SHARING, SPRINTING AND COLLABORATING IN THE OPEN– Studying Emerging Research Work Practices

Juha KronqvistMedia Lab // Aalto University School of Art and DesignFISCAR2010 conference23.5.2010

ABOUT ME

• Researcher in the VISCI project (CICERO Learning)• Doctoral student at Aalto University Media Lab• Thesis theme:

Studying participatory methods for designing collaborative web environments

http://personas.media.mit.edu/personasWeb.html

STRUCTURE

1. NEW FORMS OF PRODUCTION AND RESEARCH WORK2. PRESENTING THE CASE OF OPEN RESEARCH3. EMERGING OPEN RESEARCH PRACTICES4. DISCUSSION

FRAMING THE PRESENTATION

PEER PRODUCTION

RESEARCHPRACTICES

EMERGING FORMS OF PRODUCTION

“Free software offers a glimpse at a more basic and radical challenge. It suggests that the networked environment makes possible a new modality of organizing production: radically decentralized, collaborative, and nonproprietary; based on sharing resources and outputs among widely distributed, loosely connected individuals who cooperate with each other without relying on either market signals or managerial commands. This is what I call ‘commons-based peer production.’”

Yochai Benkler (2006)

PRODUSAGE = PRODUCER + USER

• open source software• on-line publishing (blogs, citizen journalism)• knowledge production (Wikipedia, social

bookmarking)• creative practice (A/V sharing, CC distribution)

• Duality of producer-consumer roles (Bruns 2008)

• The emergence of various domains for peer production has challenged the existing value chain, e.g.:

AFFORDANCES FOR PRODUSAGEAxel Bruns (2008)

1 2PROBABILISTIC, NON-DIRECTED PROBLEM SOLVING

EQUIPOTENTIALITY, NOT HIERARCHY 3 GRANULAR,

NOT COMPOSITE TASKS 4 SHARED,

NOT OWNED CONTENT

OPEN SCIENCE

• The process of research has for long been guided by the notion of open science, i.e. that it’s produce is considered a public good

• E-Research aims at building infrastructure for supporting access to scholarly information and research data

• Current work balances between technological determinism and social construction (Borgman 2008)

• Open research supports the open sharing of research process and methodologies in addition to data and results

PEER PRODUCTION OF RESEARCH

• So far examples of peer produced research are few and most are cases of citizen research

• NASA Clickworkers• Mechanical Turk• Birdwatching

• Examples derive mostly from the field of natural sciences

CASE: RESEARCH SWARM

(OPEN) RESEARCH SWARM

• An open network of people interested in research• Founded in 2007• Participation is open to all interested• Relies heavily on social media tools in its operation, e.g.:

• Microblogging (http://www.qaiku.com/channels/show/Tutkimusparvi/)

• Wiki’s (http://tutkimus.parvi.fi/)• Etherpad (http://www.etherpad.com – acquired by Google)

• Two successful cases of activity• Collectively written paper at MindTrek conference in 2008• Accepted research proposal for the Academy of Finland

• Activity intensity is fluctuating

STUDYING EMERGING RESEARCH

• Data collected through virtual ethnography (e.g. Hine 2000)

• participation during the development discussions of the RS• tracing back discussions in microblogs• studying wiki pages• supporting interviews with participants

• Research focus: practices• defined as culturally embedded ways of doing that combine

actions and context (Korkman 2006)

PRESENTED PRACTICES

1. SHARING2. SPRINTING3. SWARM LEADERSHIP

SHARING

• The Research Swarm conducts most of its communication using open and accessible web tools

• There exists a social norm for publishing information while it is being generated (e.g. using email is considered ‘embarassing’)

• instrumental for open participation• scope of activities&engagement varies• individual activities can be traced

• Activities• seminar/meeting backchannels• open calls for participation• (micro)updating wikipedia pages• social bookmarking of interesting information

some interaction

low interaction

high interaction

path of engagement

• Sprinting refers to the action of elevated collective work towards achieving a result within a given time-frame

• Can be f.ex. a case where an open call is made to finish up a paper before the deadline

• Can happen in intervals of a few hours over a few days• During the sprint, the objectives and rules are

constantly communally constructed • The product is constructed granularly or collaboratively

• Amount of participation varies from constructing structure for texts to correcting grammar errors

SPRINTING

SWARM LEADERSHIP

• Leadership is determined by interest and self-organisation and rotates continuously

• When a new operation is being uptaken, someone formally or informally takes the role of an coordinative swarm leader

• publishing time tables for sprints, tasks and motivating participants through open calls

• this role can change during an operation, and is changed at the latest when an operation ends

ON SOCIAL MEDIA TOOLS

• Values are internalized through the use of tools and are assimilated as norms that guide behaviour (Engeström 2008)

• Research Swarm activities are afforded and constrained by the functioning of social media, e.g.:

• openness and sharing• textual format• agility and granularity• reliance on networks instead of hierarchies

• Some of the core values are derived directly or through the tools from open source development

SUBJECT

COMMUNITY

Activity System Model (Engeström 1985)

RULES

TOOLS

DISCUSSION

• Digital networked technologies are influencing research, also in ways not easily predictable

• democratization of research work• wildfire activities (Engeström 2009)

• The use of social media tools seems to have the ability to affect the value-base of their users

• How should this reflect in the way collaborative research tools are designed?

• Pointers for continuing research?

THANKS!

Juha  KronqvistCoordinator  /  Researcher

VISCI  Project

Media  Lab  /  LeGroup

Hämeentie  135  C  FI-00560  Helsinki,  Finland

+358  (0)41  466  0309