Use our own (partially developed) version of the 4 Cs framework to pull together all the strands we have explored.
Populate the framework with concepts from the literature and evidence from the project (such as our reflections).
Guidance framework – things we like about the 4 Cs model
It includes motivation, behaviours and outcomes
The participation types map directly onto the types identified in the survey of wiki users we looked at in Phase 1 (the types are commenter, adder and synthesiser)
Guidance framework – things we don’t like about the 4 Cs model
It's too positive - only good things can happen
It doesn't include 'inhibitors' - factors that work against motivation to participate
It only includes types that make positive contributions - there isn't a type for people who resist participation (or for people who make negative contributions such as vandalism)
The way it is presented implies a hierarchy in which 'commentator' is better than 'contributor' etc.
The way it is presented implies that everyone progresses from consumer to commentor to contributor to commentator… this is misleading, some people might always be consumers or commentors or contributors
Make it clear that the framework is a snapshot of users of a specific application – an individual might be a synthesiser/commentator in one application and a consumer in another.
Make it clear that a user can be of one or more types, e.g. a commenter and an adder/contributor. Some permutations are more desirable than others – an adder/contributor should probably also be a consumer, a synthesiser/commentator could probably be that alone (pure process facilitation).
Make it clear that the purpose of influencing changes (between types) is to improve the effectiveness of collaboration by removing barriers so that people can be what they want to be. As opposed to forcing people into roles they don’t want.