a European Commission Egovernment Initiative , 2015, ECIS.

[48]  Gasparas Jarulaitis,et al.  The family resemblance of technologically mediated work practices , 2012, Inf. Organ..

[49]  S. Gherardi Practice-Based Theorizing on Learning and Knowing in Organizations , 2000 .