The document discusses emerging research practices in open collaboration, highlighting concepts such as 'commons-based peer production' and 'produsage', where users also act as producers. It examines the structure and dynamics of the Research Swarm, an open network founded in 2007 that utilizes social media tools for collaborative research activities. Key practices outlined include sharing, sprinting, and swarm leadership, showing how digital technologies influence research processes and democratize scientific collaboration.

1. SHARING, SPRINTING AND
COLLABORATING IN THE OPEN
– Studying Emerging Research Work Practices
Juha Kronqvist
Media Lab // Aalto University School of Art and Design
FISCAR2010 conference
23.5.2010

2. ABOUT ME
• Researcher in the VISCI project (CICERO Learning)
• Doctoral student at Aalto University Media Lab
• Thesis theme:
Studying participatory methods for designing
collaborative web environments
http://personas.media.mit.edu/personasWeb.html

3. STRUCTURE
1. NEW FORMS OF PRODUCTION AND RESEARCH WORK
2. PRESENTING THE CASE OF OPEN RESEARCH
3. EMERGING OPEN RESEARCH PRACTICES
4. DISCUSSION

4. FRAMING THE PRESENTATION
PEER RESEARCH
PRODUCTION PRACTICES

5. EMERGING FORMS OF PRODUCTION
“Free software offers a glimpse at a more
basic and radical challenge. It suggests
that the networked environment makes
possible a new modality of organizing
production: radically decentralized,
collaborative, and nonproprietary; based
on sharing resources and outputs among
widely distributed, loosely connected
individuals who cooperate with each other
without relying on either market signals or
managerial commands. This is what I call
‘commons-based peer production.’”
Yochai Benkler (2006)

6. PRODUSAGE = PRODUCER + USER
• The emergence of various domains for peer production
has challenged the existing value chain, e.g.:
• open source software
• on-line publishing (blogs, citizen journalism)
• knowledge production (Wikipedia, social
bookmarking)
• creative practice (A/V sharing, CC distribution)
• Duality of producer-consumer roles
(Bruns 2008)

7. AFFORDANCES FOR PRODUSAGE
Axel Bruns (2008)
1 2 3 4
PROBABILISTIC, EQUIPOTENTIALITY, GRANULAR, SHARED,
NON-DIRECTED NOT NOT NOT
PROBLEM HIERARCHY COMPOSITE OWNED
SOLVING TASKS CONTENT

8. OPEN SCIENCE
• The process of research has for long been guided by
the notion of open science, i.e. that it’s produce is
considered a public good
• E-Research aims at building infrastructure for
supporting access to scholarly information and
research data
• Current work balances between technological
determinism and social construction (Borgman 2008)
• Open research supports the open sharing of research
process and methodologies in addition to data and
results

9. PEER PRODUCTION OF RESEARCH
• So far examples of peer produced research are few
and most are cases of citizen research
• NASA Clickworkers
• Mechanical Turk
• Birdwatching
• Examples derive mostly from the field of natural
sciences

10. CASE: RESEARCH SWARM

11. (OPEN) RESEARCH SWARM
• An open network of people interested in research
• Founded in 2007
• Participation is open to all interested
• Relies heavily on social media tools in its operation, e.g.:
• Microblogging (http://www.qaiku.com/channels/show/
Tutkimusparvi/)
• Wiki’s (http://tutkimus.parvi.fi/)
• Etherpad (http://www.etherpad.com – acquired by Google)
• Two successful cases of activity
• Collectively written paper at MindTrek conference in 2008
• Accepted research proposal for the Academy of Finland
• Activity intensity is fluctuating

12. STUDYING EMERGING RESEARCH
• Data collected through virtual ethnography (e.g. Hine 2000)
• participation during the development discussions of the RS
• tracing back discussions in microblogs
• studying wiki pages
• supporting interviews with participants
• Research focus: practices
• defined as culturally embedded ways of doing that combine
actions and context (Korkman 2006)

13. PRESENTED PRACTICES
1. SHARING
2. SPRINTING
3. SWARM LEADERSHIP

14. SHARING
• The Research Swarm conducts most of its
communication using open and accessible web tools
• There exists a social norm for publishing information
while it is being generated
(e.g. using email is considered ‘embarassing’)
• instrumental for open participation
• scope of activities&engagement varies
• individual activities can be traced path of engagement
• Activities
• seminar/meeting backchannels
high
• open calls for participation interaction
some
interaction
• (micro)updating wikipedia pages low
interaction
• social bookmarking of interesting information

15. SPRINTING
• Sprinting refers to the action of elevated collective work
towards achieving a result within a given time-frame
• Can be f.ex. a case where an open call is made to finish up a
paper before the deadline
• Can happen in intervals of a few hours over a few days
• During the sprint, the objectives and rules are
constantly communally constructed
• The product is constructed granularly or collaboratively
• Amount of participation varies from constructing structure for
texts to correcting grammar errors

17. SWARM LEADERSHIP
• Leadership is determined by
interest and self-organisation and
rotates continuously
• When a new operation is being
uptaken, someone formally or
informally takes the role of an
coordinative swarm leader
• publishing time tables for sprints, tasks
and motivating participants through
open calls
• this role can change during an
operation, and is changed at the latest
when an operation ends

18. TOOLS
ON SOCIAL MEDIA TOOLS
SUBJECT
• Values are internalized through the use of tools and
are assimilated as norms that guide behaviour
(Engeström 2008) RULES
COMMUNITY
• Research Swarm activities are afforded and Activity System Model
(Engeström 1985)
constrained by the functioning of social media, e.g.:
• openness and sharing
• textual format
• agility and granularity
• reliance on networks instead of hierarchies
• Some of the core values are derived directly or
through the tools from open source development

19. DISCUSSION
• Digital networked technologies are influencing
research, also in ways not easily predictable
• democratization of research work
• wildfire activities (Engeström 2009)
• The use of social media tools seems to have the ability
to affect the value-base of their users
• How should this reflect in the way collaborative
research tools are designed?
• Pointers for continuing research?

20. THANKS!
Juha
Kronqvist
Coordinator
/
Researcher
VISCI
Project
Media
Lab
/
LeGroup
Hämeentie
135
C
FI-00560
Helsinki,
Finland
+358
(0)41
466
0309