Thesis Bina

7/30/2019 Thesis Bina

1/217

ATHENS UNIVERSITY OFECONOMICS AND BUSINESS

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Wireless Community Networks: A Case of ModernCollective Action

PhD THESIS

Maria D. Bina

Athens, June 2007


2/217

2

:

M.

A, 2007


3/217

3


4/217

4

Abstract

Wireless communities constitute a grassroots, decentralized, and self-organized model for the

provision of Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) infrastructure, information and

communication services, as well as knowledge and expertise in the wireless realm. In

particular, individuals operate their own Access Points, invite friends and neighbors to join in

as clients to their nodes and, then, interconnect with other nodes (which typically belong to

strangers sharing the same community spirit) to build a wireless blanket of home-made

hotspots that is scalable enough to cover large metropolitan areas. To support the operation of

the community network, individual participants are expected to contribute their time, effort,

and monetary resources to set up or connect to Access Points, share their knowledge and

expertise, as well as enrich the communitys web with valuable services. At the same time,

they are offered a hybrid mode of social connectivity: physical in the form of face-to-face

meetings and virtual over digital channels, such as discussion forums and VoIP telephony.

Furthermore, the aggregation of individual contributions affords the capacity for producing a

shared good that is, in turn, made available to all interested individuals.

The work presented in this thesis advances a socio-economic thinking on wireless

communities, which seeks to comprehend the phenomenons micro- as well as macro-

properties. In doing so, it portrays wireless communities as an impure public information and

communication goodthat is collectively produced by individual contributions of tangible (i.e.

money, equipment) as well as intangible (i.e. time, knowledge) resources. The wireless

community good is highly heterogeneous possessing several dimensions including physical

connectivity and service commons, as well as social connectivity and knowledge exchange

facilities. In addition, it does not demand from its contributors to relinquish power over the

resources contributed both tangible and intangible something that adds to its novelty.

Anchoring on this portrayal, wireless communities are scrutinized under the umbrella ofcollective action theory, taking into account its traditional formulation and recent

modifications adjusting it to technology-augmented contexts, to identify four key properties

warranting further inquiry: members motives for becoming involved with a wireless

community, costs incurred for gaining access to the community and its services, member

participation described in the nature of the processes developing over multiple good

dimensions along with the associated interdependencies (including free-riding tendencies and

coordination patterns), and the communitys ability to sustain its existence under the

influence of all the above.


5/217

5

To empirically elaborate on these four properties, a multi-method research design founded on

the premises of triangulation was orchestrated and conducted in three steps. First, a set of

exploratory interviews with wireless community enthusiasts was performed to enhance the

mounting understanding of the phenomenons properties and particularities and to receive

topical idiosyncrasies that have not yet reached researchers documentations. Second, a large-

scale survey addressing wireless community members was conducted to collect generalizable

data, the statistical analysis and interpretation of which provided clarifications on the four

wireless community collective action properties. Third, a complementary interview procedure

was taken up to confirm survey findings and inform our knowledge regarding wireless

communities capacity to produce positive spillover effects to their surrounding socio-

technical environment.

Empirical findings indicate that wireless communities are mobilized by highly interested

individuals who receive intrinsic gratification from working with a new technology within an

intimate space grouping together common-minded individuals with whom they socialize and

commit to knowledge and resource sharing practices. Engagement with a wireless community

can be pictured as a low-cost activity in terms of resource contribution due to the

particularities of the collective good and the heaviness of intrinsic motives as participation

drivers. Furthermore, the community offers many possibilities for interaction (heavy

involvement with the majority of activities was observed) so that abusive usage (pure free-

riding) is almost never realized. Individuals are connected in a number of ways both in the

digital and the physical world, while the node-client dichotomy serves as a loose

organizational schema with less mobilized participants (clients) exhibiting strong tendencies

towards moving closer to the core (nodes). The combined effect of these factors is that

wireless communities are self-sustained and base their ongoing existence on their

commitment to satisfying members inherent needs, on reciprocal exchanges amongst them,

and on the ambidextrous relationship between reciprocity and intrinsic motivation.

The aforementioned description of wireless community collective action pinpoints to a strong

introvert orientation of the phenomenon questioning its ability to influence the surrounding

environment within which it grows and flourishes. In particular, our research has pointed out

three potential spillovers that wireless communities can induce: members professionalization

opportunities revitalizing the wireless industry with fresh experts and novel ideas, user-driven

technological innovation, and contribution to social welfare enlargement through the

dissemination of broadband technologies. Nevertheless, empirical evidence pinpoints to

modest potentials for the wireless community movement to create a paradigmatic shift within

its application domain: professionalization opportunities emerge as a side-effect of members


6/217

6

involvement with the community, innovation is limited to experimentation with existing

hardware or software solutions, while attachment to societal goals is not received with equal

enthusiasm amongst members. Hence, wireless communities serve the needs of a niche of

sophisticated users who, constrained by income, price, industry action, and regulation,

become relatively resistant to pressure from providers, are not subject to a technological

imperative, and work to adapt a technology to their own ends. The wireless community

enthusiast fits the portrait of the unpaid volunteer, who is interested in the project itself,

without regarding it as part of a wider arrangement exercising a pivotal role within the

currently prevailing telecommunications industry landscape.

Overall, this study offers three important insights that are of value to the research community.

First, it produces knowledge on a rather under-explored phenomenon , wireless communities,

where there is clear lack of empirical evidence describing the mechanics behind its

mobilization and operation. Second, it advances the applicability of collective action theory to

the provision of a novel information and communication good that departs from all good

classes that have been put under scrutiny so far. It also confirms recent modifications on its

traditional premises regarding the alleviating threat of free-riding and the nature of

coordination occurring among members, to underline the ever-increasing role of technology

in facilitating the emergence, growth, and long-term viability of modern collective action

initiatives. Finally, it showcases yet another example of the power that modern Information

and Communication Technologies can convey to end-users being technologically-savvy to

assume a more active role in satisfying their needs. Hence, the insight on wireless

communities contributes to the legacy created by similar user-driven digital good production

initiatives, such as Open Source Software communities, and could help enlighten recent

trends transforming user-generated content (e.g. blogging, video-sharing platforms) to an

increasingly important force shaping the current and future outlook of the Internet.


7/217

7

. ,

(Access Point),

, ,

( , , )

.

, ,

,

,

, , ,

()

VoIP . ,

.

-.

-

(impure public information and

communication good)

(,

, , ).

,

(,

, ,

),

. , (collective


8/217

8

action) .

:

, ,

, ,

.

(qualitative) (quantitative)

(triangulation). ,

,

,

. ,

. ,

.

-

,

,

, , .

(intrinsic gratification).

, .

,

.


9/217

9

,

(free-riding)

.

,

()

() ,

,

.

.

:

, ,

, .

,

,

:

,

,

. ,

,

, ,

.

,

.


10/217

10

,

. ,

, ,

. ,

.

. ,

. ,

,

,

,

.


11/217

11

List of Publications

In peer-reviewed Journals:- Bina ., Giaglis, G.M. (2005). Emerging Issues in Researching Community-based

WLANs.Journal of Computer Information Systems, 46 (1), pp. 9-16.

In peer-reviewed Conferences

- Lawrence, E., Bina, M., Culjak, G., El-Kiki, T. (2007). Wireless Communities:

Public Assets for 21st Century Society. In the Proceedings of the 4th International

Conference on Information Technology: New Generations, Las Vegas, USA, April

2-4

- Bina ., Giaglis, G.M. (2006). Unwired Collective Action: Motivations of WirelessCommunity Participants. n the Proceedings of the 5th International Conference

on Mobile Business, Copenhagen, Denmark, June 26-27, Best Paper Award.

- Bina ., Giaglis, G.M. (2006). A Motivation and Effort Model for Members of

Wireless Communities. In the Proceedings of the 2006 European Conference on

Information Systems, Goteborg, Sweden, June 12-14.

- Giaglis, G.M., Bina, M. (2004). Framing a Research Agenda for Ad Hoc

Community-Based Wireless Local Area Networks. n the Proceedings of the 3rd

International Conference on Mobile Business, New York City, USA, July 12-13.


12/217

12

Acknowledgements

Working towards the fulfillment of my doctoral research was a challenging experience for

which I would like to express my gratitude to a number of people.

First of all, I would like to deeply thank my supervisor, Associate Professor George M.

Giaglis, for his support and guidance through this three-year academic journey. Our vibrating

discussions were always awaited with much anticipation, since his enlightening comments,

suggestions, and constructive criticism were much needed to generate interesting research

questions, overcome critical milestones of the research process, and extend my line ofthinking to unconsidered territories.

I would also like to show gratitude to the members of the committee who have honored me by

accepting to appraise my work: Assosiate Professor Diomidis Spinellis and Lecturer Ioannis

Nikolaou for their unreserved assistance during this three-year period, Professor George

Doukidis for introducing me to the area of mobile business serving as the inspiration for this

research, and Professors Costas Courcoubetis, George Polyzos, and Thomas Sphicopoulos for

granting me the opportunity to discuss my work with them.

Finally, I am thankful to all the people who have participated in various stages of the

research: wireless community enthusiasts who conveyed their much needed opinions and

feelings during the empirical part of the research, reviewers of my work as this was gradually

exposed to the academic community through conferences and journals, and my co-workers at

the Wireless Research Center of the Athens University of Economics and Business. Friends

and family were an enormous source of support and deserve special appreciation.


13/217

13

Table of Contents

Abstract.........................................................................................................................4 .........................................................................................................................7

List of Publications....................................................................................................11Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................12Table of Contents ......................................................................................................13List of Figures ............................................................................................................15List of Tables ..............................................................................................................161 Introduction .......................................................................................................17

1.1 Wireless Networking: Technologies and Service Access Models ......181.2 The Community-based Wireless Movement ........................................231.3 Wireless Communities as a Case of User-Driven Technology-Augmented Initiative ...........................................................................................27

1.4 Research Objectives ..................................................................................302 Reviewing the Literature on Wireless Communities ...................................34

2.1 Literature Review Strategy ......................................................................342.2 Organizing the Literature ........................................................................402.3 Framing a Research Agenda for Studying Wireless Communities ...472.4 A Research Opportunity ..........................................................................51

3 Theoretical Framing..........................................................................................543.1 Collective Action, Public Goods, and Social Dilemmas ......................543.2 Collective Action Revisited .....................................................................583.3 Wireless Communities as an Information and Communication Good

62

3.4 Wireless Communities under the Lens of Collective Action Theory 653.4.1 Individual Characteristics................................................................653.4.2 Group Characteristics.......................................................................663.4.3 Action Processes or Interdependencies .........................................67

3.5 A Framework for Analyzing Wireless Community Collective Action68

4 Research Design ................................................................................................724.1 Combining Methodologies through Triangulation .............................724.2 Exploratory Qualitative Research...........................................................75

4.2.1 The First Interview............................................................................764.2.2 The Second Set of Interviews ..........................................................774.2.3 The Third Set of Interviews .............................................................79

4.3 Survey Research ........................................................................................794.4 Confirmatory Qualitative Research........................................................814.5 Summary ....................................................................................................82

5 Empirical Research Part I: Survey orchestration, statistical analyses, andfindings interpretation .............................................................................................84

5.1 Model development..................................................................................845.1.1 Motivation Essentials .......................................................................85

5.1.2 Costs....................................................................................................945.1.3 Participation / Involvement............................................................96


14/217

14

5.1.4 Hypothesization ................................................................................985.2 Measurement and Data Collection .......................................................101

5.2.1 Construct Instrumentation ............................................................1015.2.2 Questionnaire Instrumentation and Proof-testing .....................1065.2.3 Reliability and Construct Validity ................................................107

5.3 Statistical Analyses .................................................................................1115.3.1 Sample Descriptive Statistics and Demographics ......................1115.3.2 Motivation and Cost Descriptive Statistics (Mean Values &Correlations) ....................................................................................................1125.3.3 Participation Descriptive Statistics (Mean Values & FactorAnalysis)...........................................................................................................1165.3.4 Wireless Community Member Segmentation.............................1195.3.5 Predicting Wireless Community Sustainability .........................127

5.4 Summary of Findings .............................................................................1336 Empirical Research Part II: Confirmatory Qualitative Research Designand Findings ............................................................................................................136

6.1 Re-introducing Wireless Communities ...............................................1366.2 Design Issues: Interview Protocol and Sampling ...............................1396.3 Data Analysis and Interpretation .........................................................142

6.3.1 Introducing the Informants ...........................................................1426.3.2 Coding ..............................................................................................1446.3.3 Findings ............................................................................................145

6.4 Unfolding the Characteristics of Wireless Communities ..................1537 Conclusions, Limitations, and Further Research .......................................158

7.1 Contribution.............................................................................................1587.1.1 Contribution 1: A Detailed Empirics-based Exposition ofWireless Communities ...................................................................................1607.1.2 Contribution 2: Advancing the Application Domain ofCollective Action Theory ...............................................................................1637.1.3 Contribution 3: Marking the Ground for Effective End-userEmpowerment .................................................................................................165

7.2 Limitations ...............................................................................................1667.3 Further Research Directions ..................................................................1707.4 Concluding Thoughts.............................................................................175

References ................................................................................................................177Appendix A..............................................................................................................188

A1. The First Interview.......................................................................................188A2. The Second and Third Set of Interviews...................................................190

Appendix B ..............................................................................................................192Appendix C ..............................................................................................................200

C1. ANOVA Results ...........................................................................................200C2. ANOVA Post Hoc Comparisons (Scheffe) ...............................................201C3. MANOVA Results .......................................................................................205

Appendix D..............................................................................................................210Appendix E ..............................................................................................................213


15/217

15

List of Figures

Figure 1.1: Taxonomy of WLAN Application Scenarios.....................................21

Figure 2.1: The Literature Review Strategy...........................................................35Figure 2.2: The Two Categories of Research Issues .............................................41Figure 2.3: Decomposing the Inner Properties of Wireless Communities........52Figure 3.1: The Goods Landscape...........................................................................56Figure 3.2: Highlights in the Evolution of Collective Action Theory................62Figure 3.3: The Two Wireless Community Good Classes...................................63Figure 3.4: A Framework for Analyzing Wireless Community CollectiveAction..........................................................................................................................70Figure 4.1: Stages in the Exploratory Qualitative Study .....................................76Figure 4.2: Research Design.....................................................................................83

Figure 5.1: Taxonomy of Motivation (adapted from (Ryan & Deci, 2000)) ......89Figure 5.2: A Model for Understanding the Micro and Macro-level Propertiesof Wireless Communities.......................................................................................100Figure 5.3: Steps towards Conducting the Survey.............................................107Figure 5.4: Logistic Regression Model Configurations .....................................129Figure 5.5: Micro and Macro-level Properties of Wireless CommunityCollective Action.....................................................................................................133Figure 6.1: Wireless Community Characteristics ...............................................157


16/217

16

List of Tables

Table 1.1: Summary of the IEEE 802.11 Family of Standards... ..........................20Table 1.2: Indicative Wireless Community Projects.............................................25Table 2.1: The Literature Pool of Publications ......................................................37Table 2.2: Organizing the Literature ......................................................................42Table 2.3: A Research Agenda for Studying Wireless Communities ................50Table 3.1: Wireless Communities as an Information and CommunicationGood............................................................................................................................65Table 3.2: Research Questions for Investigating Wireless CommunityCollective Action.......................................................................................................70Table 4.1: Synergies between Qualitative and Quantitative Research .............74

Table 5.1: Motivation / Cost Constructs, Items, and OperationalizationSources......................................................................................................................104Table 5.2: Factor Analysis Results ........................................................................110Table 5.3: Sample Descriptives and Demographics...........................................111Table 5.4: Mean Values, SD, and Correlations for Motivation and Costs ......115Table 5.5: Mean Values, SD, and Factor Analysis results for Participation....118Table 5.6: Mean Values, SD, and Correlations for Participation Components....................................................................................................................................118Table 5.7: Motivation Cluster Analysis Results..................................................121Table 5.8: Motivation Clusters Additional Profiling.........................................123

Table 5.9: Participation Cluster Analysis Results...............................................124Table 5.10: Participation Clusters Additional Profiling ...................................127Table 5.11: Logistic Regression Results................................................................130Table 6.1: Research Questions for the Confirmatory Qualitative Research ...139Table 6.2: Coding Categories and Content..........................................................144Table 6.3: Wireless Community Profile Evaluation ...........................................151Table 7.1: Research Questions, Objectives, and Methods .................................159


17/217

17

1 Introduction

Its an increasingly common scene: someone perched on a park bench, pecking away at a

laptop. But a peek over her shoulder reveals a more startling sight: shes surfing the Web,

outdoors and cable free.1

Since the publication of the above narrative by Erika Jonietz in MITs Technology Review in

December 2001, such scenes have become commonplace practically all over the globe, to

illustrate the multi-faceted effect that wireless networking technologies exert on individual

lifestyles, urban landscapes, and the telecommunications industry in general. Wireless

networking has made its way to our lives through a combination of events, some of which

were planned by developers and industry stakeholders, while some others were accidental and

involved less predictable diffusion pathways. In particular, much of the momentum

surrounding wireless networking has been nurtured by a grassroots culture growing on the

verge of the telecommunications industry and inspiring individual users to make themselves

both the provider and the consumer of a wireless service, in what is generally described as the

community-based wireless movement.

At the time this research set off, the community-based wireless movement had become an

important vehicle for the capitalization of the benefits associated with broadband connectivity

by promoting the role of the end-user in the deployment of wireless communication systems.

At the time the research was completed, a likewise end-user dynamic was emerging in a

different field, the World Wide Web. This dynamic, a reminiscent of the early days of the

Internet, is held attributable for the intriguing transformation of the World Wide Web to its

becoming a scenery ofthe many wresting power from the few and helping one another for

nothing and how that will not only change the world, but also change the way the world

changes2. The transformation is realized due to the immense success of schemes such as the

cosmic compendium of knowledge Wikipedia, the million channel peoples network YouTube

and the online metropolis MySpace3. An horizontal view on all the aforementioned user-

driven phenomena, including the community-based wireless movement, converges to the

following observation that was the primary inspiration for this research: modern Information

1 Erika Jonietz. Unwiring the Web. Published in Technology Review in December, 2001 (availableonline at http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/12677/, accessed on April 4th, 2007).2 Lev Grossman. Times Person of the Year: You. Published in Time Magazine on Dec. 13, 2006

(available online at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1570810,00.html, accessed onApril 4th, 2007).3

Seesupra note 2


18/217

18

and Communication Technologies (ICTs) relinquish a great amount of power to the

individual that can be directed to creative and innovative endeavors with the potential to alter

the way technology is endorsed in human activities across time and space.

Hence, the focal theme of the inquiry guiding this research involves understanding the

characteristics of the community-based wireless movement in terms of empowering end-users

to shape their own uses of wireless networking technologies. To further elaborate on the

motivation behind the research, the chapter is organized in the following way:

First, it reviews the wireless networking realm focusing on both bearing technologies

and service access models (section 1.1).

Second, it illustrates the community-based wireless movement and its various flavors

(section 1.2).

Third, it re-positions the movement within a broader context of user-driven technology-

augmented initiatives under an evolutionary perspective (section 1.3).

Finally, it describes the motivation behind this research stemming from a multilayered

perspective on the wireless community phenomenon (section 1.4).

1.1 Wireless Networking: Technologies and Service AccessModels

New technologies are arguably changing the way individuals act and interact within their

private and social spheres. The impact is exceptionally apparent in how digitization and its

enabling technologies have afforded novel methods for conducting business, communicating

with others, or accessing knowledge and information. One of the most prominent

technological developments augmenting such opportunities is wireless networking. The

concept is not new; the research community, as well as the industry, has struggled towards the

development of the standards that would allow cordless communication among devices since

the early 1990s, while, as early as in 1993, the engineer Brett Stewart conceived the idea for

public wireless Internet access4. Today, wireless networking is considered a major trend in

the world of telecommunications and its potential role is under scrutiny by all stakeholders.

Wireless networking can be achieved through numerous standards and protocols. These

standards can be classified based on their range; a commonly-accepted classification scheme

discriminates between short (Personal Area Network, PAN), middle (Local Are Network,

LAN), metropolitan (Metropolitan Area Network, MAN), and wide-area (Wide Area4

See WiFi timeline at http://wifinetnews.com/archives/001315.html


19/217


20/217

20

Table 1.1: Summary of the IEEE 802.11 Family of Standards (source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11)

Protocol Release DateOperation

frequencyData Rate

Range

(Indoor)

Range

(Outdoor)

Legacy 1997 2.4 GHz 2 Mbit/s

802.11a 1999 5 GHz 54 Mbit/s ~25m ~75m

802.11b 1999 2.4 GHz 11 Mbit/s ~35m ~100m

802.11g 2003 2.4 GHz 54 Mbit/s ~25m ~75m

802.11n 2007(unapproved draft)

2.4 GHz or 5GHz 540 Mbit/s ~50m ~125m

The main end-user attraction of WLANs, which largely accounts for the thriving

commercialization of WLAN-enabled devices and the ever-increasing number of wireless

networking islands, is theirflexibility (Varshney, 2003). WLANs provide rapid, effortless,

and cost-effective, compared to the wired solutions, wireless connectivity to computers,

machinery, or other communication systems in a local environment with the minimal

requirement that they bear a suitable Access Card. In addition, early standardization under the

IEEE family of standards umbrella allowed a great number of manufacturers to quickly enter

the WLAN market and provide interoperable devices and machines (Schmidt & Townsend,

2003). WLAN flexibility is further entrenched by their operation at unlicensed frequencies of

the telecommunications spectrum range, in particular at the ISM (Industrial Scientific

Medicine) band. This operational particularity eliminates regulatory barriers, which may haverendered wireless network deployment inexpedient (Bar & Galperin, 2004a). In fact, WLANs

emerged from a rather modest experiment in spectrum management that favors bandwidth

sharing on behalf of end-users (Benkler, 2002; Bar & Galperin, 2004a). Nevertheless, the

unlicensed mode of operation creates quality of service problems due to interference and casts

congestion management loads (Lehr & McKnight, 2003). To overcome such problems,

engineers are currently working and, in certain cases, have already figured out solutions,

towards reconfiguring WLAN-enabled devices to accommodate for smarter and less

consuming uses of the spectrum and are proposing novel network architectures (e.g. mesh

networking).

The original conceptualization of WLANs was somewhat limited and constrained to the

satisfaction of device interconnectivity requirements lessening the hard-wiring requirements

of early computer network installations within the home oroffice environment. However, the

technology was flexible enough to accommodate more sophisticated uses that transcended the

boundaries of private spaces, homes or office buildings. The critical step for this turn in

WLAN application domain is attributed to users starting to leave their home or office wireless


21/217

21

transmitters unsecured allowing their neighbors to connect to their private networks

(Sawhney, 2003a). Such practices soon developed to the introduction of the concept of

hotspots to signify information rich and/or densely populated public areas exhibiting demand

for high bandwidth communication and Internet access that can be satisfied through

appropriate WLAN configurations. Hotspots are easily built and have made their way in a

wide variety of public places (e.g. hotels, coffeehouses, railway or bus stations, air terminals,

or even local neighborhoods and communities). Hence, the blending of home, corporate, and

publicly available WLANs has resulted to the fabrication of a quilt consisting of several

wireless networks private or public, inter-connected or not, overlapping or isolated that

address differing user needs and possibly varying area coverage requirements. Nevertheless,

this usage scenario path was more or less accidental, since it was mainly driven by

sophisticated users fragmented initiatives for stretching the standard beyond the boundaries

envisioned by its original creators (Bar & Galperin, 2004b; 2006). Figure 1.1 illustrates the

three WLAN application scenarios discussed above and showcases the spatial flexibility of

WLAN technology in satisfying end-user needs.

Figure 1.1: Taxonomy of WLAN Application Scenarios

The provision of WLAN access in public spaces is not a clear-cut task; it involves various

stakeholders (end-users, location owners, equipment providers, Internet service providers,

application or content service providers, etc.) with potentially controversial interests. In a

rough classification schema, these stakeholders are organized around two broad categories of

service models targeted at the provision of WLAN access: commercial (orfor-profit) and

community (ornot-for-profit) service models (Rao & Parikh, 2003a; 2003b). Although the

commercial-community segregation is not utter and leaves grey areas in the field in-between

Home

Office

Publicly-available

Coverage area

User needs

Internet accessBroadband connectivity

Internet / intranet accessDevice inter-connectivity

Internet sharingDevice inter-connectivity


22/217


23/217


24/217


25/217


26/217

26

Wireless Communities represent a grassroots, bottom-up, self-organized organizational

model grouping wireless enthusiasts and activists who non-coercivelycooperate to deploy a

wireless communication network infrastructure, usually enriched with content or services of

interest, that is scalable enough to cover urban and metropolitan areas, openly availableand

freely accessible to all interested individuals.

As implied by the definition above, wireless communities represent an innovative

organizational arrangement promoting end-user private resource sharing and peer

collaboration for the provision of a non-proprietary shared information and communication

system. To achieve this objective, community members operate their own Access Point

(node), invite their friends and neighbors to connect to it as clients by deliberately leaving

their node open, and connect, in their turn, with other nodes to build up a quilt of wirelesslinks around neighborhoods or greater urban areas. Such actions require investment in

wireless equipment, incurred by community participants, as well as contributions in terms of

less tangible private resources, such as time and effort to set up the wireless link, upload

digital content to the community network, and host web-like services (VoIP telephony, online

gaming, Internet Relay Chat, email, etc.) including the possibility for sharing Internet

bandwidth. Furthermore, individuals are expected, though not explicitly obliged, to support

knowledge exchange and skill transfer processes from expert to novice community members.

Over and above these functions, the community also serves as a field for socialization by

bringing together common-minded individuals who connect via social relationships of

varying strength. Hence, wireless communities are multi-faceted and host an array of

activities for participants, ranging from technical tasks to sociality-like interactions, all of

which are performed under a shared cooperative mentality.

In essence, the wireless community network is a network created by users and for users that

attributes to them the dual role of being both providers and consumers of wireless services.

Beyond providing a means for hands-on experimentation and custom-made communication

capabilities for their members, wireless communities have heavily contributed to invigorating

interest in wireless networking (Howard, 2002; Sawhney, 2003a). Their libertarian and not-

for-profit ethos fuelled by organic, bottom-up innovation reminisce the origins of the Internet

(Dutton et al., 2004), while their voluntary spirit has been praised numerous times (Sandvig,

2004; Bar & Galperin, 2004b). Similar user-driven initiatives have manifested in the early

days of telephone networks or other utility infrastructures (Sandvig, 2004). Thus, it is topical

to examine how the wireless community movement fits and possibly extends similar


27/217

27

paradigms of end-users reclaiming power for the configuration of technical systems or

artefacts.

1.3 Wireless Communities as a Case of User-DrivenTechnology-Augmented Initiative

Wireless communities emerge, grow, and potentially flourish within a broader technological,

socio-economic, and political environment. This context is not static but incorporates the

legacy delivered to it by earlier likewise initiatives of end-users urged to self-experiment with

the uses of a new technology, propose alternative configurations, and conceive original

applications. In other words, wireless communities do not strike roots and grow on a virgin

ground; instead, they encounter a terrain marked by old cases to which they can be

parallelized or receive useful feedback from. In the wireless community case, this terrain is

shaped by two trends: the historical pattern of communication systems deployment and the

proliferation of technology-mediated communities like open source software communities,

peer-to-peer file sharing communities, and virtual communities.

Looking at the history of communication systems, from the early days of the radio till recent

ICT advancements, their evolutionary path is marked by centrally-driven (corporate or state)

strategic choices as much as by users testing the capabilities of a new technology and, in

many cases, showcasing different application scenarios than the ones conceived by their

developers or producing technological innovation (von Hippel, 1988). Numerous examples of

decentralized, cooperatively developed and run communication infrastructures exist, to depict

that community-like movements are no surprise for telecommunications policy research

(Sandvig, 2004; Bar & Galperin, 2004a): communities have built roads (Hughes, 1983),

provided telephone connections (Fischer, 1992), and determined the early days of radio

(Douglas, 1989; Streeter, 1996). The amateur radio operator of the early 20th

century provides

perhaps the best analogy to the community-based wireless movement (Bar & Galperin,

2004a). As Douglas (1989) reveals, these users experimented at length with radio equipment

and modified it to extend its range and performance, much as wireless communities are today

tinkering with homemade antennas and creating software tools to extend the reach and

improve the functionality of WiFi networks. At the time, the mushrooming of amateur radio

operators and the way these users were adapting and improving the technology took the

dominant industry players completely by surprise. Similarly, many incumbent operators have

also been surprised by WiFi rapid growth driven not only by corporate strategies but also by

the trial and error of users resulting to notable contributions, such as routing protocols for


28/217


29/217


30/217


31/217


32/217


33/217

33

Chapter 4 decomposes the research strategy followed in this study by detailing the

methods and mechanics applied to provide answers to the research questions postulated

in the previous chapter. In particular, the study opted for a combination of quantitative

and qualitative research methods in what is called triangulation, to capitalize on both

methods merits for shedding light on a phenomenon that is currently under-explored.

Chapter 5 details the integration of interviews (a qualitative tactic) to survey design

and execution (a quantitative tactic), describes the resulting research model, and

discusses the empirical findings regarding the properties of wireless community

collective action. The chapter ends up by outlining emergent implications for the

structuring and orchestration of modern technology-oriented collective actions.

Chapter 6details the mechanics behind the conduct of a second round of qualitative

research and combines the findings with the conjectures reached at in the preceding

chapter to a comprehensive discussion regarding the defining characteristics of wireless

communities.

Chapter 7concludes the research by addressing each of the three objectives described

above. It also identifies potential limitations of the study and highlights avenues for

further research in the area.

As a final note, the study presented tackles with a challenging and fresh research topic that

brings, once again, at the forefront of the telecommunications industry the role of end-users inreconfiguring the uses and applications of a new technology. Though it remains to be seen

whether wireless communities will eventually create a paradigmatic legacy in their

application domain, their study creates opportunities for interdisciplinary synergies to craft

our understanding of complex technology-augmented contemporary phenomena.


34/217


35/217


36/217


37/217


38/217


39/217

2005

(5)

Bendahan, S., Camponovo, G., Monzani, J-M., &

Pigneur, Y. Negotiation in Technology

Landscapes: An Actor-Issue Analysis.

Journal of Management Information

Systems.

Fuentes-Bautista, M., & Inagaki, N. Wi-Fis

Promise and Broadband Divides:

Reconfiguring Public Internet Access in

Austin, Texas. Proceedings of the 2005

Telecommunications and Research Policy

Conference.

Sandvig, C. The Return of the Broadcast War.

Proceedings of the 33rd Research

Conference on Communication,

Information, and Internet Policy.

Gaved, M., & Mulholland, P. Grassroots Initiated

Networked Communities: A Study of

Hybrid Physical/Virtual Communities.

Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii

International Conference on System

Sciences.

Meinrath,

O

R

(E

R

C

2006 Damsgaard, J., Parikh, M.A., & Rao, B. Wireless

Commons: Perils in the Common Good.

Communications of the ACM.


40/217


41/217

41

Figure 2.2: The Two Categories of Research Issues

Table 2.2 arranges the issues investigated in the collected literature by mapping them to the

corresponding studies. As shown in Table 2.2, researchers have pinpointed to a number of

research challenges; nevertheless, not all of them have been treated to the same extent and

with the same depth of analysis in terms of providing solid, theoretically-driveninterpretations and empirical validation.

Organizing aWireless Comm unit y:

Mobilizing andCoordinatingparticipants

Technology

Marketplace

Society

Regulationsurroundingenvironment


42/217


43/217

Entrepreneurial innovation Dutton et al. (2003), Meinrath (2005)

Spectrum policy debate: Spectrum commons (instead of property

rights in spectrum allocation)

Benkler (2002), Rheingold (2002), B

Meinrath (2005)

Bandwidth (Internet) sharing in grey legal zone Verma & Beckman (2002), Herslow

Reforms for a decentralized wireless grid Dutton et al. (2003), Bar & Galperin (

Policy /

Regulation

Infrastructure development patterns Sawhney (2003a, 2003b), Bar & Galp

Reinforcement of local social ties Verma & Beckman (2002), Schmidt &

Gaved & Mulholland (2005)

Fostering social capital Fuentes-Bautista & Inagaki (2005), M

(2005)

Provide access to under-served areas Auray et al. (2003), Sandvig (2004), G

Raising awareness on wireless broadband technologies Lehr & McKnight (2003), Schmidt &

Dutton et al. (2004)

Societal

Involvement of local public bodies Auray et al. (2003), Fuentes-Bautista

Member characteristics:

- Motives and incentives

- Member involvement and commitment

Herslow et al. (2002), McDonald (200

(2004)

Rao & Parikh (2003a; 2003b), Campo

(2003), Damsgaard et al. (2004; 2006

Group interactions, ties, and dynamics McDonald (2002), Rheingold (2002)

(2004b), Damsgaard et al. (2004; 200

Community

Organization

Community mission Schmidt & Townsend (2003)


44/217


45/217


46/217

46

Gaved & Mulholland, 2005). Beyond such large objectives, wireless communities are also

well positioned to reinforce local social ties (Verma & Beckman, 2002; Schmidt &

Townsend, 2003; Auray et al., 2003; Gaved & Mulholland, 2005) and create social capital

within the neighborhoods covered by community networks (Fuentes-Bautista & Inagaki,

2005; Meinrath, 2005; Gaved & Mulholland, 2005). Hence, the reach of wireless community

societal impact can be both of local or nation-wide significance; nevertheless, not all

researchers appear equally enthusiastic on the social enlargement capacity of the wireless

community movement.

Finally, the community organization issuesaddress both individual and group level dynamics

that need to be put into place for the phenomenon to set off and sustain its existence. At the

individual level, researchers pinpoint to a wide array of individual motives and incentives that

are considered indispensable not only for mobilizing involvement with a wireless community

but also for ensuring long-term commitment to it as a critical factor for the survivability of the

wireless community movement (Herslow et al., 2002; McDonald, 2002; Schmidt &

Townsend, 2003; Sandvig, 2004; Rao & Parikh, 2003a; 2003b; Camponovo et al., 2003;

Damsgaard et al., 2004; 2006). At the group level, researchers are interested on the nature of

interactions occurring among community members, their way of cooperating and building

social ties (McDonald, 2002; Rheingold, 2002; Rao & Parikh, 2003b; Bar & Galperin, 2004b;

Damsgaard et al., 2004; 2006). The combination of both level dynamics influences a

communitys standpoint by offering a commonly-held mission (Schmidt & Townsend, 2003).

Nevertheless, the issues belonging in this category have received considerably less attention

by researchers than the ones in the previous categories, though the critical role of users is

acknowledged in nearly all studies.

Overall, the categorization process contributed in defining the research territory for studying

the various aspects of wireless communities. It also provided indications on the nature of

inquiries that can be formed to elaborate on the phenomenons particularities and associate itwith extant knowledge. This assertion is better illustrated in the next section where the issues

presented in Table 2.2 are re-examined to produce a research agenda for studying wireless

communities.


47/217


48/217

48

either in terms of bandwidth crunches or excessive service demands. These problems create

tension among members and can be detrimental to the long-lived existence of communities.

Researchers picking up on this issue (e.g. Verma et al., 2002; Bar and Galperin, 2004b;

Damsgaard et al., 2004; 2006; Fuentes-Bautista & Inagaki, 2005) have drawn insight from

theoretical frameworks such as common-pool resources (Ostrom et al., 1994) and the tragedy

of the commons (Hardin, 1968; Ostrom, 1990). Their approach highlights an issue that

warrants further clarification: will the measures needed to avoid the demise of the community

network be hardwired in equipment, embedded in network communication protocols, or

fabricated onto the social web of ties and norms directing member behavior within the

community? To address this query, it is recommended that all alternatives are evaluated

taking into account the level of local difficulty in introducing each of them as a shared norm

with which all community members should comply.

Building Block 3: Industry Analysis Revisited

Since the majority of the studies examining the structure of the wireless industry are dated as

early as in 2002 and 2003 (see Table 2.2) when the wireless community was at its nascence

it is topical to re-investigate the dynamics of interaction among industry actors. This

updated view on the industry builds upon the observation that the emergence of wireless

communities was initially fired by the inability of commercial providers to cover latent

consumer demand in terms of both coverage capability and compelling service offerings.

Nevertheless, the industry has much evolved ever since in both directions so that the

following question emerges: has there been a shift in wireless communities positioning and

power within the wireless industry when compared to early assessments implying that the

phenomenon is destined to fade away? Elaborating on this topic, it is germane to re-examine

the top-down versus bottom-up typology of wireless broadband access models that is

currently challenged by the entrance of hybrid actors, such as municipal networking projects

developed with the cooperation of for-profit and not-for-profit entities. Hence, the third

building block of the agenda proposes the re-evaluation of the strategic role of wirelesscommunities in an ever-evolving technology-driven industry consisting of numerous actors

engaging in multi-faceted interactions.

Building Block 4: Evolution of the Wireless Communication Grid

Following a similar frame of thinking, it appears quite challenging to persist with earlier

inquiries regarding the role of wireless communities in shaping the characteristics of the

wireless communication grid (e.g. Bar & Galperin, 2004a; 2004b; Sandvig, 2004). The

driving research question remains the same Is decentralized communication network

development a significant alternative to the traditional, centrally-driven communication


49/217

49

systems that have historically prevailed? -, but the context is slightly different since there

have been advancements in both wireless / mobile and fixed broadband networks, including

increasing penetration rates for broadband and 3G networks. Relevant theoretical frameworks

that have been scrutinized but are still relevant because they offer an evolutionary perspective

on the phenomenon under study include the Infrastructure Development Model (Sawhney,

1992), Hughes (1983) model of infrastructure evolution, path dependency concepts like

network externalities (Katz & Shapiro, 1985), as well as theorizations drawing from the

political economy of communication networks (e.g. Mansell, 1993; Benkler, 1998). All the

aforementioned theoretical directives can provide updates on the trajectory followed by

wireless communication networks and the role of wireless communities beyond the early

stages of deployment.

Building Block 5: The Social Impact of Wireless Communities

Wireless communities are considered a vehicle for the popularization of broadband

technologies to audiences falling within, as well as beyond, the radius of their connectivity

reach. Although research has attributed to the wireless community phenomenon certain

capacity to promote social welfare objectives (see Table 2.2 for an indicative list of such

objectives), the magnitude and effectiveness of this ability still remain unclear under the light

of controversial research findings (e.g. Auray et al., 2003; Schmidt & Townsend, 2003;

Sandvig, 2004; Meinrath, 2005). Hence, it is topical to re-examine the mechanisms through

which wireless communities can achieve societal goals within either their locality or society

at large: Is there room for wireless communities to assume an active role in technology-

induced social enlargement initiatives? And, if so, what lines of action are considered

relevant? Elaborating on the societal role of wireless communities resides on understanding

how wireless community members endorse such role, something that reflects on

communities strategies for spatial extension and establishment of interaction mechanisms

with other entities, including local inhabitants, public agencies, and other not-for-profit

organizations.

Building Block 6: Wireless Communities as an Innovative Organizational Form

The final block of the agenda shifts attention from the outer to the inner plane of wireless

communities. In doing so, it places the individual at the core of the inquiry by delineating two

research questions that have not been adequately or systematically treated in the related

literature (e.g. McDonald, 2002; Schmidt & Townsend, 2003; Auray et al., 2003; Sandvig,

2004; Damsgaard et al., 2004; 2006): What are the incentive systems mobilizing and

upholding individual involvement with a wireless community? How are individuals with

potentially deviating incentive systems cooperating to support the operation of the wireless


50/217

50

community? These questions investigate the why and the how behind communities

formation and operation. They are also suggestive of the inter-disciplinary approach that

needs to be adopted since similar inquiries draw from diverse disciplines including

psychology, sociology, and economics. Following this perspective, McDonald (2002) and

Sandvig (2004) pinpoint to the theory of collective action (Olson, 1965) as a suitable

framework for picturing the complexities involved in member mobilization and cooperation

in a wireless community.

In sum, a closer look on the literature collected through the process described earlier in this

chapter indicates six different research directions building up a roadmap for studying wireless

communities. Table 2.3 summarizes the delineated directions and corresponding research

questions.

Table 2.3: A Research Agenda for Studying Wireless Communities

A Research Agenda for Studying Wireless Communities

Technological Innovation Can wireless communities be considered as innovation institutions

following the tradition of user communities and user-driven

innovation models?

What are the consequences of such innovation model to wireless

technologies evolution?

Managing Shared Network

Resources

Will the measures needed to manage shared network resources be

hardwired in equipment, embedded in network communication

protocols, or fabricated onto the social web of ties and norms

directing member behavior within the community?

Updated Industry Analysis Has there been a shift in wireless communities positioning and power

within the wireless industry when compared to early assessments

implying that the phenomenon is destined to fade away?

Evolution of the Wireless

Communication Grid

Is decentralized communication network development a significant

alternative to the traditional, centrally-driven communication systems

that have historically prevailed?

The Social Impact of

Wireless Communities

Is there room for wireless communities to assume an active role in

technology-induced social enlargement initiatives?

What lines of action are considered relevant?

Wireless Communities as

an Innovative

Organizational Form

What are the incentive systems mobilizing and upholding individual

involvement with a wireless community?

How are individuals with potentially deviating incentive systems

cooperating to support the operation of the wireless community?


51/217

51

2.4 A Research Opportunity

The literature categorization, as well as the resulting research agenda, implies a two-level

study of the wireless community phenomenon: one focusing on its inner, structural

characteristics that shape its organizational uniqueness and one addressing its impact on the

surrounding environment, including dimensions such as technological evolution, industry

structure, social enlargement, and communication systems development. Nevertheless, the

second approach has received greater attention from the research community though it is our

position that, without knowing the inner features and the way wireless communities are

mobilized, organized, and coordinated, it is more difficult to determine with certainty and

plausibility the way they can influence the environment. Hence, this research adoptsa user-

centric perspective and anchors on the study of the defining and distinctive characteristics of

wireless communities as an essential step for understanding their positioning within a broader

market, technology, regulatory, or societal space.

Re-examining the research questions postulated in the final building block of the research

agenda, it appears that individuals engage in a layered system of behaviors when it comes to

their participation in a wireless community. At the first level, an individual needs to be

properly motivated to participate in a wireless community, or, in other words to perceive that

certain valuable benefits would be delivered to him. At the same time, one needs to weighpotential costs for becoming involved with a wireless community project, such as investment

in effort and equipment. Combining benefits and costs in an economic-like decision making

process mobilizes ones involvement with the community; nevertheless, the process remains

latent to ensure the continuity (or discontinuity) of ones involvement. In addition, one needs

to choose a contribution level to the community resources, which are shared and available for

consumption by all community members. At this point, his actions impact and are impacted

by others actions, as well as by the nature of ties and behavioral norms developed within the

community, to create a second level of interacting behaviors. The growth and potentialsurvivability of wireless communities are contingent upon the nature of these interactions to

suggest that apart from individual characteristics, group characteristics and dynamics are also

important. Figure 2.3 decomposes the inner properties of wireless communities that provide

the basis for our inquiry to be elaborated on the following chapters.


52/217


53/217

53

cooperation in a wireless community. The following chapters detail the strategy applied for

achieving this goal starting from the assembly of a suitable and solid theoretical framework

based on the premises of collective action to be presented in Chapter 3.


54/217


55/217


56/217

56

them (Bowles & Gintis, 2002), or surface in the absence of market alternatives to satisfy an

extant demand (Hardin, 1982). In such case, the provision of the public good is accomplished

through voluntary contributions of privately-owned goods and resources by individuals. Thus,

it becomes topical to illuminate the notion of a public good.

In economics literature, goods are distinguished based on two properties: excludability in

provision (no-one can be excluded from using the good) and rivalry in consumption (one

persons consumption does not reduce the amount available to anyone else) (Hardin, 1982).

Absence or existence of both properties leads to a one-dimensional categorization of goods

between two ends; public goods are non-excludable and non-rivalry (e.g. air, forestry) and

stand on the one end, while private goods are both excludable and rivalry and stand on the

other end (i.e. market products). Nevertheless, reality checks show that public goods are, in

fact, an ideal representation. Consequently, there are various permutations for goods in

between the two ends of the aforementioned spectrum, which, in turn, are termed impure

public goods. A stricter taxonomy of goods denotes four classes of goods: public, private,

club, andcommon orcollectivegoods. Club goods are excludable (an exclusion mechanism

is employed to deter individuals from consuming them) but partially non-rival (Cornes &

Sandler, 1996), while common goods suffer from congestion (for example, roads and

highways suffer from traffic), which results to rivalry in their consumption. Mechanisms for

the provision of goods include markets (best suited for private goods), governments (best

suited for public goods), and collective action for all but private goods (Cornes & Sandler,

1996). Figure 3.1 summarizes the four classes of goods by placing them on a two-dimensional

map.

Figure 3.1: The Goods Landscape

CollectiveGoods

PublicGoods

non-rivalry rivalry

non-

excludability

excludability

Private

Goods

Club Goods


57/217

57

Prior economic research has attested the existence of a number of challenges for privately

provided public goods, namely problems of under- or sub-optimal provision and over-

exploitation (Olson, 1965; Cornes & Sandler, 1996; Myles, 1995). Economic theorists

attribute them to pure human nature that is guided by self-interest: people would normally

find it against personal interest to contribute for a common interest (Olson, 1965; Cornes &

Sandler, 1996). In other words, individuals are not provided with a sound incentive to

contribute to collective action though the outcome of the action would leave them better off

(Olson, 1965). This juxtaposition between individual rationality and collective irrationality

creates the so-called social dilemma (Kollock, 1998). Social dilemmas underlie a host of

societal problems involving publicly shared goods and resources in terms of both undersupply

and overconsumption (Kalman et al., 2002), thus making them a useful tool for the canonic

representation of many real-life situations (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002), e.g. voluntary action

and volunteering (Diekman, 1985; Murninghan et al., 1993). Perhaps, the most famous work

illustrating how the lack of incentives creates a Tragedy of the Commons was published by

Hardin (1968), who described the challenges presented to a group of herders having open

access to a shared property where they can let their cows graze.

Olson, in his theoretical discourse, discusses dilemmas by calling attention to the intrinsic

difficulty of mobilizing collective action. At the initialization of any collective action

initiative, a start-up dilemma arises that can be overcome by the existence of a privileged

group or, in other words, by properly motivated and resourceful individuals forming the

critical mass needed to set off the action (Oliver et al., 1985). During the actions growth, its

potentials are jeopardized due to the emergence of the free-rider dilemma. Free-riding is a

natural consequence of a goods non-excludable nature and illustrates a situation of

exploitation of the great by the small (Olson, 1965): free-riding encompasses the dynamics

created when an individual exhibits the tendency to exploit what others have contributed

without contributing himself. In a more illustrative turn of phrase, when others are expected

to contribute for the provision of a public good, an individual is happy not to contribute(Myatt & Wallace, 2002).

Free-riding is a solid threat to the sustained existence of any collective action initiative since

it can be the optimal behavioral choice for individuals, especially when the collective grows

in size. In fact, size is considered a critical factor for the success of collective action projects

as scrutinized by Olson (1965). In his argumentation, group size influences collective action

in three ways: first, larger groups would be less likely to achieve collective action at all;

second, the overall level of collective provision would be lower for larger groups that did

achieve collective action; and third, the degree of sub-optimality in collective provision would


58/217

58

increase with group size due to problematic coordination and the reduced visibility of

individual contributions, all of which encourage free-riding tendencies. Hence, Olson winds

up by proposing that small groups are more efficient and viable than large ones.

Nevertheless, there are two countermeasures that can be employed to deter free-riders:

selective incentives, which provide private and excludable benefits enjoyed only by

participants, and intervention from a recognized authority with the capacity to coerce

individuals into maintaining their contribution. Though Olsons assertions regarding the size

issue appear to be valid in numerous cases, they have fired up an interesting debate among

scholars summarized in the words of Hardin (1982), who stated that the problem of size is

the most controversial issue in the contemporary literature on collective action. Thus, the

theory of collective action has been revisited by researchers in various fields who have

furthered our understanding on its ability to explain how individuals mobilize and cooperate

to achieve their common interests.

3.2 Collective Action Revisited

Olsons seminal work on collective action has received practically equal amounts of credit

and critique over the years. Oliver (1993) summarizes the points in Olsons theorization that

have been put under scrutiny by scholars, all of whom pinpoint that the relationship between

size and collective action growth and success is not as explicit as proposed by Olson but

lingers on a number of contingencies. Picking up from the possibility for a non-linear effect

of size on collective action, Critical Mass Theory (Oliver et al., 1985; Oliver & Marwell,

1988; Marwell et al., 1988; Marwell & Oliver, 1993) offers a comprehensive treatment of the

particularities that need to be taken into account when predicting the evolution of any

collective action project.

In particular, Critical Mass Theory identifies more than one factors that collectively influence

the emergence and sustained existence of collective action initiatives. First, the form of the

production function (i.e. accelerating vs. decelerating) informs the severity of the start-up and

the free-rider dilemmas (Oliver et al., 1985). For example, in cases of accelerating production

functions, the action is hard to take off but once set off free-riding is not a major concern

because the value of the good produced increases with the number of people participating. In

such scenario, the critical mass, being the collective of individuals behaving differently from

typical group members, is necessary to pay the start-up costs and induce widespread

collective action. However, in cases of decelerating production functions, the situation is

reversed and the critical mass ensures the long-term provision of the good in the presence of


59/217


60/217

60

The evolutionary approach to collective action has yielded some interesting insights regarding

the deconstruction and subsequent reconstruction of its fundamental premises as proclaimed

by Olson: the necessary condition for collective action imposes that a group must be small

(the size issue) or able to coerce its members or able to provide sufficient selective incentives

to contributors (Lupia & Sin, 2003). The revisiting is essential due to the digital nature of the

goods under scrutiny, the production process of which is not subject to the same dynamics as

material goods, which were the original targets of collective action theory. In particular,

digitization introduces divisibility as a defining element of the respective goods, something

that has a profound impact on both the level and the process of production. Production levels

are perpetual and depend on individual valuations of the good produced, while the good does

not need to be completely produced to be consumed, rather use can occur during production

as well. These particularities are especially relevant to information goods, since different

types of information have different saliency and value to different persons (Fulk et al., 2004).

Further complexities are imposed due to the fact that use of a communication good can be

equivalent to contribution (Fulk et al., 1996) or that digital information goods can be easily

reproduced so that their ownership is never fully transferred from the private to the public

domain of the collective e.g. an individual can contribute knowledge to an information

commons but remains the owner of this piece of information and can apply it in alternative

uses as well (Fulk et al., 2004; Bimber et al., 2005; Flanagin et al., 2006). All the above imply

that evaluating of the costs and benefits from participating in a collective action becomes a

more subjective process than it was with traditional material goods. The process is further

complicated by the experiential nature of the goods: some of the costs and benefits can only

be discerned after using the good and not a priori (Fulk et al., 2004) and this complexity is not

found in purely physical goods (Fulk et al., 1996).

Although the aforementioned description of modern ICT-related collective actions indicates

certain amount of complexity introduced in individual decisions to participate or not,

researchers are fairly optimistic regarding the outcome of such projects (Lupia & Sin, 2003;Bimber et al., 2005; Flanagin et al., 2006). Their optimism stems from the fact that these

collective actions emerge in technology-augmented environments with built-in

communication means that are efficient and effective even for large group sizes. Thus, one of

Olsons primary concerns regarding the arising of coordination problems with increases in

group size is alleviated due to the establishment of advanced, synchronous as well as

asynchronous, communication mechanisms, such as online boards, discussion fora, and

emailing, that allow participants to collaborate and organize their actions. The combination of

these factors digital nature of the goods and technology-enhanced communication

capabilities results to the relaxation of two conventional menaces, namely the threat of free-


61/217


62/217

62

Highlight 1: Olsonframes Collective

Action theory

Two major cornerstones:- the size issue

- free-riding is a sizeable threat that isovercome only if participants receive

selective incentives or if they are

coerced to collaboration

Highlight 2 : Crit icalMass Theory

Non-linear effect of size on collectiveaction growth and success:

- form of the production function- interest and resource heterogeneity

- costs- social mor phology

Highlight 3: Collective

Action in I CT-augmented

environments

Departure from material to digital

connective and comm unal goods:

- desired production level is not objective- complex production process due togood divisibility

- resource contribution does not signifyloss of ownership

Highlight 4: CollectiveAction Revisited

ICT-related collective actions can beeffective and successful:

- plethora ofcommunicationmechanisms efficient for large sizes- diminishing free-riding threat

- self-organization instead of coercion

Figure 3.2: Highlights in the Evolution of Collective Action Theory

3.3 Wireless Communities as an Information andCommunication Good

Wireless communities represent an innovative, user-driven model for the provision of WLAN

infrastructure, information and communication services, as well as knowledge and expertise

in the wireless realm. To support the operation of the community network, individual

participants are expected to contribute their time, effort, and monetary resources to set up or

connect to Access Points, share their knowledge and expertise, enrich the communitys web

with valuable services, while, at the same time, they are offered a hybrid mode of social

connectivity (physical in the form of face-to-face meetings; virtual over digital channels, such

as discussion forums and VoIP telephony). Furthermore, the aggregation of individual

contributions affords the capacity for producing a shared good that is, in turn, made available

to all interested individuals.


63/217


64/217


65/217

65

Table 3.1: Wireless Communities as an Information and Communication Good

Dimension Description

Heterogeneity Tangible and intangible components

First class (tangible): physical connectivity, digital service

commons Second class (intangible): social connectivity, knowledge pool

Divisibility Grassroots development, accelerating production function

Public Good Properties Impure public good: non-excludability and non-rivalry can be hindered by

physical constraints

Power/Ownership Loss Limited loss of power/ownership over both tangible and intangible

resources contributed to the community

3.4 Wireless Communities under the Lens of Collective Action

Theory

Collective action, by referring to both individual and group behavior, is better analyzed under

a layered approach, starting with its individual components before moving on to the collective

and its structure. Researchers have adopted this approach and their enquiries have gradually

focused from examining individual decisions to exploring group structure and within-group

interactions (Oliver, 1993). Marwell and Oliver (1993) offer a structured perspective on

collective action by delineating four topical dimensions in its study: a) good characteristics

and production function; b) individual characteristics; c) group characteristics; and d) action

processes or interdependencies. Having already investigated the properties of the wireless

community good, the following paragraphs theorize on the remaining characteristics.

3.4.1 Individual Characteristics

At the individuallevel, the decision to participate in a wireless community is formulated as a

cost-benefit calculation: individuals weigh their expectations for benefits from participating in

collective action against the costs incurred due to the contribution of available, privately-held

resources (Marwell & Oliver, 1993). Focusing on the benefit side of the equation, Olson

(1965) proposes that individuals can be driven by a desire to win prestige, respect,

friendship, and other social and psychological objectives. The multi-dimensional nature of

the wireless community good emphasizes that participants are driven by expectations for

varied benefits, similar to the ones proposes by Olson, but not uniformly distributed, since it

is possible that not all individuals are equally interested in each good class (for example,

someone may be more interested in the communitys learning commons rather than its social

affiliation possibilities). In addition, what drives participation may be different from what


66/217


67/217


68/217


69/217

69

interdependencies among members, to ultimately impact the sustainability potentials of

wireless communities.

In particular, individual characteristics encompass the motives and costs determining an

individuals decision process to participate in a wireless community or not. Driven by

individual motive versus cost systems, wireless community members engage themselves in a

series of processes corresponding to the activities available through the community network.

Hence, group characteristics are shaped by the groups ability to produce a valuable good

deriving from the aggregation of individual participation preferences in terms of intensity

and orientation. Furthermore, the production of the wireless community good, as described in

section 3.3, implies that individual and group characteristics intertwine to render the notion of

participation more complex due to member interactions and interdependencies (action

processes in Marwell and Olivers theorization). These dynamics, in turn, impact the level of

free-riding and the waycoordination is achieved beyond coercion: free-riding is not expected

to be an optimal choice under the influence of collaborative norms, the habit of cooperation,

and the nature of the wireless community good, whereas coordination resides on members

self-organization. Ultimately, the combination of all factors determines the communitys

sustainability and long-term viability.

Figure 3.4 illustrates the framework under which wireless community collective action is

studied. The framework can be further decomposed to a series of research questions exploring

its building blocks (Table 3.2).


70/217

Figure 3.4: A Framework for Analyzing Wireless Community Collective Action

Table 3.2: Research Questions for Investigating Wireless Community Collective Action

Collective Action Dimension Research Questions

What are themotivation profiles of wireless community members?Individual Characteristics

What are the cost structures of wireless community members?

Group Characteristics Whatparticipatory preferences are exhibited by wireless community members with regards to

the processes supporting the operation of a wireless community?

Isfree-riding a compelling threat? If not, how is it overcome?Action Processes

(Interdependencies) How iscoordination among wireless community members achieved?

Individualcharacteristics

Motivation and Costprofiles

The group is able to produce thegood through its membersparticipation preferences

Groupcharacteristics

Action Processes

- collaboration instead of f- coordination instead of

organization

Good characteristics


71/217


72/217


73/217


74/217

74

Triangulation exemplifies the complementarity of the two approached and can be performed

for supplementary, informational, developmental, or other reasons (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).

Under the triangulation perspective, there can be back and forth interplay between the two

procedures, with qualitative data affecting quantitative analysis and vice versa (Strauss &

Corbin, 1998), to provide a thick, holistic description of the phenomenon under investigation

(Jick, 1979). In general, qualitative research can be used to explore substantive areas about

which little is known or as a means of validating quantitative data, whereas quantitative

studies systematize the observational data acquired through qualitative means (Jick, 1979).

Given the fact that wireless communities are relatively under-researched, especially when it

comes to the collection and interpretation of empirical data, triangulation is an attractive

methodological option that allows capitalizing on the merits of both procedures to enhance

our understanding of the phenomenons collective action properties and dynamics. Having

opted for the triangulation approach gives rise to scheduling issues which of the two

methods should be applied first and why? particularly when one takes into consideration

that significant contributions can be achieved both ways and across stages, as analyzed by

Sieber (1978) and summarized in the table below (Table 4.1).

Table 4.1: Synergies between Qualitative and Quantitative Research (adapted from Sieber (1978))

Contribution of fieldwork to surveys Contribution of surveys to fieldwork

Survey Design Scouting and gaining familiarity

with the sample

Fieldwork Design Identification of cases of

interest either for generalizability or theory

refinement purposes

Survey Data Collection Pre-testing of the

questionnaire for improvement; Acquiring

knowledge of the population to gain legitimacy of

the survey

Fieldwork Data Collection Correction for the

elite bias stemming from questioning selected

informants; Information on overlooked subjects

Survey Analysis Theoretical structure of the

survey deriving from qualitative fieldwork;

Construction of questionnaire items based on

qualitative observations; Validation and

interpretation of survey findings; Clarification of

provocative or puzzling results

Qualitative Data Analysis Verification of field

interpretations; Casting of new light to field

observations

As it can be seen from the table above, the fruitful integration of both data collection methods

can empower the researcher at all stages, from the design to the analys

Documents

Thesis Bina