Advertisement

Folksonomies to Support Coordination and Coordination of Folksonomies

  • Corey Jackson
  • Kevin Crowston
  • Carsten Østerlund
  • Mahboobeh Harandi
Article
  • 29 Downloads

Abstract

Members of highly-distributed groups in online production communities face challenges in achieving coordinated action. Existing CSCW research highlights the importance of shared language and artifacts when coordinating actions in such settings. To better understand how such shared language and artifacts are, not only a guide for, but also a result of collaborative work we examine the development of folksonomies (i.e., volunteer-generated classification schemes) to support coordinated action. Drawing on structuration theory, we conceptualize a folksonomy as an interpretive schema forming a structure of signification. Our study is set in the context of an online citizen-science project, Gravity Spy, in which volunteers label “glitches” (noise events recorded by a scientific instrument) to identify and name novel classes of glitches. Through a multi-method study combining virtual and trace ethnography, we analyze folksonomies and the work of labelling as mutually constitutive, giving folksonomies a dual role: an emergent folksonomy supports the volunteers in labelling images at the same time that the individual work of labelling images supports the development of a folksonomy. However, our analysis suggests that the lack of supporting norms and authoritative resources (structures of legitimation and domination) undermines the power of the folksonomy and so the ability of volunteers to coordinate their decisions about naming novel glitch classes. These results have implications for system design. If we hope to support the development of emergent folksonomies online production communities need to facilitate 1) tag gardening, a process of consolidating overlapping terms of artifacts; 2) demarcate a clear home for discourses around folksonomy disagreements; 3) highlight clearly when decisions have been reached; and 4) inform others about those decisions.

Keywords

Citizen science Structuration Coordination Online communities Zooniverse 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the many citizen scientists whose engagement have made Gravity Spy possible and our collaborators on the project, including M. Zevin, S. Coughlin, S. Bahaadini, E. Besler, N. Rohani, S. Allen, M. Cabero, A. Katsaggelos, S. Larson, T. Littenberg, A. Lundgren, J. Smith and L. Trouille. Gravity Spy is partly supported by the US National Science Foundation award INSPIRE 15–47880.

References

  1. Al-Khalifa, Hend S.; and Hugh C. Davis (2007). Towards better understanding of folksonomic patterns. In HT’07. Proceedings of the eighteenth conference on Hypertext and hypermedia, Manchester, UK, 10–12 September 2007. New York: ACM Press, pp. 163–166.Google Scholar
  2. Angeletou, Sofia; Marta Sabou; Lucia Specia; and Enrico Motta (2007). Bridging the gap between folksonomies and the semantic web: An experience report. In Proceedings of the ESWC workshop: Bridging the gap between semantic web and web 2.0, European semantic web conference, Innsbruck, Austria, 3–7 June 2007. pp. 30–43.Google Scholar
  3. Askehave, Inger; and John M. Swales (2001). Genre identification and communicative purpose: A problem and a possible solution. Applied Linguistics, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 195–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barley, Stephen R. (1986). Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 78–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barley, Stephen R.; and Pamela S. Tolbert (1997). Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and institution. Organization Studies, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 93–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen, Hsinchun (1994). Collaborative systems: Solving the vocabulary problem. Computer, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 58–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crowston, Kevin; and Ericka Eve Kammerer (1998). Coordination and collective mind in software requirements development. IBM Systems Journal, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 227–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dabbish, Laura; Colleen Stuart; Jason Tsay; and Jim Herbsleb (2014). Transparency and coordination in peer production. arXiv preprint 1407.0377. Google Scholar
  9. DeSanctis, Gerardine; and Brad M. Jackson (2015). Coordination of Information Technology Management: Team Based Structures and Computer Based Communication Systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, vol. 10, no. 4, pp 85–110.Google Scholar
  10. Dougherty, Deborah (1992). Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organization Science, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dourish, Paul; and Victoria Bellotti (1992). Awareness and coordination in shared workspaces. In CSCW' 92. Proceedings of the ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, Toronto, Canada, 1–4 November 1992. New York: ACM Press, pp. 107–114.Google Scholar
  12. Flores, Fernando; Michael Graves; Brad Hartfield; and Terry Winograd (1988). Computer systems and the design of organizational interaction. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems (TOIS), vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 153–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Geiger, R. Stuart; and David Ribes (2011). Trace ethnography: Following coordination through documentary practices. In R. H. Sprague, Jr. (ed): HICSS'11. Proceedings of the 44 th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Kauai, HI, USA, 4–7 January, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
  14. Giddens, Anthony (1984). The constitution of society. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  15. Heymann, Paul; and Hector Garcia-Molina (2006). Collaborative creation of communal hierarchical taxonomies in social tagging systems. Technical Report. Stanford University.Google Scholar
  16. Hine, Christine (2000). Virtual ethnography. SAGE Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  17. Kittur, Ankit.; and Robert Kraut (2008). Harnessing the wisdom of crowds in Wikipedia: Quality through coordination. In CSCW'08. Proceedings of Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, San Diego, CA, USA, 8–12 November 2008. New York: ACM Press, pp. 37–46.Google Scholar
  18. Kittur, Ankit.; and Robert Kraut (2010). Beyond Wikipedia: Coordination and conflict in online production groups. In CSCW'10. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Savannah, GA, USA, 6–10 February 2010. New York: ACM Press, pp. 215–224.Google Scholar
  19. Kriplean, Travis; Ivan Beschastnikh; David W. McDonald; and Scott A. Golder (2007). Community, consensus, coercion, control: Cs*W or how policy mediates mass participation. In GROUP'07. Proceedings of the Conference on Supporting Group Work, Sanibel Island, FL, USA, 4–7 November 2007. New York: ACM Press, pp. 167–176.Google Scholar
  20. Lintott, Chris J.; Kevin Schawinski; William Keel; Hanny Van Arkel; Nicola Bennert; Edward Edmondson; Daniel Thomas; Daniel Smith; Peter Herbert; Matt Jarvis; Shanil Virani; Dan Andreescu; Steven Bamford; Kate Land; Phil Murray; Robert Nichol; Jordan Raddick; Anze Slosar; Alex Szalay; and Jan Vandenberg (2009). Galaxy zoo: “Hanny’s Voorwerp,” a quasar light echo? Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, vol. 399, no. 1, pp. 129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lyytinen, Kalle J.; and Ojelanki K. Ngwenyama (1992). What does computer support for cooperative work mean? A structurational analysis of computer supported cooperative work. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Malone, Thomas W.; and Kevin Crowston (1994). The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 87–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McIntosh, Shawn (2008). Collaboration, consensus, and conflict. Journalism Practice, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 197–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Menold, Natalja (2009). How to use information technology for cooperative work: Development of shared technological frames. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nagar, Yiftach (2012). What do you think? The structuring of an online community as a collective-sensemaking process. In CSCW'12. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Seattle, WA, USA, 11–15 February 2012. New York: ACM Press, pp. 393–402.Google Scholar
  26. Newman, Michael; and Daniel Robey (1992). A social process model of user-analyst relationships. MIS Quarterly, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 249–266.Google Scholar
  27. Ngwenyama, Ojelanki K.; and Kalle J. Lyytinen (1997). Groupware environments as action constitutive resources: A social action framework for analyzing groupware technologies. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 71–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Orlikowski, Wanda. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 398–427.Google Scholar
  29. Peters, Isabella; and Katrin Weller (2008). Tag gardening for folksonomy enrichment and maintenance. Webology, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 1–18.Google Scholar
  30. Rader, Emilee (2010). The effect of audience design on labeling, organizing, and finding shared files. In CHI'10. Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta, GA, USA, 10–15 April 2010. New York: ACM Press, pp. 777–786.Google Scholar
  31. Sarason, Yolanda (1995). A model of organizational transformation: The incorporation of organizational identity into a structuration theory framework. In Academy of Management Proceedings, vol. 1995, no. 1, pp. 47–51.Google Scholar
  32. Sarker, Suprateek; and Sundeep Sahay (2003). Understanding virtual team development: An interpretive study. Journal of the Association for Information Systems (JAIS), vol. 4, no. 1.Google Scholar
  33. Schmidt, Kjeld; and Carla Simonee (1996). Coordination mechanisms: Towards a conceptual foundation of CSCW systems design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 5, no. 2–3, pp. 155–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Simpson, Robert; Kevin R. Page; and David De Roure (2014). Zooniverse: Observing the world’s largest citizen science platform. In WWW'14. Proceedings of the International Conference on World Wide Web, Seoul, Korea, 7–11 April 2014. New York: ACM Press, pp. 1049–1054.Google Scholar
  35. Stein, Eric W.; and Betty Vandenbosch (1996). Organizational learning during advanced system development: Opportunities and obstacles. Journal of Management Information Systems, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 115–136.Google Scholar
  36. Straub, Miranda (2016). Giving citizen scientists a chance: A study of volunteer-led scientific discovery. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 2–10.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  37. Walsham, Geoff (1993). Interpreting information systems in organizations. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
  38. Winograd, Terry (1987). A language/action perspective on the design of cooperative work. In CSCW'87. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-supported Cooperative Work, Austin, TX, USA, 3 December – 5 December 1987. New York: ACM Press, pp. 203–220.Google Scholar
  39. Yasuoka, Mika (2015). Collaboration across professional boundaries: The emergence of interpretation drift and the collective creation of project jargon. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 253–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zevin, Michael; Scott Coughlin; Sara Bahaadini; Emre Besler; Neda Rohani; Sarah Allen; Miriam Cabero; Kevin Crowston; Aggelos Katsaggelos; Shane Larson; Tae Kyoung Lee; Chris Lintott; Tyson Littenberg; Andrew Lundgren; Carsten Østerlund; Joshua Smith; Laura Trouille; and Vicky Kalogera (2017). Gravity spy: Integrating advanced LIGO detector characterization, machine learning, and citizen science. Classical and Quantum Gravity, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 064003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Information StudiesSyracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA

Personalised recommendations