Knowledge Collaboration in Online Communities

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0614

References

  • Adler P. S. Market, hierarchy, and trust: The knowledge economy and the future of capitalism. Organ. Sci. (2001) 12(2):215–234LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Argote L., McGrath J., Cooper C. L., Robertson I. T. Group processes in organizations: Continuity and change. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (1993) 8(John Wiley & Sons, New York) 333–389Google Scholar
  • Argote L., Mcevily B., Reagans R. Managing knowledge in organizations: An integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Management Sci. (2003) 49(4):571–582LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Arguello J., Butler B. S., Joyce E., Kraut R., Ling K. S., Rosé C., Wang X. Talk to me: Foundations for successful individual-group interactions in online communities. Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Human Factors Comput. Systems (2006) (ACM, New York) 959–968CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Bagozzi R. P., Dholakia U. M. Open source software user communities: A study of participation in Linux user groups. Management Sci. (2006) 52(7):1099–1115LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Bartel C. A., Garud R. The role of narratives in sustaining organizational innovation. Organ. Sci. (2009) 20(1):107–117LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Baum J. R., Locke E. A., Smith K. G. A multidimensional model of venture growth. Acad. Management J. (2001) 44(2):292–303CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Benford R., Snow D. A. Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Rev. Sociol. (2000) 26(1):611–639CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Blanchard A. L., Markus M. L. The experienced “sense” of a virtual community: Characteristics and processes. ACM SIGMIS Database (2004) 35(1):64–79CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Boland R. J., Tenkasi R. V., Te'eni D. Designing information technology to support distributed cognition. Organ. Sci. (1994) 5(3):456–475LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Boland R. J., Lyytinen K., Yoo Y. Wakes of innovation in project networks: The case of digital 3-D representations in architecture, engineering, and construction. Organ. Sci. (2007) 18(4):631–647LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Bono J. E., Illies R. Charisma, positive emotions and mood contagion. Leadership Quart. (2006) 17(4):317–334CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Bowker G. C., Star S. L.Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences (1999) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Boyd D. Taken out of context: American teen sociality in networked publics. (2008) . Ph.D. thesis, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  • Bruner J. S. The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry (1991) 18(Autumn):1–21CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Butler B. S. Membership size, communication activity, and sustainability: A resource-based model of online social structures. Inform. Systems Res. (2001) 12(4):346–362LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Butler B. S., Sproull L., Kiesler S., Kraut R., Weisband S. P. Community effort in online groups: Who does the work and why? Leadership at a Distance: Research in Technologically-Supported Work (2007) (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ) 171–194Google Scholar
  • Carlile P. R. A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organ. Sci. (2002) 13(4):442–455LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Chen X.-P., Yao X., Kotha S. Entrepreneur passion and preparedness in business plan presentations: A persuasion analysis of venture capitalists' funding decisions. Acad. Management J. (2009) 52(1):199–214CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Clark T., Jones M., Armstrong C. The dynamic structure of management support systems: Theory development, research focus, and direction. MIS Quart. (2007) 31(3):579–615Google Scholar
  • Couger J. D.Creativity and Innovation in Information Systems Organizations (1996) (Boyd & Fraser, Danvers, MA) Google Scholar
  • Cummings J. N., Butler B., Kraut R. The quality of online social relationships. Comm. ACM (2002) 45(7):103–108CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Czarniawska B.Narratives in Social Science Research (2004) (Sage, London) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • de Laet M., Mol A. The Zimbabwe Bush Pump: Mechanics of a fluid technology. Soc. Stud. Sci. (2000) 30(2):225–263CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Dougherty D. Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organ. Sci. (1992) 3(2):179–202LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Elsbach K. D., Kramer R. M. Assessing creativity in Hollywood pitch meetings: Evidence for a dual-process model of creativity judgments. Acad. Management J. (2003) 46(3):283–301CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Faraj S., Johnson S. L. Network exchange patterns in online communities. Organ. Sci. (2010) . ePub ahead of print December 29, http://orgsci.journal.informs.org/cgi/content/abstract/orsc.1100.0600v1Google Scholar
  • Feldman M. S. Resources in emerging structures and processes of change. Organ. Sci. (2004) 15(3):295–309LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Fiol C. M., O'Connor E. J. When hot and cold collide in radical change processes: Lessons from community development. Organ. Sci. (2002) 13(5):532–546LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Fleming L., Waguespack D. M. Brokerage, boundary spanning, and leadership in open innovation communities. Organ. Sci. (2007) 18(2):165–180LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Gibson J. J.The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (1979) (Houghton Mifflin, Reading, MA) Google Scholar
  • Goffman E.The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959) (Doubleday, New York) Google Scholar
  • Goodwin J., Jasper J. M., Polletta F.Passionate Politics: Emotions and Social Movements (2001) (University of Chicago Press, Chicago) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Griffith T. L. Technology features as triggers for sensemaking. Acad. Management Rev. (1999) 24(3):472–488CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Gu B., Konana P., Rajagopalan B., Chen H.-W. M. Competition among virtual communities and user valuation: The case of investing-related communities. Inform. Systems Res. (2007) 18(1):68–85LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Hancock J. T., Joinson A., McKenna K., Postmes T., Reips U.-D. Digital perception: Why, when and how people lie online. The Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology (2007) (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK) 289–301Google Scholar
  • Hayne S. C., Pollard C. E., Rice R. E. Identification of comment authorship in anonymous group support systems. J. Management Inform. Systems (2003) 20(1):301–329Google Scholar
  • Hinds P. J., Bailey D. E. Out of sight, out of sync: Understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organ. Sci. (2003) 14(6):615–632LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Hughes J., Lang K. Transmutability: Digital decontextualization, manipulation, and recontextualization as a new source of value in the production and consumption of culture products. Proc. 39th Annual Hawaii Internat. Conf. Systems Sci. (2006) (IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC) 165aGoogle Scholar
  • Isaksen S. G., Treffinger D. J.Creative Problem Solving: The Basic Course (1985) (Bearley, Buffalo, NY) Google Scholar
  • Jehn K. A., Northcraft G. B., Neale M. A. Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1999) 44(4):741–763CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Jeppesen L. B., Frederiksen L. Why do users contribute to firm-hosted user communities? The case of computer-controlled music instruments. Organ. Sci. (2006) 17(1):45–63LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Jessup L. M., Connolly T., Tansik D. A. Toward a theory of automated group work: The deindividuating effects of anonymity. Small Group Res. (1990) 21(3):333–348CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Joyce E., Kraut R. E. Predicting continued participation in newsgroups. J. Comput.-Mediated Comm. (2006) 11(3). Article 3CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Kane G. C., Majchrzak A., Johnson J., Chen G. A longitudinal model of perspective making and perspective taking within fluid online collectives. Proc. Internat. Conf. Inform. Systems (2009) Phoenix, AZ(AIS Electronic Library). Paper 10Google Scholar
  • Katz D., Kahn R. L.The Social Psychology of Organization (1978) (John Wiley & Sons, New York) Google Scholar
  • Kuk G. Strategic interaction and knowledge sharing in the KDE developer mailing list. Management Sci. (2006) 52(7):1031–1042LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Lakhani K. R., von Hippel E. How open source software works: “Free” user-to-user assistance. Res. Policy (2003) 32(6):923–943CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lamont M., Molnár V. The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Rev. Sociol. (2002) 28:167–195CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Latané B., Liu J. H. The intersubjective geometry of social space. J. Comm. (1996) 46(4):26–34CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Latané B., Liu J., Nowak A., Bonevento M., Zheng L. Distance matters: Physical space and social impact. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. (1995) 21(8):795–805CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lave J., Wenger E.Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral Participation (1991) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Law J. Objects and spaces. Theory, Culture Soc. (2002) 19(5/6):91–105CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Law J., Singleton V. Object lessons. Organization (2005) 12(3):331–355CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Law J., Urry J. Enacting the social. Econom. Soc. (2004) 33(3):390–410CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Leonardi P. M., Barley S. R. Materiality and change: Challenges to building better theory about technology and organizing. Inform. Organ. (2008) 18(3):159–176CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lerner J., Tirole J. The simple economics of open source. J. Indust. Econom. (2002) 50(2):197–234CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lessig L.Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy (2008) (Penguin, New York) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lewis K., Belliveau M., Herndon B., Keller J. Group cognition, membership change, and performance: Investigating the benefits and detriments of collective knowledge. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes (2007) 103(2):159–178CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Ma M., Agarwal R. Through a glass darkly: Information technology design, identity verification, and knowledge contribution in online communities. Inform. Systems Res. (2007) 18(1):42–67LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Majchrzak A., Maloney J. Enterprise mashups. (2008) . Report, Society for Information Management's Advanced Practices Council, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  • Majchrzak A., Cherbakov L., Ives B. Harnessing the power of the crowds with corporate social networking tools: How IBM does it. MIS Quart. Executive (2009) 8(2):103–108Google Scholar
  • Markus M. L., Silver M. S. A foundation for the study of IT effects: A new look at DeSanctis and poole's concepts of structural features and spirit. J. Assoc. Inform. Systems (2008) 9(10):609–632Google Scholar
  • Marx G. T. What's in a name? Some reflections on the sociology of anonymity. Inform. Soc. (1999) 15(2):99–112CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Mol A., Law J. Regions, networks and fluids: Anaemia and social topology. Soc. Stud. Sci. (1994) 24(4):641–671CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Multisilta J., Mäenpää M. Create a mobile video story. Proc. Third Internat. Conf. Digital Interactive Media Entertainment Arts (2008) (ACM, New York) 522–523Google Scholar
  • Murray F., O'Mahony S. Exploring the foundations of cumulative innovation: Implications for organization science. Organ. Sci. (2007) 18(6):1006–1021LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Nambisan S., Baron R. A. Different roles, different strokes: Organizing virtual customer environments to promote two types of customer contributions. Organ. Sci. (2010) 21(2):554–572LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Nonnecke B., Preece J. Lurker demographics: Counting the silent. Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Human Factors Comput. Systems (2000) (ACM, New York) 73–80CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Nunamaker J. F., Dennis A. R., Valacich J. S., Vogel D. R. Information technology for negotiating groups: Generating options for mutual gain. Management Sci. (1991) 37(10):1325–1346LinkGoogle Scholar
  • O'Connor K. M., Adair W. L., Petersen R. S., Mannix E. A. Integrative interests? Building a bridge between negotiation research and the dynamic organization. Leading and Managing People in the Dynamic Organization (2003) (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ) 163–184Google Scholar
  • Oh W., Jeon S. Membership herding and network stability in the open source community: The Ising perspective. Management Sci. (2007) 53(7):1086–1101LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Oldenburg R.The Great Good Place: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Bookstores, Bars, Hair Salons, and Other Hangouts at the Heart of a Community (1989) (Marlowe & Company, New York) Google Scholar
  • O'Mahony S., Bechky B. A. Boundary organizations: Enabling collaboration among unexpected allies. Admin. Sci. Quart. (2008) 53(3):422–459CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • O'Mahony S., Ferraro F. The emergence of governance in an open source community. Acad. Management J. (2007) 50(5):1079–1106CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • O'Reilly C. A., Tushman M. L. The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Bus. Rev. (2004) 82(4):74–81Google Scholar
  • Orlikowski W., Scott S. Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. Acad. Management Ann. (2008) 2(1):433–474CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Osborn A. F.Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Problem-Solving (1953) (Scribner's & Sons, New York) Google Scholar
  • Parent M., Gallupe R. B., Salisbury W. D., Handelman J. M. Knowledge creation in focus groups: Can group technologies help? Inform. Management (2000) 38(1):47–58CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Peddibhotla N. B., Subramani M. R. Contributing to public document repositories: A critical mass theory perspective. Organ. Stud. (2007) 28(3):327–346CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Pentland B. T. Building process theory with narrative: From description to explanation. Acad. Management Rev. (1999) 24(4):711–724CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Pinsonneault A., Heppel N. Anonymity in group support systems research: A new conceptualization, measure, and contingency framework. J. Management Inform. Systems (1997–1998) 14(3):89–108CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Postmes T., Lea M. Social processes and group decision making: Anonymity in group decision support systems. Ergonomics (2000) 43(8):1252–1274CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Powell W. W., Staw B. M., Cummings L. L. Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior (1990) 12(JAI Press, Greenwich, CT) 295–336Google Scholar
  • Preece J.Online Communities: Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability (2000) (John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK) Google Scholar
  • Preece J., Nonnecke B., Andrews D. The top five reasons for lurking: Improving community experiences for everyone. Comput. Human Behav. (2004) 20(2):201–223CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Qian H., Scott C. R. Anonymity and self-disclosure on weblogs. J. Comput.-Mediated Comm. (2007) 12(4):1428–1451CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Rafaeli S., Ariel Y., Barak A. Online motivational factors: Incentives for participation and contribution in Wikipedia. Psychological Aspects of Cyberspace: Theory, Research, Applications (2008) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) 243–267CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Rains S. A. The impact of anonymity on perceptions of source credibility and influence in computer-mediated group communication: A test of two competing hypotheses. Comm. Res. (2007) 34(1):100–125CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Ren Y., Kraut R., Kiesler S. Applying common identity and bond theory to design of online communities. Organ. Stud. (2007) 28(3):377–408CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Rheingold H.The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier (2000) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Roberts J. A., Hann I.-H., Slaughter S. A. Understanding the motivations, participation, and performance of open source software developers: A longitudinal study of the Apache projects. Management Sci. (2006) 52(7):984–999LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Santos F. M., Eisenhardt K. M. Organizational boundaries and theories of organization. Organ. Sci. (2005) 16(5):491–508LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Schrage M.No More Teams! Mastering the Dynamics of Creative Collaboration (1995) (Doubleday, New York) Google Scholar
  • Scott C. R., Drucker S. Benefits and drawbacks of anonymous online communication: Legal challenges and communicative recommendations. Free Speech Yearbook (2004) 41(National Communication Association, Washington, DC) 127–141Google Scholar
  • Sheremata W. A. Centrifugal and centripetal forces in radical new product development under time pressure. Acad. Management Rev. (2000) 25(2):389–408CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Silva L., Goel L., Mousavidin E. Exploring the dynamics of blog communities: The case of metafilter. Inform. Systems J. (2008) 19(1):55–81CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Sproull L., Arriaga M., Bidogli H. Online communities. Handbook of Computer Networks (2007) 3(John Wiley & Sons, New York) Google Scholar
  • Stewart K. J., Gosain S. Impact of ideology on effectiveness in open source software development teams. MIS Quart. (2006) 30(2):291–314Google Scholar
  • Sy T., Côté S., Saavedra R. The contagious leader: Impact of the leader's mood on the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes. J. Appl. Psych. (2005) 90(2):295–305CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Tanis M., Postmes T. Two faces of anonymity: Paradoxical effects of cues to identity in CMC. Comput. Human Behav. (2007) 23(2):955–970CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Tapscott D., Williams A. D.Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything (2006) (Portfolio, New York) Google Scholar
  • Tsoukas H. A dialogical approach to the creation of new knowledge in organizations. Organ. Sci. (2009) 20(6):941–957LinkGoogle Scholar
  • von Hippel E., von Krogh G. Open source software and the “private-collective” innovation model: Issues for organization science. Organ. Sci. (2003) 14(2):209–223LinkGoogle Scholar
  • von Krogh G., von Hippel E. The promise of research on open source software. Management Sci. (2006) 52(7):975–983LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Wagner C., Majchrzak A. Enabling customer-centricity using wikis and the wiki way. J. Management Inform. Systems (2006–2007) 23(3):17–43CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Walther J. B. Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Comm. Res. (1996) 23(1):3–43CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Wasko M. M., Faraj S. “It is what one does”: Why people participate and help others in electronic communities of practice. J. Strategic Inform. Systems (2000) 9(2–3):155–173CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Wasko M. M., Faraj S. Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quart. (2005) 29(1):35–58CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Wasko M. M., Teigland R., Faraj S. The provision of online public goods: Examining social structure in an electronic network of practice. Decision Support Systems (2009) 47(3):254–265CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • West J., Lakhani K. Getting clear about communities in open innovation. Indust. Innovation (2008) 15(2):223–231CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Woodman R. W., Sawyer J. E., Griffin R. W. Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Acad. Management Rev. (1993) 18(2):293–321CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Yates D., Wagner C., Majchrzak A. Factors affecting shapers of organizational wikis. J. Amer. Soc. Inform. Sci. Tech. (2010) 61(3):543–554Google Scholar
  • Yeow A., Johnson S. L., Faraj S. Lurking: Legitimate or illegimate peripheral participation? Proc. 27th Internat. Conf. Inform. Systems (2006) Milwaukee(AIS Electronic Library)967–982Google Scholar
  • Zammuto R. F., Griffith T. L., Majchrzak A., Dougherty D. J., Faraj S. Information technology and the changing fabric of organization. Organ. Sci. (2007) 18(5):749–762LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Zittrain J.The Future of the Internet—And How to Stop It (2008) (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT) Google Scholar
INFORMS site uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some are essential to make our site work; Others help us improve the user experience. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Please read our Privacy Statement to learn more.