Community Structure, Individual Participation and the Social Construction of Merit

  • Matthias Studer
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 234)

Abstract

FLOSS communities are often described as meritocracies. We consider merit as a social construction that structures the community as a whole by allocating prestige to its participants on the basis of what they do. It implies a hierarchy of the different activities (web maintenance, writing code, bug report...) within the project. We present a study based on the merging of two datasets. We analyze the archive of KDE mailing lists using a social network. We also use responses to a questionnaire of KDE participants. Results bring empirical evidences showing that this hierarchy structures the community of KDE by allocating more central position to participants with more prestigious activities. We also show that this hierarchy structures individuals participation by giving greater “membership esteem” to members involved in more prestigious activities.

Key words

Collective Self-esteem Community of Practice Meritocracy Open Source Social Network Analysis Social Structure 

References

  1. 1.
    K. Crowston and J. Howison, The social structure of free and open source software development, First Monday 10(2), (2005).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    E. S. Raymond, Homesteading the noosphere, First Monday 3(10), (1998).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Howison, K. Inoue and K. Crowston, Social dynamics of free and open source team communications, in proceedings The Second International Conference on Open Source Systems (2006).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. Wenger, Communities of Practices: Learning, Meaning, and Identity (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Lave and E. Wenger, Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    V. Batagelj and A. Mrvar, Pajek 1.14 — Program for Large Network Analysis’ http://vlado.fmf.uni-lj.si/pub/networks/pajek/Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. Luhtanen and J. Crocker, A Collective Self-Esteem Scale: Self-Evaluation of One’s Social Identity, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 18(3), 302–318 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    W. de Nooy, V. Batagelj and A. Mrvar, Exploratory Social Network Analysis with Pajek (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Arndt, C. Turvey and N. C. Andreasen, Correlating and predicting psychiatric symptom ratings: Spearmans r versus Kendalls tau correlation, Journal of psychiatric research 33(2), 97–104 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthias Studer
    • 1
  1. 1.department of econometricsUniversity of GenevaGeneva 4Switzerland

Personalised recommendations