Boundary-Spanning Documents in Online FLOSS Communities: Does One Size Fit All?

Online communities bring together people with varied access to and understanding of the work at hand, who must collaborate through documents of various kinds. We develop a framework articulating the characteristics of documents supporting collaborators with asymmetric access to knowledge versus those with symmetric knowledge. Drawing on theories about document genre, boundary objects and provenance, we hypothesize that documents supporting asymmetric groups are likely to articulate or prescribe their own 1) purpose, 2) context of use, 3) content and form and 4) provenance in greater detail than documents used by people with symmetric access to knowledge. We test these hypotheses through content analysis of documents and instructions from a variety of free/libre open source projects. We present findings consistent with the hypotheses developed as well as results extending beyond our theory derived assumptions. The study suggests new directions for research on communications in online communities, as well as advice for those supporting such communities.

[1]  Kimberly A. Neuendorf,et al.  The Content Analysis Guidebook , 2001 .

[2]  Budi Arief,et al.  focus developing with open source software The Many Meanings of Open Source , 2022 .

[3]  Carlos Jensen,et al.  Cutting and Pasting Up: "Documents" and Provenance in a Complex Work Environment , 2010, 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[4]  Walt Scacchi,et al.  Free and open source development practices in the game community , 2004, IEEE Software.

[5]  Georg von Krogh,et al.  Open Source Software and the "Private-Collective" Innovation Model: Issues for Organization Science , 2003, Organ. Sci..

[6]  Patricia L. Carrell,et al.  GENRE ANALYSIS , 2009 .

[7]  Kevin Crowston,et al.  Can Document-Genre Metadata Improve Information Access to Large Digital Collections? , 2003, Libr. Trends.

[8]  Walt Scacchi,et al.  Free/Open Source Software Development Practices in the Computer Game Community , 2003 .

[9]  Charles Bazerman,et al.  Systems of Genres and the Enactment of Social Intentions , 2014 .

[10]  E. Hippel.  Innovation by User Communities: Learning From Open-Source Software , 2001 .

[11]  Klaus Krippendorff,et al.  Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology , 1980 .

[12]  Maria Alessandra Rossi.  Decoding the "Free/Open Source (F/OSS) Software Puzzle"a survey of theoretical and empirical contributions , 2004 .

[13]  Peter Wayner.  Free for All , 2015 .

[14]  A. Young.  Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. , 2001 .

[15]  Herbert H. Clark,et al.  Grounding in communication , 1991, Perspectives on socially shared cognition.

[16]  B. Langer,et al.  The Practice of Everyday Life , 2019, Forms of Thinking in Leopardi’s Zibaldone.

[17]  Yogesh L. Simmhan,et al.  A survey of data provenance in e-science , 2005, SGMD.

[18]  W. Orlikowski,et al.  Genre Repertoire: The Structuring of Communicative Practices in Organizations , 1994 .

[19]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39 , 1989 .

[20]  C. Cramton.  The Mutual Knowledge Problem and Its Consequences for Dispersed Collaboration , 2001 .

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

[22]  Lee Sproull,et al.  Essence of Distributed Work: The Case of the Linux Kernel , 2000, First Monday.