Skip to main content

A tailored participatory action research for foss communities

Abstract

Participatory Action Research (PAR) is an established method to implement change in organizations. However, it cannot be applied in the open source (FOSS) communities, without adaptation to their particularities, especially to the specific control mechanisms developed in FOSS. FOSS communities are self-managed, and rely on consensus to reach decisions. This study proposes a PAR framework specifically tailored to FOSS communities. We successfully applied the framework to implement a set of quality assurance interventions in the Robot Operating System community. The framework we proposed is composed of three components, interventions design, democratization, and execution. We believe that this process will work for other FOSS communities too. We have learned that changing a particular aspect of a FOSS community is arduous. To achieve success the change must rally the community around it for support and attract motivated volunteers to implement the interventions.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://rosindustrial.org/ric/current-members/

  2. 2.

    https://discourse.ros.org/c/quality

  3. 3.

    https://discourse.ros.org/t/ros-quality-assurance-working-group-october-2019-meeting-notes/10891

  4. 4.

    https://discourse.ros.org/c/quality

  5. 5.

    https://discourse.ros.org/t/ros-quality-assurance-working-group-meeting-minutes-april-2018-meeting/4473

  6. 6.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ujwc2rjmywWpiamCGNRAdD3USNurXLqunIvgSrSbwvM/edit#gid=0

References

  1. Alami A, Dittrich Y, Wȧsowski A (2018) Influencers of quality assurance in an open source community. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering, CHASE ’18. ACM, New York

  2. Anthes G (2016) Open source software no longer optional. Commun ACM 59(8)

  3. Baskerville R, Wood-Harper AT (1998) Diversity in information systems action research methods. European Journal of information systems 7(2)

  4. Baskerville RL (1999) Investigating information systems with action research. Commun AIS 2(3es):4

    Google Scholar 

  5. Baum F, MacDougall C, Smith D (2006) Participatory action research. J Epidemiol Commun Health 60(10):854–857

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bitzer J, Schrettl W, Schröder PJH (2007) Intrinsic motivation in open source software development. J Comp Econ 35(1)

  7. Bretthauer D (2002) Open source software: A history. Information Technology and Libraries 21(1)

  8. Campbell-Kelly M (2008) Historical reflections Will the future of software be open source? Commun ACM 51(10)

  9. Capiluppi A, Beecher K (2009) Structural complexity and decay in floss systems: An inter-repository study. In: 2009. CSMR’09. 13th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering. IEEE

  10. David PA, Waterman A, Arora S (2003) FLOSS-US the free/libre/open source software survey for 2003. Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. Stanford University, Stanford, http://www.stanford.edu/group/floss-us/report/FLOSS-US-Report.pdf

  11. Dedding C, Goedhart NS, Broerse JxEW, Abma TA (2020) Exploring the boundaries of ’good’participatory action research in times of increasing popularity: dealing with constraints in local policy for digital inclusion. Educational Action Research, 1–17

  12. Dittrich Y, Rönkkö K, Eriksson J, Hansson C, Lindeberg O (2008) Cooperative method development. Empir Softw Eng 13(3)

  13. Donnelly C, Simmons G, Armstrong G, Fearne A (2012) The role of action research in the study of small business marketing and retailer loyalty card data

  14. Elliott MS, Scacchi W (2008) Mobilization of software developers: the free software movement. Information Technology & People 21(1)

  15. Fitzgerald B (2006) The transformation of open source software. Mis Quarterly

  16. German DM (2003) The gnome project: a case study of open source, global software development. Softw Process Improv Pract 8(4):201–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ghosh RA, Glott R, Krieger B, Robles G (2002) Free/libre and open source software. Survey and study

  18. Ghosh RA (2005) Understanding free software developers: Findings from the FLOSS study. Perspectives on free and open source software

  19. Greenwood DJ, Whyte WF, Harkavy I (1993) Participatory action research as a process and as a goal. Hum Relation 46(2):175–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gustafsson S, Falk C, Tillman S, Holtz L, Lindahl L (2018) Life filming as a means of participatory approach together with older community-dwelling persons regarding their local environment. Scan J Occup Therapy 25(5):347–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hars A, Ou S (2001) Working for free? Motivations of participating in open source projects. In: 2001. Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE

  22. Home R, Rump N (2015) Evaluation of a multi-case participatory action research project The case of solinsa. J Agric Educ Ext 21(1):73–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jensen C, Scacchi W (2007) Role migration and advancement processes in ossd projects: A comparative case study. In: Proceedings of the 29th international conference on Software Engineering IEEE Computer Society

  24. Kemmis S, McTaggart R (2005) Participatory Action Research: Communicative Action and the Public Sphere. Sage Publications Ltd

  25. Kemmis S, McTaggart R, Nixon R (2013) The action research planner: Doing critical participatory action research. Springer Science & Business Media

  26. Kindon S, Pain R, Kesby M (2007) Participatory action research approaches and methods: Connecting people, participation and place, vol 22. Routledge

  27. Kogut B, Metiu A (2001) Open-source software development and distributed innovation. Oxford Rev Econ Policy 17(2):248–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Krafft. MF (2010) A Delphi study of the influences on innovation adoption and process evolution in a large open source project: The case of Debian, PhD thesis. University of Limerick

  29. Lakhani KR, Wolf RG, et al. (2005) Why hackers do what they do: Understanding motivation and effort in free/open source software projects. Perspectives on free and open source software, pp 1

  30. Mathiassen L (2002) Collaborative practice research. Inf Technol People 15(4):321–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. McTaggart R (1997) Guiding principles for participatory action research. Participatory action research: International contexts and consequences, pp 25–43

  32. Meyer J (2000) Evaluating action research. Age Ageing 29 (suppl_2):8–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Miles MB, Michael HA, Huberman M, Huberman M (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Sage

  34. ÖZbek S.C. (2011) Introducing innovations into Open Source projects, PhD thesis. Freie Universitȧt, Berlin

  35. Rajaram SS (2007) An action-research project: Community lead poisoning prevention. Teach Sociol 35(2):138–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Rana OF, Hinze A (2004) Trust and reputation in dynamic scientific communities. IEEE DistribSyst Online 5(1)

  37. Robson C, McCartan K (2016) Real world research. Wiley, New York

  38. Ryan RM, Deci EL (2000a) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1)

  39. Ryan RM, Deci EL (2000b) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychol 55(1)

  40. Scacchi W (2002) Understanding the requirements for developing open source software systems. IEE Proc-Softw 149(1)

  41. Scacchi W (2004) Free and open source development practices in the game community. IEEE Softw 21(1)

  42. Scacchi W (2005) Socio-technical interaction networks in free/open source software development processes. In: Software Process Modeling. Springer

  43. Scacchi W (2007) Free/open source software development: Recent research results and methods. Adv Comput:69

  44. Scully MA (2015) Meritocracy. Wiley Encyclopedia of Management, pp 1–2

  45. Skopik F, Truong H-L, Dustdar S (2009) Trust and reputation mining in professional virtual communities. In International Conference on Web Engineering. Springer, pp 76–90

  46. Stringer ET (2013) Action research. Sage publications

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by the EU’s H2020 research and innovation programme, grant No 732287 ROSIN. We thank the volunteers for their work in the implementation of interventions. We thank the ROS quality assurance working group members for their ongoing inputs, advice and participation in the process.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adam Alami.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Communicated by: Jon Whittle

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alami, A., Nielsen, P.A. & Wa̧sowski, A. A tailored participatory action research for foss communities. Empir Software Eng 25, 3639–3670 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-020-09849-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Participatory Action Research
  • FOSS
  • Change implementation