The Value Between Us

THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF PARIS
MASTER OF ARTS IN GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS
IN GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS

The Value Between Us: Exploring Informal Cooperatives,
Kernels, Weak Ties, and the Role of the New Curator

Heather Blanchard
heather@newcicada.com

THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF PARIS
MASTER OF ARTS IN GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS

AUTHOR/STUDENT

APPROVED:

Thesis Director____________________________________________
Committee member________________________________________
Committee member________________________________________
Program Director__________________________________________

STATEMENT OF AUTHENTICITY

I have read the American University of Paris’s policies on plagiarism and certify that the
content of this thesis entitled The Value Between Us Us: Exploring Informal Cooperatives,
Kernels, Weak Ties, and the Role of the New Curator is all my own work and does not
contain any unacknowledged work from any other sources.

Number of words: 16,398

Signed:_______________________________
Date:_________________________________

Copyright statement:

A printed copy and an electronic version of this thesis have been given to The American
University of Paris (AUP) for its library collection and to grant scholarly access. As of today,
I authorize AUP to archive, perform any needed cataloging, keep records of this thesis and
disseminate it in France and abroad. In addition, I authorize AUP to provide free access to the
entire work for on-site consultation, loan, and dissemination via Internet/Intranet and for
interlibrary loan, for as long as this work exists. The University must acquire my explicit
approval before making any additional copies of this thesis.
L'œuvre ayant le caractère d'un travail universitaire, un exemplaire dans son intégralité sous
format papier et sa version électronique ont été déposés à la bibliothèque de The American
University of Paris - AUP. J‟autorise, à partir d‟aujourd‟hui, la bibliothèque d‟AUP à donner
un accès gratuit à l‟intégralité du texte de mon mémoire, à le citer, à l‟archiver, à en faire des
résumés, et à sa diffusion, soit en France ou à l‟international, pendant toute la durée de vie de
ce mémoire. Ainsi je donne à AUP l„autorisation pour sa consultation sur place, sa diffusion
par internent/ intranet pour le prêt local entre bibliothèques. En cas de besoin de reproduction
AUP doit obtenir mon accord explicit pour toute reproduction ultérieure.

________________________________

__________________________20___

Signature

Date

Page i

DEDICATION

"When in the end, the day came on which I was going away, I learned
the strange learning that things can happen which we ourselves cannot possibly imagine,
either beforehand, or at the time when they are taking place,
or afterwards when we look back on them."
– Isak Dineson, Out of Africa, 1937
To Mom, Bill, Eric, Jen, Tommy, Ellie & Nateycakes We’ll always have Paris and dinner time Skype. *Sparkles*
To the Bank of Atkinson, the Colonel, Tinkerbell and Veep Thanks for being my personal Kickstarter and my role models.
Paris would not have happened without your guidance and support.
To WR41Thanks for Chuck E. Cheese and Busch Gardens.
Where joie de vivre lives in gadgets, art, music and and hamster searching.
Thanks for being a rock for Mom. Thanks for being awesome.
To Val, Olga, DB, Ida, Russ and Glo Missing you. Wishing you were here.
To my friends, all my weak and strong connections I couldn’t have done it without you guys.
Thanks for filling my Facebook with love and nonsense.
Cheers for Sunday night dinners.
#CallMeMaybe #GangnamStyle
To the Hawk To my bestie. Thanks for being my beta-tester, COO and Chief Stylist.
I couldn’t have done it (...meaning life) without you.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Sometimes you have to go outside to find the gold that is inside. Special thanks to Claudia
Roda who went above and beyond the call of duty to provide the coaching I needed to get
what is in my head on paper. It is still not exactly what is in my brain, but at least some of it
is on paper.
We are living in a material culture world, and I am a material culture girl. Thanks to Julie
Thomas who opened my eyes to a world that I knew was there, but failed to recognize or
fully appreciate. I see things differently now.
Americans take their Starbucks to go. Thanks to @PaulRichardset for inspiring me to move
to Paris and his tolerence of an American who still hasn’t learned proper French. Thanks to
the gang at @LaCantine for giving me a one year student discount.
We want to think outside of the box. Thanks to the European Commission, specially
CONNECT DG, for including me in their efforts to explore how best to reach web
entrepreneurs. Special thanks to @Ringrda, Isidro and Miguel for your time and inclusion.
And to @eurohumph thanks for being so welcoming and interested in hearing new ideas.
#GirlsInTech: Graditude to the Brussels-based technology policy insights from Alia, Cheryl
and Ellen. Special thanks to @MsWz for making the venture happen in the first place.

Page ii

ABSTRACT

The Value Between Us examines groups and the potential value that connects today’s network
of networks. The information economy and the derived value is rooted in exchanges which
occur not just among institutions but groups who may have no legal or institutional
affiliation, informal cooperatives. These groups attract attention and participation of those
who have similar interests and are guided by kernels. These groups operate between
ecosystems as alternative open spaces for collaboration. When informal cooperatives and
institutions collaborate they form a collaboration sphere, an independent space of
engagement. While informal cooperatives are fueled by similar interests they can infuse
diversification through their weak ties. These relationships create balance within groups to
mitigate against polarization. The distance between and within informal cooperatives and
institutions are structural holes. These gaps require brokering by a new kind of
communicator, the new curator. This new brokering role bridges the gaps between today’s
network of networks, especially those with dissimilar interests and values. The new curator is
an independent actor who straddles between informal cooperatives and institutions. The new
curator cultivates environmental conditions conducive for dialogue, cooperation and
ultimately, collaboration. Through a multi-discipinary theoretical approach with current
qualitative examples, this thesis argues that while we might believe we are in a connected
world, we are not. The Value Between Us issues a call to action to invest in new curators to
support and protect informal cooperatives, cultivate the value between today’s networks of
networks.
keywords: distributive networks, informal cooperatives, kernels, crowdsourcing, weak ties

Page iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

1

Are We Really Connected?

2

Our Ecosystem, Ourselves

3

Chapter One: Informal Cooperatives

8

A Historical Perspective

9

Act Locally, Impact Globally

11

Crowdsourcing Has Changed

12

Motivation

15

New Media Object

19

Common Features

21

Risk, Culture and Intra-preneurs

25

Chapter Two: Kernels and Collaboration Spheres

31

The Light Touch

33

Institutional Kernel

34

Structural Holes

35

Collaboration Sphere

38

Chapter Three: The Value of Weak Ties

43

Gladwell’s Challenge

44

Latency to Sensory Systems

45

Diversity

46

Facebook and Weak Ties

47

Sense-making and Proxy Services

49

Relationship Storage Units

50

Page iv

Cost and Value

52

Chapter Four: The New Curator

54

Characteristics

56

Vantage Point

59

The Missing Link

60

Call For Investment

62

Conclusion

65

References

70

Biography

75

Page v

Are We Really Connected?
The Value Between Us discusses the transformation of the networked world from
nodal systems to participatory communities which overlap, ebb and flow with interest.
Sometimes people who have great ideas and skills to solve problems come from the most
unusual places. Crowdsourcing may have hit its stride engaging the wisdom of the crowds,
institutions seem to overlook the talents within their own organization. The wisdom of the
crowd once famed for its unique problem solving capabilities is dependent on the
independent nature of the people within the crowd. Today, we can no longer assume this
independence to be true. Through activities like crowdsourcing people form relationships
across cultural, language and geographic differences. The need and ability to connect is
fundamental to our lives.
This thesis breaks down the world into two groups: institutions and informal
cooperatives. Institutions have organizational structure, legal boundaries and processes create
efficiency. Informal cooperatives frequently lack organizational structure and are often not a
legal entity. Informal cooperatives are groups who share a similar interests and values which
can drive innovation and problem solving. This can occur without formal management
processes and leadership.
The Value Between Us asks a fundamental question: “If we are in a world where it is
easy to find and collaborate with those who are like us, are we marginalizing ourselves into
sameness or is it there an independent space between us where we can cultivate pathways for
dialogue and collaboration within and among today’s network of networks?”

Page 2

Our Ecosystem, Ourselves

Facebook is perhaps the most famous example of how we live and work within a
social network of people. Everything we do is social. Just take a look at your friends list.
Some people you went to school with others are people you have worked with in the past.
There might be old boyfriends or people you met at a party one night. These connections
have a new ability to be stored permanently. Some people you may know intimately (e.g.,
strong ties), others you know at a distance (e.g., weak ties). The same can be said about the
institutions which manage society. Governments, companies, non-profits, academia and
NGOs travel in their own set of communities and have varied levels of connection.
Informal cooperatives and institutions have interpersonal and community ecosystems
which they traverse on a daily basis. Through repetition, we begin to foster trust within
relationships we hold. The more we engage each other, the more they are familiar and the
more we may trust one another. However, the challenge today is that while informal
cooperatives and institutions have the ability to connect to those who have similar interest
and values, there are gaps within the ecosystem with those who don’t hold those interests and
values. For example, would Occupy Wall Street proactively build a long term relationship
with the financial sector to support the achievement their goals? While we may believe that
we live in an information economy where our networks are connected through technology,
this may not mean that we engage with those who have dissimilar interests and values.
Informal cooperatives have an increasing ability to attract attention and drive
participatory collective action. Informal cooperatives can be borderless, leaderless, and
without legal status. Informal cooperatives build and manage a new kind of soft power which
can create global movements like Occupy Wall Street or collective action such as
Page 3

Anonymous and digital humanitarians. The Value Between Us defines a new landscape where
informal cooperatives and institutions play new roles in today’s information economy. Today,
there is a new kind of brokering role—the new curator—who helps informal cooperatives
and institutions navigate the gaps between these two worlds and foster a new space of
independent space where dialogue and collaboration can take place.
The Value Between Us is broken into four chapters addressing: informal cooperatives,
kernels and collaboration space, weak ties and the new curator. These chapters outline
today’s new environment where institutions are no longer the only entities who can foster and
influence the marketplace. The Value Between Us explores trends such as crowdsourcing and
seeks to understand why independent open collaboration spaces are necessary to address gaps
(e.g. structural holes) between the information economy’s network of networks.
Chapter one discusses the value and characteristics of informal cooperatives. For
centuries individuals have clustered together in informal groups to do all kinds of things from
transforming the art world through impressionist to regime change in the Middle East.
Informal cooperatives transform once strangers into new relationships. These relationships,
however strong or weak, are motivated by self-interest through reciprocity, reputation and
efficacy. (Kollock, 1999: 6) Participation within informal cooperatives develop social capital
for individuals and the informal cooperative alike. This chapter discusses the shift of
crowdsourcing, individual motivation and identity through mediation, common features of
informal cooperatives and the challenges facing institutions in this brave new world.
Chapter two describes the small group of people who drive informal cooperatives, the
kernel. These people are often seen as leaders, when in fact they might have characteristics

Page 4

akin to what Horgen, Joroff, Porter and Schon describe as a process architect (Horgen, Joroff,
Porter and Schon, 1999: 56). Mentoring skills are leveraged by the kernel to guide rather than
direct a management process. One of the primary activities of an informal cooperative kernel
is to attract new participation, while institutional kernels seek to develop a new space for
collaboration within their own organization.
Within chapter two, the gap between two networks (or within an network itself) is
characterized as a structural hole. Ronald Burt first coined the term structural hole which are
“...missing relationships that inhibit information flow between people.” (Burt, 2007: 119)
Burt discusses that within groups people are likely to think similarly than those beyond their
network. Burt describes the advantages of the role of the connector (e.g., broker) between
those two relationships. “Information, opinion, and practice are more homogeneous within
than between groups, so a manager whose network spans structure holes (call him a network
broker, connector, or entrepreneur) has a vision advantage in early exposure to diverse
information and a general political advantage as a hub in the information flow.” (Burt, 2007:
119) Chapter two discusses these topics as well as the relationship between the institutional
kernel and informal cooperatives and the formation of a new collaboration sphere.
Chapter three discusses the value of weak ties. In 2012, Malcolm Gladwell ignited a
firestorm with his rejection of the use of weak ties in high risk social activism. (Gladwell,
2012: 1) This chapter argues that weak ties are an important part of the fabric of today’s
network of networks, especially within informal cooperatives. Weak ties can transform latent
connections into a sensory network. This chapter argues that every tie is

a potential

communications pathway. We have an unfettered ability to permanently store relationships

Page 5

—either strong or weak— through social technologies. These storage units allow us to call
upon these relationships when they are needed, during high risk events (e.g., crises). There is
mounting evidence, despite Gladwell’s assertion, that weak ties can transform themselves
from latency to action such as becoming a proxy agent and sense-making. This chapter
argues that weak ties are necessary to maintain a healthy balance within informal
cooperatives and that every relationship comes with a value and a cost associated with its
storage and maintenance.
Chapter four discusses the missing link between informal cooperatives and
institutions, the new curator. While the profession of curation is well established, a new kind
of curation is emerging across every domain to help address structural holes within the
networks by brokering across two group (e.g., informal cooperatives and institutions),
catalyzing collaboration, preserving and sharing widely actions and knowledge of the groups
engagement. While this role ideally would be independent of the institution and the informal
cooperative, resources suggest that the role of the new curator often is picked up by kernels.
The new curator role is different than that of the kernel. The new curator brokers between
informal cooperatives and institutions who had dissimilar interests and values. They are
independent of either group and foster environmental conditions which allow for dialogue
and engagement within the collaboration sphere. Burt discusses the role of the connector
between these groups: “Opinion and behavior are more homogenous within than between
groups, so people connect across groups are more familiar with alternative ways of
thinking.” (Burt, 2004: 349) This chapter presents the role of the new curator, its
characteristics and unique vantage point (Burt, 2004: 351). This chapter issues a call to action

Page 6

for investment to support new curators who are needed to bridge today’s information
economy.
The Value Between Us concludes with a call for investment to mitigate against the
potential effects of connecting to only those who share our interests and values. The thesis
presents three areas where investment should be made to potentially lessen polarization in
today’s information economy. First, we must invest in new curators to be the bridge builders
between groups and fill the structural holes which exist today. Second, we must invest in
greater understanding the value of and utility of weak ties. Third, we must invest the creation
of independent open collaboration spaces. These investments may develop the first steps to
recognizing the shifting landscape of today’s information economy and begin the discussion
on the value of informal cooperatives, kernels, new curators and the rise of the new
collaboration sphere.

Page 7

Chapter One:
Informal Cooperatives

Page 8

People like to do things together. We eat together. We learn together. We work
together. The ability to connect with one another is a fundamental need that many of us have.
When people get together to share information and potentially collaborate, an informal
cooperative is born. Informal cooperative work defined by Richard Fikes within a systems
engineering context as “the challenges involved in constructing computer-based systems for
supporting such work.” (Fikes, 1984: 345) This thesis seeks to adapt informal cooperation to
define an entity with today’s network of networks, the informal cooperative.
Informal cooperatives can be as little as two people or can fuel movements to create
production beyond what any one individual could ever accomplish. Informal cooperatives
can be temporary such as an afternoon Meetup, (Meetup.com, 2012) or can ignite a global
movement like Occupy Wall Street. (Occupy Wall Street, 2012) Everyday there are barcamps
(Singal, 2012) (Caulfield, 2012) and hackathons (Krueger, 2012) which serve as temporary
open spaces of collaboration. There are more long-term groups which may evolve over time
such as fan communities (Jenkins, 2012), digital humanitarians (CrisisCamp, 2009), car clubs
(Santa Clara Corvette Club, 2012), fantasy football (Hutchins, 2009: 89) and technology user
groups (Ruby User Groups, 2012).
A Historical Perspective
Informal cooperatives have probably existed for centuries. As an example, we can
examine the Parisian café culture of the nineteenth century which fostered the Impressionist
movement. “In the beginning the café was a place where young people could meet, mix
freely, speak openly of politics and literature. Often the proprietor of the establishment
participated in these informal meetings, sometimes even presiding, not particularly concerned

Page 9

about making money...[T]hese social gatherings brought together future men of letters,
painters, sculptors and students, a scene which brings to mind the café Momus.” (Dees, 2002:
7-8) Indeed this open collaboration space was important to the work of artists who would
eventually lead the Impressionist movement.
Cafés provided the open collaboration space to bring together Impressionist artists
that shared a similar view: they rejected the drawing-focused teachings of the art institution,
Ecole Beaux-Arts. Artists such as Degas, Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Cezanne and Sisley would
gather together each week to discuss topics of the day. While the physical space of the café
may have existed previously, the open space of dialogue supporting color-oriented art had
not. Dialogue gave way a collaborative effort to launch the first independent exhibition of
Impressionism. (Dees, 2002: 9-10)
The institutional high art culture of Ecole Beaux-Arts valued economic interest over
art freedom. A leader within the art institution remarked of the challenges between the
Impressionists (e.g., informal cooperative) and the Ecole Beaux-Arts (e.g. institution)
The Salon (e.g., institution) stifles and corrupts the feeling for the great, the
beautiful; artists are driven to exhibit there by the attractions of profit, the
desire to get themselves noticed at any price, by the supposed good fortune of
an eccentric subject that is capable of producing an effect and leading to an
advantageous sale. Thus the salon is literally no more than a picture shop, a
bazaar in which the tremendous number of objects is overwhelming and
business rules instead of art. (Dees, 2002: 11)

Page 10

The dialogue amongst the artists produced a collaboration to launch the first
independent public display of Impressionist works.
The independents may have not come about if the artists had not a play
outside of the Academy. The café gave them the freedom to be independent
artists, event if it meant facing hurdles. Their little group offered the support
to bear the harsh criticism and public opinions. A solitary artist would not
have been as able to defy the system. (Dees, 2002: 38)
While the exhibition may have failed in the eyes of the art institution, the ability of the
Impressionist artists to create their own space to showcase their work may be seen as a
success. The Impressionists were able to establish their own independent space of
collaboration external to the art institution.
Act Locally, Impact Globally

Today, the Internet acts as a global communications platform. The use of technology
makes it easy to find like-minded individuals across the world. When people share an
interest, they begin to form relationships. Initially, these relationships may be weak, but as
time goes by, they may strengthen, especially when there is a physical space for
collaboration. It is just like working with someone whom you have only exchanged email.
You both have a shared experience but when you meet, that experience and relationship can
be heightened.
Informal cooperatives are able to expand beyond geographic and organizational
boundaries. “Suddenly, in the blink of an evolutionary eye, people not longer must be in the
same place—collocated—in order to work together. Now many people work in virtual teams

Page 11

that transcend distance, timezones, and organizational boundaries.” (Lipnack and Stamps,
1997: 1) While in the nineteenth century informal cooperatives, such as the Impressionists,
might have centered around the social halls of Parisian cafés, today the Internet allows for
billions of people to create their own social halls where they affiliate and dialogue with
others who have similar interests and values.
Today, there are countless examples of online collaborations. For example, musicians
from four countries collaborate together to play cover songs by the rock-n-roll band Rush.
Although the collaborators may have never met in-person, each member contributes to the
band by recording his or her part of a song which is then layered into a music video and
posted to the Virtually Rush YouTube Channel. (Virtually Rush, 2012) Another example is
Apache HTTP Project, a cooperative of software developers who contributed computer code
create the open source Apache Web Server. (Apache Foundation, 2012) As of 2010, Apache
powers over fifty-three percent of the Web servers online. (Netcraft, 2012)
The Internet provides a platform which allows for offline collaboration and assembly.
For the last twenty years, volunteer hackers (e.g., DEFCON Goons) created and managed the
world’s largest annual hacker conference, DEFCON. (DEFCON, 2012) In 2012, the
conference attracted over 12,000 participants and hosted the Director of the National Security
Agency, General Keith Alexander. (Mills, 2012) These examples showcase not just the social
nature of online collaborations, but the ability to create production value and participation
offline.
Crowdsourcing Has Changed

Often we use the term crowdsourcing (Howe, 2006: 1) incorrectly to attempt to
describe how people participate within informal cooperatives. The Wisdom of the Crowds,
Page 12

written by James Surowiecki, advocated that the online crowd “under the right
circumstances, groups can be remarkably intelligent, and often smarter than the smartest
people in them.” (Surowiecki, 2005: xiii-xiv) The sticky wicket is that crowdsourcing
participants are independent, they do not hold relationships with each other. Discussing
independences and other characteristics, Surowiecki defined “...four conditions that
characterize wise crowds: diversity of opinion (each person should have some private
information, even if it’s just an eccentric interpretation of the known facts), independence
(people’s opinion are not determined by the opinions of those around them), decentralization
(people are able to specialize and draw on local knowledge), and aggregation (some
mechanism exists for turning private judgements into a collective decision).” (Surowiecki,
2005: 10)
Jeff Howe, writer for Wired Magazine, followed up Surowiecki’s book with his own
discussion of the crowd in Crowdsourcing: Why the Power of the Crowd is Driving the
Future of Business. Howe uses examples from companies and their experiences asking for
ideas, production and other outcomes outside of their organizational boundaries. This book
forecasted that crowdsourcing (Howe, 2006: 8) would be the future of how businesses would
gain competitive advantage and value. While Howe provides examples such as iStockphoto
and Threadless, Howe mixed the approach of engagement between individuals contributing,
and groups of people who have similar interests who co-create together. This mixture of
approaches and Howe’s inability to have a meta view of the ecosystem beyond business,
challenges the notion of crowdsourcing that we have today. Six years since its publication
there have been countless examples of how people work together to create value, whether or

Page 13

not a business (e.g., institution) asks for their help. While not the focus of this thesis, the
definition of crowdsourcing may need to be updated to incorporate lessons learned,
effectiveness, sustainability and best practices experienced online. (Tice, 2009)
This chapter discusses how actions of people who cluster together through similar
interest should be defined as a different kind of group, the informal cooperative. The primary
difference between informal cooperatives and the concept of crowdsourcing is that informal
cooperatives are not independent actors, but people who have identified common interests
and seek to collaborate with others who share those similar interests. This often is confused
with crowdsourcing due to its poor definition. (Kleemann, Voß and Rieder, 2008: 1)
Individuals who participate in crowdsourcing activities cease to be independent when they
begin to form relationships and collaborate with each other. While there is an assured number
of independent actors, today the ability to connect with those sharing common interests is as
easy as a Google search. People who are interested in a particular topic are not part of an
independent crowd, rather they have transformed themselves by working with others into an
informal cooperative.
Today, independent actors may be harder to find. Just like when you move to a new
town, you might not know your neighbors initially but over time you might build a
relationship with them. The same is true with crowdsourcing. People are attracted to events
and communities who share their interests and might begin to form relationships with people
who they find there. Crowdsourcing is a beacon for common interest, however, when a
request for assistance (e.g., problem solving or tasks) is over, individuals may connect with

Page 14

other participants to dialogue and continue the collaboration. When relationships are formed
between individuals, crowdsourcing ceases because the actors are not longer independent.
Today, crowdsourcing often serves as a point of entry catalyzing common interest
within the ecosystem. Crowdsourcing often can transform strangers into collaborators.
Jennifer Wright Cook, Executive Director of The Field describes the collapse of
independence among people after they begin to connect to one another: “They exposed their
ideas to each other and to the public, and demanded fearless analysis. They progressed, their
art progressed, and their businesses moved forward. They are no longer strangers.” (The
Field, 2012)
Motivation
People use informal cooperatives as extensions of themselves. Like a brand, they see
their affiliation as a reflection of their values and interests. In fact, informal cooperatives can
be aspirational in nature. For example, if someone wants to learn how to code in Ruby they
may join the Ruby User Group and participate socially with those who know Ruby better
than they do.

(Ruby User Groups, 2012) This relationship suggests that while common

interest may drive participation within the informal cooperative, it is the ability of the
individual participant to see a reflection of themselves within the actions of others. The basis
of an informal cooperative is rooted in self-interest and affiliation with those who have
similar interests and values.
In The Economies of Online Cooperation Peter Kollock discusses three key
motivational behaviors of individuals participating in virtual communities: reciprocity,
reputation and self efficacy. (Kollock, 1999: 6) Indeed, it could be argued that much of the

Page 15

behavior described by Kollock of individuals within virtual communities may have been
observed behavior of individuals who build informal cooperatives.
Reciprocity
Kollock begins with the idea of sharing where “...it is sometimes the case that
reciprocity will occur within the group as a whole in a system of generalized exchange. This
kind of network-wide accounting system creates a kind of credit, in that one can draw upon
the contributions of others without needing to immediately reciprocate.” (Kollock, 1999: 6)
This describes an informal environment where there are no checks and balances about who is
contributing more or less to the group. “If each person shares freely, the group as a whole is
better off, having access to information and advice that no single person might match. A
loose accounting system can also serve as a kind of insurance, in that one can draw from the
resources of the group when in need, without need to immediately repay each
person.” (Kollock, 1999: 6)
Informality plays a key role in reciprocity. Within informal cooperatives
reciprocity is an important cultural norm of individuals who participate. When exchange
within the informal cooperative is stifled, circulation cannot occur. This can challenge the
development of an open collaborative space conducive for exchange. A co-worker from La
Cantine in Paris discussed the tragedy of formality:
In economic environments like today which can be austere, the
concept of sharing and creating is a challenge. People don’t want
to help each other in an environment which is focused on optimization.
Information is power. When the economy is booming it’s so much

Page 16

easier to collaborate and work together, but when jobs are being
threatened people tend to keep to themselves. They are scared to lose
their job or their status. (Blanchard, 2012)
This underscores the importance of reciprocity within informal cooperatives. Chen
underscores this value where “Building up the social goods (e.g. rationality and reciprocity)
(Turner, 1991), establishing trust and creating norms (Coleman, 1988) are important
cornerstones for the success of a virtual community.” (Chen, 2006: 114)
Reputation
Social capital is a derivative product of reputation building. Portes describes social
capital as a valuable non-monetary form of capital where “...it places those positive
consequences in the framework of a broader discussion of capital and calls attention to how
such non-monetary forms can be important sources of power and influence, like the size of
one’s stock holdings or bank account.” (Portes, 2000: 2) Social capital can be exchanged.
Within the informal cooperative this exchange occurs between those who have similar
interest via participation within the group.
Kollock discusses this exchange as a motivational factor to increase “...the effect of
contributions on one's reputation. High quality information, impressive technical details in
one's answers, a willingness to help others, and elegant writing can all work to increase one's
prestige in the community.” (Kollock, 1999: 7) Reputation building creates social capital
from the relationships within the informal cooperative. Brass and Krackhardt discuss the
fragility of social capital and the dependence of its worth on participation. “Social capital is
the property of relationships; if either actor withdraws, the relationships and the social capital

Page 17

dissolve.” (Brass and Krackhardt, 1999: 180) As an extreme view of the importance of social
capital, Brass and Krackhardt claim that social capital is the interdependency from which all
capital is derived. Without it, the other forms of capital can fail. “Without social capital,
human capital and financial capital (money, credit and so forth) may be worthless.” (Brass
and Krackhardt, 1999: 180)
Efficacy
While contribution may be paramount to the energy and growth of informal
cooperatives, the ability of people to see their impact (e.g., efficacy) is of great interest and
value to participants. Kollock describes participation which results in “...valuable information
because the act results in a sense of efficacy, that is, a sense that she has some effect on this
environment” (Kollock, 1999: 7). While there may not be a wealth of literature specifically
discussing informal cooperatives, Kollock argues that there is a great deal known about the
value of efficacy within informal groups. Efficacy is common and an important motivational
factor of online participation. Kollock describes research “...has shown how important a
sense of efficacy is (e.g., Bandura, 1995), and making regular and high-quality contribution
to the group can help a person believe she has an impact on the group and support her own
self-image as an efficacious person.” (Kollock, 1999:7)
Kollock cites Constant, Kiesler, and Sproul (Kollock, 1999: 7) in his argument that
efficacy is an important element to online cooperation. “If a sense of efficacy is what is
motivating someone, then contributions are likely to be increased to the extent that people
can observe changes in the community attributable to their actions. It may also be the case
that as the size of the group increases, one will be more motivated to contribute because the

Page 18

increasing size provides a larger audience and a potentially greater impact for one's
actions” (Kollock, 1999: 7). By including this argument, Kollock emphasizes that while
people may contribute more if they can see the impact of their participation. In terms of
informal cooperatives, the more people participate, the more their contribution is seen as
meaningful within the community, the greater potential for growth. (Kollock, 1999: 7) The
more growth, the more others will be attracted to jump on the bandwagon to participate in the
informal cooperative.
New Media Object

Informal cooperatives establish an identity through social capital contributions of
others. Informal cooperatives may be an object of mediation, specifically a new media object.
Celia Lury, author of Consumer Culture, gives the example of how brands become new
media objects: “In media theory, the terms ‘frame’, ‘window’, ‘mirror,’ ‘screen’, and
‘interface’ are used in many discussion of media such as architecture, painting, cinema and
computing. The most basic definition of the frame in media theory is ‘a window that opens
onto a larger space that assume to extend beyond the frame’ (Manovich, 2011: 80);
alternatively the frame is said to separate ‘two absolutely different spaces that somehow
coexist’ (Manovich, 2001: 95).” (Lury, 2011: 152) Similar to what Lury discusses as
“...brands organize the activities of the market by acting as a dynamic frame or interface of
communication.” (Lury, 2011: 152)
Adam Arvidsson takes Lury’s argument that brands are new media objects and applies
her argument to the information economy. “I would like to expand on Lury’s suggestion to
argue that brands can be understood to exemplify, not only the status of objects in the

Page 19

information age, but the very logic of information capital.” Arvidsson argues that “Like the
factory times of Fordism, the brand stands out as a central institutionalization, a concrete
manifestation of the abstract logic of accumulation that drives capital in the information
age.” (Arvidsson, 2006: 124) Like brands, informal cooperatives attract attention and
circulation around those who see themselves or seek to affiliate others who have a common
interest. While brands are contrived objects by institutions, informal cooperatives are organic
objects which serve the special interests of individuals who seek affiliation with others. In the
information economy, informal cooperatives garner social capital through the reputation of
the individuals participating and the reputation of the actions of the group as a whole.
Ridings and Gefen describe the connection between identity of informal cooperatives
and the self “...according to social identity theory (Hogg, 1996; Tajfel, 1978; Turner, 1978,
1985), people form a social identity of values, attitudes and behavioral intentions from the
perceived membership in distinct self-inclusive real or imagined social groups. An
individual’s self-identity typically results from the membership in a preexisting self-inclusive
social group, including vocation (Hogg & Terry, 2000) and avocation (Underwood, Bond, &
Baer, 2001).” (Ridings & Gefen, 2004) This underscores Kollock’s argument that individuals
participate through self-interest.
Informal cooperatives, similar to other mediated objects, depend on circulation for
their value. The circulation of informal cooperatives is supported through: (1) attraction to a
common interest; (2) provision of an open collaboration space where mediation with the
shared interest occurs; and (3) participation of others to share skills, knowledge and

Page 20

resources. Informal cooperatives create their own worlds of distinction where affiliation and
participation take place.
Whether informal cooperatives seek to establish an identity or not, they become a
new media object within the ecosystem which others may be required to mediate. While the
ecosystem may focus on recognized legal entities, clearly these ecosystems are filled with
informal cooperatives who generate value in today’s information economy. Informal
cooperatives are mediation points for individuals and non-economically viable interests
where circulation occurs through the pooling of skills, knowledge and resources toward a
shared interest to create peer production projects. Benkler writes about this shift, “...likely
most radical, new, and difficult for observers to believe, is the rise of effective, large-scale
cooperative efforts—peer production of information, knowledge, and culture. These are
typified by the emergence of free and open-source software. We are beginning to see the
expansion of this model not only to our core software platforms, but beyond them into every
domain of information and cultural production...” (Benkler, 2006: 5) This circulation
competes for attention within the information economy beyond institutional borders or even
the ability of individuals to act on their own.
Common Features

Today, there are probably hundreds of models of how informal cooperatives work.
Informal cooperatives have an unfettered ability to create ideas, share knowledge, and make
decisions for themselves. Informal cooperatives provide open collaboration spaces for
participants to share skills, knowledge and resources. Often participants are affiliated and
participate in several informal cooperatives at the same time, including ones who seem to

Page 21

compete with one another. Informal cooperatives are often free (i.e., without cost) to
participate and use common tools such as wikis, IRC and Google groups to communicate.
Informal cooperatives require little capital investment. Levels of participation range from
those who want to merely be updated to the group’s activities to those who are active
participants. The following are eight features of informal cooperatives:
1. Informality: Informal cooperatives offer an environment of informality with little barrier
to entry to participate. Conditions which exist around these groups can foster experiential
learning, rapid prototyping, market insights, and trend identification. “Environment plays
a major role in shaping his ideas and intentions. Learning occurs primarily through the
association between stimulus and response.” (Kolb, 1984: 24)
2. Trust: Trust is established through the relationships within the informal cooperative that
supports the social norms of the group and reinforces the reciprocity ethos that drives
open collaboration culture. The ability to trust first and ask questions later is a common
characteristic of online communities. A level of trust between participants enables an
environment where creativity is nurtured through open collaboration.
3. Independence: Informal cooperatives are not governed by external agents, rather they are
guided by participants within the group. Participants are attracted to the informal
cooperative because there is a space where they have autonomy and can self-direct their
contributions to the group. Independence is a vital characteristic of the informal
cooperative. Individuals expect to manage their own contribution and to have input on the
management of shared resources. Informal cooperatives require an environment free from
constraints.

Page 22

4. Normative Governance: Informal cooperatives have normative (i.e., undocumented)
governance structures such as meritocracy, which places value on the level and length of
participation as well as on adherence to social norms (e.g., being helpful, no flame
throwing or credit taking). Role-modeling behavior communicates to the community
what is acceptable behavior and what is not.

Governance may be written down

informally as guidance rather than hard, fast rules. Social norms are learned through
active listening and observation by participants.
5. Open Collaboration: Informal cooperatives often work out loud, meaning that they work
out in the open where people can access what they are working on and can provide
insights. (Gray, 2012) (Milton, 2012) Kollock mentions that groups share resources and
transactions are recorded in the public eye. (Kollock: 1999: 6) Technology tools such as
wikis and Google groups provide open spaces where knowledge can be recorded and
knowledge can be transferred seamlessly. By placing this information in a public space,
this offers an increased level of transparency to potentially increase trust within the group
and allow for latent participants to get up to speed on how they can contribute. Benkler
shares a related perspective in his book The Wealth of Networks: “My claim is that the
emergence of a substantial non-market alternative path for cultural conversation increases
the degrees of freedom available to individuals and groups to engage in cultural
production and exchange, and that doing so increases the transparency of culture to its
inhabitants.” (Benkler, 2006: 293) Therefore, open collaboration isn’t necessarily aimed
at transparency for accountability sake rather alternative paths for knowledge transfers
and potentially, peer production. As Kollock references, it is in the best interest of the

Page 23

group that information be shared widely using tools which are accessible to all
participants. (Kollock, 1999: 7)
6. Experiential Learning: Individuals who participate within an informal cooperative are
learning by doing. Kolb discusses three core areas of experiential learning: (1) “Learning
is best conceived as a process, not in terms of outcomes;” (Kolb, 1984: 26) (2) “Learning
is a continuous process grounded in experience;” (Kolb, 1984: 27) and (3) The process of
learning requires the resolution of conflicts between dialectically opposed modes of
adaption to the world.” (Kolb, 1984: 29) Participants learn through the experience by
attempting to learn skills or create projects which they may have never tried beforehand.
Learning through experience often is tied to mentorship. This allows for participation in
an open space where individuals have varied levels of skills. Informality fosters
conditions which allow for iteration and failure.
7. Mentorship: Those who guide can act as mentors within informal cooperatives. Mentors
often are individuals who have participated for an extended period of time or whom have
a specific expertise that they are willing to share with others. Mentors manage the flow of
new contributions towards productive use. Mentors guide with a light touch to reinforce
social norms and knowledge transfer within the open collaboration space. Similar to a
lifeguard, mentors support the safety and wellness of participants within the informal
cooperative. Mentors maybe self-appointed, but are a critical element to supporting the
overall health and wellness of the cooperative. Mentors empower the free flow of
information through open collaboration so new participants can see what has been done

Page 24

before and best decide how they would like to contribute to the cooperative. (Sinclair,
2003: 79)
8. New Space for Collaboration: Informal cooperatives create a new space for collaboration
between individuals who may have not worked together previously. This open space
allows for risk taking, creativity, and failure. When informal cooperatives work beyond
their immediate interest with other groups, such as institutions, a collaboration sphere is
created. This independent space allows for people to work beyond their immediate
interests towards a common goal between the both groups.
Risk, Culture and Intra-preneurs

An entrepreneur from La Cantine, a local Parisian co-working space, discussed the
challenge that institutions have in creating an enabling environment for innovation and
exchange.
Idea is that the kind of people who run companies are sometimes just alike.
Often they are similar kinds of people who have been taught to optimize the
company (e.g., MBAs). They are there not to create new ideas but to optimize
processes and systems which are already there instead of creating a creative
process. In effect, what they do is castrate the company from all of its
ideas...Companies are often only focused on optimization where the sole focus
is to eliminate excess instead of trying to do something that is new. These are
different things. They [the companies] don’t have the space to actually exploit
their ideas. (Blanchard, 2012)

Page 25

Institutions are victim to process and accountability in order to be competitive within the
marketplace. The ability to create a space to experiment and prototype ideas may not exist
within an organization’s business model (i.e., humanitarian relief). The tendency to value
optimization over innovation (e.g., creationism) challenges institutions ability create a space
where experimentation and failure is tolerated.
Randy Komisar, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur and venture capital investor, discusses
the deep cultural challenges that institutions have with respect for taking risks required to
propel the organization forward. Komisar argues that institutions have an inability to tolerate
risks, even within the most innovative companies.
Innovation is about taking risk to do things that haven't been done before. If
you could do them with a level of certainty that would increase the odds above
50%, we wouldn't need Silicon Valley. Big companies would do it, and they'd
do it well. The reason big companies don't venture into what Silicon Valley
does is because their business models do not tolerate the level of failure
required for innovation. (Komisar, 2004)
Failure isn’t an option for institutions. Conversely, within informal cooperatives, failure is
embraced. Komisar links the inability to tolerate failure within institutions (e.g., companies)
relation to organizational culture.
What generally is lacking is a culture of constructive failure. Constructive
failure, the ability to tolerate failure, proceed with your career, and do it again;

Page 26

and take your experience and cash in on it as an asset. Still, many business
cultures where when you fail, you're finished. (Komisar, 2004)
The Trouble with Culture
Informal cooperatives often can serve a role within the ecosystem by providing
institutions an external open collaboration space where new ideas can be tested. Within
many institutions, open space for collaboration may not exist. This has nothing to do with
resources, rather its cause is market forces which reinforce priorities, culture and investment
choices. Without an independent open collaboration space within today’s network of
networks, the ability to innovate may become seriously paralyzed. Even when emerging
trends are brought into the institution, they may be discounted or ignored. Kurt Eichenwald, a
writer for Vanity Fair, profiled Microsoft’s culture challenges which have impacted its
position within the marketplace. (Eichenwald, 2012)
In 2003, a young developer noticed that friends in college signed up for AIM
exclusively and left it running most of the time. The reason? They wanted to
use the program’s status message, which allowed them to type a short note
telling their online buddies what they were doing, even when they weren’t at
the computer. Messages like “gone shopping” and “studying for my exams”
became commonplace. (Eichenwald, 2012)

“That was the beginning of the trend toward Facebook, people having
somewhere to put their thoughts, a continuous stream of consciousness,” said
the developer, who worked in the MSN Messenger unit. “The main purpose of
Page 27

AIM wasn’t to chat, but to give you the chance to log in at any time and check
out what your friends were doing.” (Eichenwald, 2012)

The developer concluded that no young person would switch from AIM to
MSN Messenger, which did not have the short-message feature. He spoke
about the problem to his boss, a middle-aged man. The supervisor dismissed
the developer’s concerns as silly. Why would young people care about putting
up a few words? Anyone who wanted to tell friends what they were doing
could write it on their profile page, he said. Meaning users would have to open
the profile pages, one friend at a time, and search for a status message, if it
was there at all. (Eichenwald, 2012)

“He didn’t get it,” the developer said. “And because he didn’t know or didn’t
believe how young people were using messenger programs, we didn’t do
anything.” (Eichenwald, 2012)
This behavior is indicative of what Horgeon, Joroff, Porter and Schon discuss in relation to
their call for a process architect within the institution. “Fear on the part of the less powerful
players coupled with arrogance and blindness on the part of the more powerful ones [which]
kept the key issues undiscussable, preventing them from surfacing soon enough to be
productively dealt with” (Horgen, Joroff, Porter and Schon, 1989: 99). Institutions lack
organizational culture which will can allow for greater experimentation and exchange. Open
collaboration culture is the foundation of informal cooperatives.

Page 28

Larry Page, founder and CEO of Google, sees troubles ahead. Page along with Sergey
Brin created Google to be synonymous with innovation. Today, Google is a multi-national
company and its CEO now fears that culture, not resources, is the number one obstacle to
innovation.
When I asked him last September (in one of the very rare opportunities for
reporters to pose questions to him on the record) what he thought was
Google’s threat, the answer was out of his mouth even before I finished the
query. “Google,” he said. Page lives in horror of the company being bogged
down by inertia, timidity or the sluggishness of bureaucracy. (Levy, 2012)
Ironically, founders of many of the world’s leading technology companies have benefited
from open collaboration environments which, like Google and Microsoft, they later find
challenging to recapture.
Individuals within institutions who seek to apply emerging trends, new technologies
and skills toward the mission of the institution are intra-preneurs. These employees often
crave a culture of open collaboration and are employed at innovative institutions such as
Google and Microsoft. Gifford Pinchot describes this role as “Intra-preneur is short for intracorporate entrepreneur. Within an organization, intra-preneurs take new ideas and turn them
into profitable new realities. Without empowered intra-preneurs, organizations don’t
innovate. Yet too many organizations water their intra-preneurial talent.” (Pinchot, 1985; ix)
Employees within institutions who are intra-preneurs serve as catalysts for entrepreneurship
within their own institution. They seek to empower open collaboration and engagement to
new communities outside of its organizational boundaries. Institutional culture challenges the

Page 29

ability for intra-preneurs to share their ideas, skills, and knowledge. Instead, intra-preneurs
often go elsewhere (e.g., informal cooperatives) to give life to their ideas.

Page 30

Chapter Two:
Kernels and Collaboration Spheres

Page 31

When two or more people get together to collaborate, they develop an informal
cooperative. When an informal cooperative is created, the original or high energy
participants of the informal cooperative are its kernel.

Andrew Turner, co-founder of

CrisisCommons, used this term in an organizational perspective where he stated, “I think it's
just missing a few kernels to form a more cohesive and solid organization that will make it
much easier to grow all the other ideas we keep pondering.” (Turner, 2012) This term is
derived from computer operating systems where “The kernel is a program that constitutes the
central core of a computer operating system.” (Linux Project, 2004) This chapter moves the
definition of the kernel from a systems engineering concept to an organizational development
construction whose primary role is to guide and cultivate an environment conducive for
dialogue, cooperation and collaboration.
Kernels are living stewards of the informal cooperative. “In stewardship theory, the
model of man is based on a steward whose behavior is ordered such that pro-organizational,
collectivistic behaviors have higher utility than individualistic, self-serving behaviors. Given
a choice between self-serving behavior and pro-organizational behavior, a steward’s behavior
will not depart from the interests of his or her organization.” (Davis, Schoorman &
Donaldson, 1997: 24) Similar to ambassadors, kernels display agency and are often born
diplomatic skills. To institutions and external groups, kernels may be characterized in an
activist or leadership role. Ultimately, kernels are adept at bringing people together to foster
an enabling environment conducive for dialogue, cooperation and collaboration.

Page 32

The Light Touch

The relationship between kernels and participants within the informal cooperatives is
akin to process architect. Horgen, Joroff, Port and Schon offer “The process architect can
help the organization to address, and often to reframe, its problems.” (Horgen, Joroff, Porter
and Schon, 1999: 56)
An effective process architect will get the team to draw upon this accumulated
learning as a platform for moving forward. The client group and other
stakeholders, with support of the process architect, continuously evaluate the
existing environments for work, the design process, and the artifacts it
produces, seeking to discover what works. Evaluation and learning are
continuous and quite mess, because the very meaning of “what works” and the
criteria to be used to make those judgements are open to question and
determination as part of the design inquiry. (Horgen, Joroff, Porter and Schon,
1999: 60)
While the position described by Horgen, Joroff, Porter and Schon is within the workplace, it
can be applied to an informal cooperative where the kernel provides a light touch to guide
and enable conditions conducive to collaboration. The authors claim this is not a random
volunteer role, rather “The role of the process architect is not given, but it must be created.
Workplace-making may play itself out in the hands of a single participant, or it may move
from one person to another—or no single person that actually direct the process.” (Horgen,
Joroff, Porter and Schon, 1989: 91)
Kernels often evolve into their role rather than being appointed. They may exhibit
similar characteristics as process architects. In a way, kernels may in fact be managing the
Page 33

emotion of the group. “I propose that one role of a group leader, especially an emergent
group leader, is to interpret ambiguous situations and then to model an appropriate emotional
response. This modeled emotional response resolves immediate problems of ambiguity and
emotional expression that the group needs to confront for it to move forward.” (Pescosolido,
2002: 4) In both informal cooperatives and institutions, the kernels may apply lessons learned
and best practice strategies towards guiding and documenting participation within the group.
Kernels may be misunderstood by participants and external stakeholders as holding
positions of power rather than a guiding role. Horgen, Joroff, Porter and Schon discuss this
through the lens of the process architect role. “What they do and how and when they do it is
affected by the roles they are given or assume, the authority they begin with or accumulate,
and their own normative frameworks of action. In any case, the process architect enters the
game with the aim of directing it toward greater collaboration and co-invention.” (Horgen,
Joroff, Porter and Schon, 1989: 91) Kernels can act as process architects, but their role is
contingent upon establishing trust and participation within the group that they support.
Institutional Kernel

Institutional kernels are first adopters and change agents. While informal cooperatives
may need more than one person to create a kernel, institutions may have several individuals
who act as kernels but are not part of any internal group. Institutional kernels can have a
limited ability to connect with others within the institution. Institutional kernels play an intrapreneurial role to shift their organization towards a more open collaboration culture. “These
people were not just ‘business-as-usual,’ but they were actually trying to shift their
company’s corporate course.” (Clay, 2012) Often institutional kernels may be unable to reach

Page 34

decision-makers or have a space to connect with others within the institution because of
organizational culture, management structures and geography. Institutions may not
incentivize the ability for their employees to contribute to the organization beyond their job
description. Such contribution is often discouraged as detailed in the Microsoft messenger
example. (Eichenwald, 2012) As such, institutions may be unable to leverage their most
valuable resource: their own people.
Structural Holes

If the information economy is comprised of a network of networks, the question then
is: are these networks connected or are there gaps between groups? Sociologist Ronald Burt
describes gaps within social structure as structural holes. Burt defines this space between
disconnected groups as “...missing relationships that inhibit information flow between
people.” (Burt, 2007: 119) Characteristic of information cooperatives, the affiliation of only
those who have similar interest and values are echoed by Burt. “Information, opinion, and
practice are more homogeneous within than between groups, so a manager whose network
spans structure holes (call him a network broker, connector, or entrepreneur) has a vision
advantage in early exposure to diverse information and a general political advantage as a hub
in the information flow.” (Burt, 2007: 119)

Burt describes this phenomenon not as a

competition within the environment but rather the effort in extracting value from the distance
between two groups. “The structural hole argument is not a theory of competitive
relationships. It is a theory about competition for the benefits of relationships.” (Burt, 1995:
5)
While Burt describes structural holes from an external perspective, from
organizational development we know that structural holes also exist within institutions. There
Page 35

is not one kind of gap between disconnected people and groups, there can be many. We can
expand upon Burt’s concept of the structural hole to also address gaps within informal
cooperatives and institutions. External structural holes are gaps between groups (e.g.
institutions and informal cooperatives) while internal structural holes are gaps within the
group or institution. This distinction is important because institutions and informal
cooperatives alike have gaps within their own culture and social composition.
Bridging structural holes may be seen as an act of negotiating between two cultures.
The value of structural holes is that they may be recognized and bridged. Those who span
between structural holes are brokers, who can act as new curators (See Chapter 4).
“Structural holes are thus an opportunity to broker the flow of information between people,
and control the projects that bring together people from opposite sides of the hole.” (Burt,
2001: 35)
Structural holes are not invisible. Burt suggests that these gaps may in fact be visible
to the participants. This signals that gaps which exist, both internal and external, often can be
conscious choices of the groups who might have a benefit by not addressing the
disconnection. Often structural holes are clearly visible, if not strategically place, to those
who operate within the ecosystem. (Kollock, 1999: 7) “The structural hole between two
groups does not mean that people in the groups are unaware of one another. It only means
that people are focused on their own activities such as they do not attend to the activities of
people in the other group.” (Burt, 2001: 34-35)
Addressing structural holes, both within and external to a group, can produce
outcomes such as increased empathy. Preece and Kambiz describe “Research on empathy

Page 36

shows that people who share common experiences, who have similar interests, who are
similar or who know each other well, tend to be more empathetic (Colvin, Vogt, & Ickes,
1997; Ickes, 1997) than people without these circumstances.” While empathy may be a
cohesion element to the information cooperative, it can also go a long way to build
understanding and trust between two groups who have dissimilar interests and values.
(Preece and Kambiz, 2001: 250) Open collaboration space can be seen as a tool to bridge the
distance between groups. In a self-actualized state, open collaboration space can set the
condition conducive for co-creation between groups to fuel a new marketplace of ideas and
joint prototype development.
Legitimacy
In some instances, institutional kernels participate within informal cooperatives. In
fact, informal cooperatives can be created due to the frustration of institutional kernels who
have an inability to collaborate beyond their own job. Participants of informal cooperatives,
whether active or latent, may represent an institution’s interest. When institutional kernels
participate within informal cooperatives, they often present a public disclaimer which
distances their personal interests and the interests of their employer. Participants often will
say that I’m here in my personal capacity and I do not represent the interests of my company.
(Graham, 2012) This public disclaimer is a social form of due diligence attempting to satisfy
an unsaid need to create distance between their personal and professional contributions.
While these statements may comfort the individual, institutional kernels, whether they intend
to, or not, give gravitas (CrisisCamp, 2009) and legitimacy (CrisisCamp Ignite, 2009) to
activities within the informal cooperative.

Page 37

Collaboration Sphere

The space between informal cooperatives and institutions is an independent open
collaboration space called the collaboration sphere. This space is independent and free from
ownership. The collaboration sphere exists when two groups come together beyond
organizational borders of their institutions and interests of informal cooperatives. This space
acts as a catalyst to move groups beyond dialogue towards co-creation. Institutions describe
external stakeholders as partners and the space that the relationship exists within is a
partnership. This space is a forum for dialogue, however the collaboration sphere catalyzes
action which neither group could accomplish on their own.
Analyzing social work, Colin Whittington frames the distance between dialogue and
action among stakeholders within a partnership. Whittington believes that partnerships
transition from a state of a relationship (e.g., dialogue) to a state of partnership in action
(e.g., collaboration). (Whittington, 1988: 39-40) This new space, where these actions take
place, is the collaboration sphere. Whittington underscores the existence of other spheres and
the identities that they employ. “Underlying the model are two sets of ideas, ‘system’ and
‘identity’, and a perspective known widely as ‘the social construction of reality (Berger and
Luckman 1967). The idea of system enables us to think of each sphere as being real in the
sense of having dynamics and characteristics that are experienced as independent of any
individual people involved.” (Whittington, 1988: 39-40)
Whittington uses the concept of the sphere ”to encapsulate identity and system and
the processes which bind them.” (Whittington, 1988: 40) Processes within the informal
collaboration, Whittington explains, are the cultural norms and interest of the participants.
This points to Jürgen Habermas and his concept of the public sphere. Habermas discussed in
Page 38

order for democracy to take room that a open space for reasoned discourse to discuss topics
of the day between civil society and the state should exist. (Habermas, 1991: xi) Habermas
portrayed the public sphere as an ideal state. “As a sphere between civil society and that
state, in which critical public discussions of matters of general interest was institutionally
guaranteed, the liberal public sphere tool shape in the specific historical circumstances of a
developing market economy.” (Habermas, 1999: xi) If we apply the concept of the public
sphere to those who cooperate and form relationships within the information economy, a new
collaboration sphere exists where knowledge and production can occur among those who
have similar interests. While Habermas’ public sphere has been widely criticized as an
utopian state, it provides a structuralization from which to view the interaction which occurs
between groups and ideally how they can be empowered to participate in processes which
they do not own or control.
In the 1950s, Fowle described how a London art community created their own space
of collaboration in an unorthodox way. “In London, the Independent Group transformed the
audience from a spectator into a participant in the production of culture. Consisting of artists,
architects and critics—Richard Hamilton, Alison and Peter Smithson, and Lawrence
Alloway, to name a few—the group developed around the Institute of Contemporary Art
from 1952, providing a forum for public debate through lectures, dialogues, and
exhibitions.” (Fowle, 2007: 13) This space for dialogue and engagement reflects back to
Habermas’ public sphere. Today, the public sphere has transformed the information economy.
No longer are citizens interested in dialogue but they are interested in participating in what
interests them. (Habermas, 1999: xi)

Page 39

If we examine Whittington’s view of collaboration as partnership in action, we can
understand that the collaboration sphere is an action-oriented space that straddles informal
cooperatives and institutions. Whittington proposes that within social work there is the team
sphere. “The team or workgroup represents for many social workers, and some other
professionals, the most tangible connection between their personal and professional self and
the organization which they work. For some, the team provides a human face of an otherwise
large and impersonal organization. It may help them in locating a real sense of membership
and with it an important identity.” (Whittington, 2003: 44)
Related to Whittington’s example of the team sphere, the collaboration sphere is
where people can meet (e.g., in-person or virtually), discuss topics of the day and potentially
collaborate on interests that are shared, but may not be common to either groups. This new
space nurtures connectivity, co-creation, risk-taking, remix and do-it-yourself Maker cultures
(Lahart, 2009). An ethos of failure is embraced by those who participate in the space as a
precursor towards finding the break through or innovation.
To extrapolate from Whittington and Habermas, we know that there are three
characteristics that support the argument that a collaboration sphere exists. First, we
recognize a sphere as a space of identity where people within groups (or individually) come
together towards an interest. Second we see the value produced by the circulation created by
these spheres. Third, we know that these sphere may not be inclusive to anyone wishing to
participate and can be negatively affected by external forces which may seek to influence
information and outcomes within the sphere. Finally, we know that while the sphere is meant

Page 40

to be an open space, it is through the use of technology where the space can facilitate
collaboration beyond what Habermas or Whittington envision.
Value of the collaboration sphere to institutions
Some institutions may look upon participation within collaboration sphere, especially
with informal cooperatives, as extensions of their research and development capacity.
Institutions may seek new talents and ideas by being part of what is happening on the ground.
Informal cooperatives may be seen as test beds where institutions can pilot new ideas with
others. Informal cooperatives may be utilized to demonstrate a proof of concept where intrapreneurs seek a validation to create a business case for investment. During Random Hacks of
Kindness hackathons prototype products are created in a weekend to aid in disaster relief.
(Mills, 2009) One of the prototypes, “I’m Okay” was used during the 2010 Haiti earthquake.
(World Bank, 2012)

Institutions may see informal cooperatives as personal development

and learning opportunities for their employees to broaden their skills and professional
networks. Informal cooperatives provide an environment where their employees can work
beyond their organization’s borders.
Overall, institutions may leverage the collaboration sphere’s unique environment
where high tolerance of risk and support for creativity is championed as opposed to the
overtly managed and optimized institutional environment. The collaboration sphere becomes
the space between interests of individuals and institutions, by promoting circulation between
those who may not necessarily have connected to one another. This reduces the possibility
that nodes stagnate or become polarized by their own interests. Collaboration within the
sphere can create empathy, understanding and trust between groups fostering diversity with a

Page 41

common interest rather than polarity. The collaboration sphere connects networks that
wouldn’t have been able to bridge themselves creating a new independent space that neither
group could create on their own.

Page 42

Chapter Three: The Value of Weak Ties

Page 43

Gladwell’s Challenge

Malcolm Gladwell, author of the Tipping Point, ignited a firestorm on Twitter when
he penned for New York Magazine, “Small Change: Why the revolution will not be
tweeted.” (Gladwell, 2012: 1) Gladwell argues that weak ties, such as those that inspired the
Arab Spring, will not create lasting change.
There is strength in weak ties, as the sociologist Mark Granovetter has
observed. Our acquaintances—not our friends—are our greatest source of new
ideas and information. The Internet lets us exploit the power of these kinds of
distant connections with marvellous efficiency. It’s terrific at the diffusion of
innovation, interdisciplinary collaboration, seamlessly matching up buyers
and sellers, and the logistical functions of the dating world. But weak ties
seldom lead to high-risk activism. (Gladwell, 2012: 3)
Gladwell, while understanding the significance of weak ties, negates their utility to create
action. Sociologist Mark Granovetter developed the term weak ties to discuss how there is
greater value within distant relationships than with strong ones. In this chapter, we explore
the weaknesses of Gladwell’s argument and the importance of weak ties.
Granovetter describes weak ties in his book, The Strength of Weak Ties, as a concept
where: “Most intuitive notions of the ‘strength’ of an interpersonal tie should be satisfied by
the following definition: the strength of a tie is a (probably linear) combination of the amount
of time, the emotional intensity, the intimacy (mutual confiding), and the reciprocal services
which characterize the tie.” (Granovetter, 1973: 1361) Granovetter brings the concept to our

Page 44

everyday lives by saying that “most of us can agree, on a rough intuitive basis, whether a
given tie is strong, weak or absent.” (Granovetter, 1973: 1361)
The importance of a tie is not necessarily whether it is strong or weak, but if it exists
at all. Weak ties bring together those who have common interest or values. The initial act of
connecting—the establishment of a relationship between two people or two groups—may be
the only action that is ever taken. For some, connection is the beginning of a new
relationship. While for others, there may never be an evolution of that relationship. When
there is an overwhelming common interest, such as a crisis event, weak ties can spring into
action. They create initial communication gateways through which action may be eventually
organized.
Latency to Sensory Systems
Weak ties can transform relationships from a latent observation role towards a high
energy active role supporting a living new sensory network. People who are within a weak tie
relationship may observe and learn by merely being connected through a common space.
Similar to watching a town square full of people, weak ties are able to watch and learn from
the behavior of others.
Today, it is possible to have your own personal town square, in a digital sense, filled
with individuals and groups who have weak and strong ties.

By establishing weak ties,

permission is given to those who may not have similar interests or values, to access their
personal town squares. Within these spaces, weak ties play an observer role. They watch
what is shared, listen to conversations and learn from the exchange. This may be

Page 45

characterized as latency (e.g., an absence of action) but is valuable to increasing diversity
within a personal town square.
Gladwell’s assertion that weak ties may never spring into high-risk activism may be
because he perceived weak ties as a permanent latent state. In fact, weak ties display action
during novel events such as natural disasters or when an individual is threatened. Weak ties
are just the beginning of a relationship. They are the starting point. Communications between
two people or two communities begins with a single connection. The shape and scale of weak
tie relationships can evolve and strengthen over time. We can compare weak ties to a dirt
road. While the path along a direct road may be rocky, unrefined and informal, it provides a
connection point between two paths. With regard to weak ties, this connection transforms the
unknown towards a known relationship.
Diversity

Weak ties create diversity within individuals and groups. “From the individual’s point
of view, then weak ties are an important resource in making possible mobility opportunity.
Seen from a more macroscopic vantage, weak ties play a role in effecting social
cohesion.” (Granovetter, 1973: 1372) Weak ties can play a supporting role within informal
cooperatives to create diversity among individuals within the group. Granovetter supports
this approach. “Unlike most models of interpersonal networks, the one presented here is not
meant primarily for application to small, face-to-face groups or to groups in confined
institutional or organizational settings. Rather, it is meant for linkage of such small-scale
levels with one another and with larger, more amorphous ones. This is why emphasis here
has been placed more on weak ties than on strong. Weak ties are more likely to link members

Page 46

of different small groups than are strong ones, which tend to be concentrated within
particular groups.” (Granovetter, 1973: 1376)
Informal cooperatives can benefit from the diversity which weak ties present to the
group to mitigate against the negative impact of polarization. The greater the number of weak
ties, the more potential that the informal cooperative may have to being more inclusive and
diverse environment. Acting in an observer role, weak tie relationships may potentially have
significant amount of impact in guiding norms and behaviors of the informal cooperative.
Facebook and Weak Ties
Eytan Bakshy, a member of the Facebook Data Science team, examined Granovetter’s
work and aligned it with Facebook data to suggest that weak ties are still the most valuable
relationships one can have in their social system. This demonstrates further evidence to
support Granovetter’s claim that weak ties have more benefits to individuals than strong ties.
Bakshy refers to Granovetter’s in his argument on the value of weak ties: “...[O]our close
friends strongly sway which information we share, but overall their impact is dwarfed by the
collective influence of numerous more distant contacts—what sociologists call "weak ties." It
is our diverse collection of weak ties that most powerfully determines what information we're
exposed to.” (Bakshy, 2012) Bakshy furthered his position by stating

that “Granovetter

found that surprisingly, people are more likely to acquire jobs that they learned about through
individuals they interact with infrequently rather than their close personal contacts.” (Bakshy,
2012)

Page 47

Bakshy argues that weak ties are unlikely to be as active or aligned with common
interest. This characteristic of weak ties is key because it draws importance to the diversity
which weak ties can bring to individual relationships and groups.
When a person interacts with two individuals frequently, those individuals are
also likely to interact with one another. It follows that people tend to form
dense clusters of strong ties who are all connected. Since people in these
clusters all know each other, any information that is available to one
individual spreads quickly to others within the cluster. These tight-knit social
circles tend to be small relative to people's entire social network, and when it
comes to information about future job opportunities, it can be hard to find new
leads. (Bakshy, 2012)
The more focused the similar interest is within the informal cooperative, the more strong ties
which exist in the group, the more homogenous the informal cooperative will become.
Homogenous groups can be challenging to the ecosystem as they are self-referencing bodies
instead of environments who welcome collaboration beyond their interests and values.
Weak ties create sources of information and action, especially during crisis events.
These events can transform weak ties from latency to supporting a living sensory network.
While strong ties may be perceived to be more durable during everyday exchanges, weak ties
can catalyze spaces of collaboration to address unmet needs of the ecosystem. Bakshy
outlines this difference: “Granovetter used the relationship between interaction frequency and
social structure to explain why information about jobs is instead found through weak ties that
we interact with infrequently. Weak ties help spread novel information by bridging the gap

Page 48

between clusters of strong tie contacts.

The strength of weak ties informs much of the

popular understanding of information spread in social networks.” (Bakshy, 2012) Crisis
events have demonstrated Bakshy’s position where it is not the strong ties, but the weak ties
which ignite action. The Haiti earthquake (e.g., natural disaster), Arab Spring and Occupy
Wall Street (e.g., political uprising) all received significant support from weak ties.
Sense-making and Proxy Services
Ties of all strengths support sense making, especially weak ties. These relationships act as a

sense-making and proxy services for other individuals and groups of whom they are
connected, especially during times of crisis. Weak ties curate content within the personal
public square to develop a sense of situational awareness. Dennis Mileti, a social scientist,
observed that people often seek more than one source of information in a crisis. Mileti called
this behavior the milling effect. People may not trust just one piece of information, but they
may place more weight to it if there are others who say or share the same news. Wood and
Mileti discussed the wealth of evidence which supports this theory: “The literature clearly
documents that preparedness is the consequence of information that first motivates people to
engage in searching behavior or “milling” in their environment and interacting with others to
affirm the appropriateness of taking preparatory behavior.” Mileti connects this idea with
individual agency. “Perhaps this is because information seeking allows people to have a
sense of control of their own response to risk communications and to perceive their actions as
self-driven.” (Wood and Mileti, 2011: 5)
Weak ties may be used as proxy agents during times of crisis. This behavior is the
ability to complete a task for another person. Rebuffing Gladwell’s assertion that weak ties
play latent observer roles, we know know there is evident to the contrary. Today, people
Page 49

expect response from their personal town squares. In 2010, the American Red Cross
conducted a public survey where they asked if people would expect a response if they asked
for help on Facebook (or any other social technology). (American Red Cross, 2010) The data
revealed a very high expectation that not only would people expect others within their social
networks to respond, but they believed that the help they are looking for would arrive
quickly. (American Red Cross, 2010) More than two-thirds of the respondents expected help
to arrive within three hours. More than a third of the respondents expected help to arrive
within an hour of the request. (American Red Cross, 2010)
During a crisis event or if someone is under duress, relationships come to their aid by
acting as proxy agents to provide information or resources which are out of reach of the tie
who is requesting assistance. For example, in Australia two teenage girls were trapped in a
storm drain and used Facebook status update to ask for help. Firefighter Glenn Benham told
Online Mail that “These girls were able to access Facebook on their mobile phones so they
could have called the emergency services.” Benham went on to question their behavior to
first reach out for help through Facebook: “It seems absolutely crazy but they updated their
status rather than call us directly.” (Online Mail, 2009) This debunks Gladwell’s assertion
that weak ties are not prone to action.
Relationship Storage Units

Facebook is an example of digital relationship storage unit. Conceivably children
born today will be able to keep connections with almost every person that they meet during
their lifetime. Never before have we been able to store so many latent connections (e.g.,
weak ties) which can be used in the future. Granovetter explains: “When a man changes jobs,
he is not only moving from one network of ties to another, but also establishing a link
Page 50

between these. Such a link is often of the same kind which facilitated his own
movement.” (Granovetter, 1973: 1372)
Granovetter points the value that movement can bring. This can be seen as circulation
which can, over time, develop new weak ties. “Information and ideas thus flow more easily
through the speciality, giving it some “sense of community,” activated at meetings and
conventions. Maintenance of weak ties may well be the most important consequence of such
meetings.”

(Granovetter, 1973: 1373) By the ability to have long-term storage of

relationships (e.g. weak or strong ties) we can maintain connection indefinitely.
While circulation between groups creates connection. The derivative product of
meeting someone is the potential to capture and store that connection. You may never talk to
them again after a conference, but have access to them through the storage of the
relationship. Weak ties begin the establishment of dialogue and action which might not have
been possible if it wasn’t accessible.
Gladwell challenges the ability of individuals to develop and maintain the volume of
relationships which are now possible due to the new capacity to store relationships for an
indefinite amount of time.
The platforms of social media are built around weak ties. Twitter is a way of
following (or being followed by) people you may never have met. Facebook is
a tool for efficiently managing your acquaintances, for keeping up with the
people you would not otherwise be able to stay in touch with. That’s why you
can have a thousand ‘friends’ on Facebook, as you never could in real life.
(Gladwell, 2010)

Page 51

Storage units such as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn foster an environment where ties of all
strengths can participate (i.e., some latent, some active). The personal town square provides a
mechanism where weak ties can learn about others without direct engagement. The personal
town square is a space where ties can listen and mingle with each other. Through social
technologies these platforms have the ability to store relationships with the promise of future
use and the potential to strengthen the relationship into a closer connection.
We have technology that is easily accessible and capable of storing all of our
relationships that we make over our lifetime. This storage allows for relationships of all
strengths to be managed. Today, we may not fully understand the implications of long-term
connection to weak ties. While not a focus of this chapter, scholars suggest there is an
opportunity to invest in research to understand the impacts of permanent connectivity.
“Information processing technologies, while providing virtual infinite numbers of
connections, also emphasize the efficient use of these connections. Building random
networks of connections becomes less efficient as the number of possible connections
increases. Thus the strategic use of both strong and weak ties becomes more important as we
move into the twenty-first century.” (Brass and Krackhardt, 1999: 191)
Cost and Value
The use of relationship storage units creates efficiency in managing ties for the long
term, the establishment and leverage of ties has a cost. Brass and Krackhardt argue that while
one may conclude that the larger the network, the more valuable it is, the cost of ties, either
weak or strong should be factored in: “Thus, it would seem that bigger networks are better.
However, one important qualifying assumption to it is in terms of time and energy. And,

Page 52

some links are more costly (in terms of time and energy) than other links.” As such, Brass
and Krackhardt, point to two strategies, one using weak ties and one using strong ties: “Weak
tie bridges act as conduits for the flow of information between other densely connected,
cohesive units.” (Brass and Krackhardt, 1999: 185)
While Gladwell’s challenge has been critiqued in this chapter, there remain questions
related to how ties can be more useful to individuals and groups. While there is evidence that
weak ties may be more useful during novel situations, today we may not completely
understand or have the ability to harness these relationships. Brass and Krackhardt are
concerned and call for additional research in these areas:
Rapid changes may make strong tie strategies less useful than the past. Strong
ties are resistant to change and provide redundant information that may be
self-confirming within highly cohesive units. In facing challenges of
uncertain, changing technologies and environments, strong tie networks may
offer few alternative perspectives and solutions to novel problems. Thus, weak
tie strategies may provide necessary information and the ability to link diverse
groups together in a cooperative, successful manner. Weak ties across groups
can become trusted strong ties as useful interactions are repeated, and builds
among actors. Under such circumstances, strong ties can link diverse groups
and provide the mutual benefits to each. These are patterns of social capital
that must be encouraged, and researched, in order to face the next century.
(Brass and Krackhardt, 1999: 191-192)

Page 53

Chapter Four: The New Curator

Page 54

New curators create value beyond being connectors in the information economy. New
curators are harbingers of knowledge (e.g., business intelligence, emerging trends)

and

facilitate its diffusion to others. As a broker who operates between two groups, new curators
are well positioned to identify talent and risks. This chapter issues a call to action for
increased investment to support new curators as independent brokers who bridge today’s
networks to foster understanding, cooperation and collaboration.
Curators do not just exist in museums alone. Today, curators bridge the divide
between institutions and informal cooperatives. The word curator is most recognized in
relation to art exhibits and museums. Curators act as ambassadors for creators and preserve
their works. Beverly Serrell describes a curator in a traditional sense as someone who
“...knows art, collects it, cares for it, and delights in sharing it with others, helping them see it
in ways they may not have discovered if left on their own.” (Serrell, 1997: 108) What we
know as curation is happening well beyond the art world.
There is a new kind of curator who catalyzes participation between groups with
dissimilar interests and values. The new curator actively seeks engagement to support
dialogue and co-creation. The new curator is a professional role who brokers between groups
to bridge structural holes within networks, catalyze collaboration (e.g., circulation) and act as
a archivist and preservationist within the collaboration sphere to ensure future accessibility
and knowledge transfer. Daniel Brass argues that the role of the broker (e.g. new curator) is
the most valuable position between two groups. “Research in organizations has shown that it
is wise to be the broker – the third who is connected to two disconnected actors (e.g., Brass,
Galaskiewicz, Greve, & Tsui; Burt, 2005, Fernandez-Mateo, 2007).” (Bass, 2009: 1)

Page 55

Curation is an opportunity to address the external structural holes (e.g., gaps between
disconnected actors) (Burt, 2007: 119) dividing informal cooperatives and institutions.
Internal curation can bridge the distance within a group or their own organizational
boundaries. The ability to create connectivity across groups, is just as important as to bridge
individuals within a group.
Characteristics
New curators act as brokers to bridge gaps (e.g., structural holes) within today’s
network of networks. Ronald Burt defines these gaps as “...missing relationships that inhibit
information flow between people”. (Burt, 2007: 119) While Burt discusses this concept in
terms of individuals, we will expand his definition to include brokering between groups.
Brokering is a unique position between two groups. Burt offers that “Numerous studies have
shown that managers whose social networks bridge structural holes have a competitive
advantage over peers confined to a single group of interconnected people.” (Burt, 2007: 119)
In this context, the new curator takes on the broker role between two groups to create
conditions conducive to support the development of a collaboration sphere. These conditions
may not have been able to be created by either group. Brass moves Burt’s brokerage theory
towards a practice where he states “It is the broker strategy – connecting to diverse,
disconnected others – that can integrate society and lead to a small world and six degrees of
separation (Granovetter, 1973; Watts, 2003). The essence of the broker strategy is simple –
build networks with people who are not themselves connected.” (Brass, 2009: 3) While this
seems accessible and open to anyone, there may be challenges to the ability to bridge groups,
especially those with dissimilar interests and values.

Page 56

While brokering is a key action of the new curator, the ability to be independent
between the two disconnected actors is essential. Independence is a primary difference
between the role of a kernel and that of a new curator. New curators are independent agents
who belong to neither group which they connect. New curators are supported by resources
which allow them to be sustainable over the long term. While kernels advocate for
participation within their group, new curators navigate the ecosystem to advocate and
connect disparate groups. New curators facilitate environmental conditions where an
independent open collaboration space (e.g., collaboration sphere) between two groups
develops. Independence allows new curators the freedom and flexibility to work with others
who may have dissimilar interests and values. New curators cultivate new relationships to
ensure diversity within the collaboration sphere.
New curators, similar to kernels, are diplomats and leverage their agency to catalyze
the conditions to support the collaboration sphere. While kernels can ignite the spark to
attract participation, the new curator’s role is to connect kernels within institutions and
informal cooperatives who may never seek to connect with one another. The collaboration
sphere is an open independent space not an owned by any one person and may be temporary
in nature. The collaboration sphere supports dialogue and co-creation.
New curators, similar to traditional curators, support public display, learning, record
keeping and preservation of works developed within the collaboration sphere so that others
can learn and share from their efforts. New curators document projects and share lessons
learned. Sharing guides individuals within the collaboration sphere to get up to speed
quickly. Participants are able search and be informed on what has happened previously and

Page 57

how they can contribute to the project or to the group in general. New curators manage open
collaboration spaces where information is share publicly so that a wider audience can learn
from activities and provide suggestions. Preservation of these activities is a key role for new
curators. The ability to archive information where it can easily be found by others supports
accessibility of knowledge and resources created within the collaboration sphere. While
participants may contribute to this effort, the new curator manages the flow of information
towards an information architecture to allow greater access to the group.
While not a characteristic, new curators require resources to be sustainable and
independent. Sustainability is required to transcend competition within the marketplace to
broker between groups, especially untraditional actors. Sustainability allows for the new
curator to be an independent voice in a highly competitive or polarized ecosystem.
Sustainability also may provide greater probably for transparency and sharing. Sustainability
removes failure as an obstacle. In an ideal state, sustainability allows for new curators to
weather austere conditions without impacting the independent nature of engagement.
At an individual level, being a new curator may be a good role to play in your career.
The ability to bridge structural holes has value within the marketplace according Brass. “At
the individual level of analysis, the advantages of structural holes translate into power (Brass,
1984), better performance (Mehra, Kilduff, & Brass, 2001), promotions (Brass, 1984; Burt,
1992), career success (Seibert, Kraimer, & Liden, 2001) and creativity (Brass, 1995; Burt,
2004).” (Brass, 2009: 260)

Page 58

The Value Between Us

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to The Value Between Us

Similar to The Value Between Us (20)

More from Heather Blanchard

More from Heather Blanchard (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The Value Between Us