Facebook Consensus Literature Review

Running head: LITERATURE REVIEW INSTRUCTIONS 1
PAPER II: METHODS AND RESULTS INSTRUCTIONS3
Instructions for Paper I: Study One Literature Review
Instructions (Worth 25 Points)
Ryan J. Winter
Florida International University
Purpose of Paper I: Study One Literature Review
1). Psychological Purpose
This paper serves several purposes, the first of which is helping
you gain insight into research papers in psychology. As this
may be your first time reading and writing papers in
psychology, one goal of Paper I is to give you insight into what
goes into such papers. This study one-lit review will help you
a). better understand the psychology topic chosen for the course
this semester (Facebook Consensus), b). learn about the various
sections of an empirical research report by reading five peer-
reviewed articles (that is, articles that have a Title Page,
Abstract, Literature Review, Methods Section, Results Section,
and References Page), and c). use information gathered from
research articles in psychology to help support your hypotheses

for your first study this semester (Facebook Consensus). Of
course, you’ll be doing a study two literature review later in the
semester, so think of this Paper I as the first part of your
semester long paper. I recommend looking at the example Paper
V, actually, to see what your final paper will look like. It might
give you a better idea about how this current paper (as well as
Papers II, III, and IV) all fit together into your final paper of
the semester.
In this current paper (Paper I), you will read five research
articles, summarize what the authors did and what they found,
and use those summaries to support your Facebook Consensus
study hypothesis. IMPORTANT: Yes you need five references,
but keep in mind that you can spend a lot of time (a page or
two!) summarizing one of them and a sentence or two
summarizing others. Thus spend more time on the more relevant
articles!
For this paper, start your paper broadly and then narrow your
focus (think about the hourglass example provided in the
lecture). My suggestion is to give a brief overview of your
paper topic in your opening paragraph, hinting at the research
variables you plan to look at for study one. Your next
paragraphs will review prior research (those five references
required for this paper). Make sure to draw connections between
these papers, using smooth transitions between paragraphs.
Your final paragraphs should use the research you just
summarized to support your research hypothesis. And yes, that
means you MUST include your study predictions (which we
provided in the researcher instructions and the debriefing
statement. Use them!). In other words, this first paper will look
like the literature reviews for the five research articles you are
summarizing for this assignment. Use the articles you are using
as references as examples! See what they did and mimic their
style! Here, though, you will end the paper after providing your
hypothesis. In Paper II, you will pick the topic up again, but in
that future paper you will talk about your own study methods
and results.

2). APA Formatting Purpose
The second purpose of Paper I: Study One Literature Review is
to teach you proper American Psychological Association (APA)
formatting. In the instructions below, I tell you how to format
your paper using APA style. There are a lot of very specific
requirements in APA papers, so pay attention to the instructions
below as well as Chapter 14 in your textbook!
3). Writing Purpose
Finally, this paper is intended to help you grow as a writer. Few
psychology classes give you the chance to write papers and
receive feedback on your work. This class will! We will give
you extensive feedback on your first few paper in terms of
content, spelling, and grammar. You will even be able to revise
aspects of Paper I and include them in future papers (most
notably Papers III and V). My hope is that you craft a paper that
could be submitted to an empirical journal. Thus readers may be
familiar with APA style but not your specific topic. Your job is
to educate them on the topic and make sure they understand how
your study design advances the field of psychology.
In fact, your final paper in this class (Paper V), might be read
by another professor at FIU and not your instructor / lab
assistant. Write your paper for that reader - the one who may
know NOTHING about your topic and your specific study.
Note: The plagiarism limit for this paper is 30% (though this
excludes any overlap your paper might have with regard to
citations, references, and the hypotheses). Make sure your paper
falls under 30% (or 35% if including predictions).
Note: I am looking for 2.5 pages minimum
Instructions for Paper I: Study One Literature Review (Worth
25 Points)
Students: Below are lengthy instructions on how to write your
study one literature review. There is also a checklist document
in Canvas, which I recommend you print out and “check off”

before submitting your paper (we are sticklers for APA format,
so make sure it is correct! We mark off if you have a misplaced
“&”, so carefully review all of your work and use the checklist!
It will help). Also look at the example paper in Canvas. It will
show you what we expect.
1. Title Page: I expect the following format. (5 Points)
a. You must have a header and page numbers on each page.
i. If you don’t know how to insert headers, ask your instructor
or watch this very helpful video!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pbUoNa5tyY.
ii. The header goes at the top of the paper and it is left justified.
1. Use “Insert Headers” or click on the top of the page to open
the header. Make sure to select the “Different first page” option
so that your title page header will differ from subsequent pages
2. The R in Running head is capitalized but the “h” is lower
case, followed by a colon and a short title (in ALL CAPS). This
short running head title can be the same one as the rest of your
paper or it can differ – the choice is yours, but it should be no
more than 50 characters including spaces and punctuation
3. Insert a page number as well. The header is flush left, but the
page number is flush right.
iii. Want an example header? Look at the title page of these
instructions! You can use other titles depending on your own
preferences (e.g. SOCIAL MEDIA AND CONSENSUS;
CONFORMITY; JUDGING OTHERS; etc.).
b. Your Title should be midway up the page. Again, see my
“Title” page above as an example of the placement, but for your
title try to come up with a title that helps describe your study
one. Avoid putting “Paper One”. Rather, consider the titles you
saw in PsycInfo. Create a similar title that lets the reader know
what your paper is about
c. Your name (First Last) and the name of your institution (FIU)
beneath the title. For this class, only your own name will go on
this paper. Double space everything!
i. You can also refer to Chapter 14 in your powerpoints and/or
Smith and Davis textbook

d. This Title Page section will be on page 1
2. Abstract?
a. You DO NOT need an abstract for Paper I. In fact, you cannot
write it until you run both study one and two (as the abstract
highlights the results), so omit the abstract for now
3. Literature Review Section (12 points)
a. First page of your literature review (Page 2)
i. Proper header with page numbers. Your running head title
will appear in the header of your page WITHOUT the phrase
“Running head”. To insert this header, use the headers program.
ii. The title of your paper should be on the first line of page
two, centered. It is IDENTICAL to the title on your title page.
Just copy and paste it!
iii. The beginning text for your paper follows on the next line
b. Citations for the literature review
i. Your paper must cite a minimum of five (5) empirical
research articles that are based on studies conducted in
psychology. That is, each of the five citations you use should
have a literature review, a methods section, a results section, a
conclusion/discussion, and references.
1. For Paper I, you MUST use at least three of the five articles
provided in the Canvas folder. You can use four if you like, but
you must use three at minimum – however, you cannot use all
five. For that fifth article, you must find it using PsycInfo.
There are some other conditions for this fifth article that you
must follow:
a. First, remember that the fifth article cannot be any of the five
found in the Canvas folder.
b. Second, for your fifth article, it can be based on a wide
variety of topics, including general priming studies, studies on
consensus or conformity (without a social media angle), studies
on social media (without a consensus or conformity angle),
studies on impression formation, studies on friends, studies on
informational social influence or morality etc. Trust me, there
are TONS of topics that can help you in your paper. Just choose
one that will help you support your experimental hypothesis for

your Facebook Consensus study. That is, it has to help you
justify your study one hypothesis (all students are using this
same hypothesis, so make sure to read it. You can find it in the
researcher instructions along with the questionnaires you are
giving to participants. I actually suggest copying and pasting
that hypothesis into this first paper at the end).
c. Finally, you can have more than five references if you want,
but you must have a minimum of five references.
ii. Proper citations must be made in the paper – give credit
where credit is due, and don’t make claims that cannot be
validated.
iii. If you use a direct quote, make sure to provide a page
number for where you found that quote in the citations. Do not
directly quote too often, though. You can have no more than
three direct quotes in the whole paper (though zero quotes
would be even better). Instead, I would like you to paraphrase
when possible.
c. Requirements for the information in your literature review
i. Your study one literature review should use prior research as
a starting point, narrowing down the main theme of your
specific project – think about the hourglass example from
Chapter 14 in Smith and Davis.
ii. The last part of your literature review should narrow down
your focus onto your own study, eventually ending in your
study hypothesis. However, DO NOT go into specific details
about your methods. You will talk about your specific methods
in Paper II in a few weeks.
iii. Again, to make it clear, at the end of your paper you will
give an overview of your research question, providing your
specific predictions/hypotheses.
d. The literature review must have minimum of two (2) full
pages NOT INCLUDING THE HYPOTHESES (2.5 pages with
the hypotheses). It has a maximum of five (5) pages (thus, with
the title page and references page, the paper should be between
4.5 and 7 pages). If it is only four and a half pages (again,
including the hypotheses), it better be really, really good. I

don’t think I could do this paper justice in fewer than five
pages, so if yours isn’t at least five pages, I doubt it will get a
good grade.
4. References (6 points)
a. The References section starts on its own page, with the word
References centered. Use proper APA format in this section or
you will lose points.
b. All five references that you cited in the literature review
must be in this section (there should be more than five
references here if you cited more than five articles, which is
fine in this paper). However, at least three must come from the
article folder on Canvas while the remaining two can come from
either the last Canvas paper or two new ones from psychinfo.
Only peer-reviewed articles are allowed here (no books,
journals, websites, or other secondary resources are allowed for
paper one).
c. For references, make sure you:
i. use alphabetical ordering (start with the last name of the first
author)
ii. use the authors’ last names but only the initials of their
first/middle name
iii. give the date in parentheses – e.g. (2007).
iv. italicize the name of the journal article
v. give the volume number, also in italics
vi. give the page numbers (not italicized) for articles
vii. provide the doi (digital object identifier) if present (not
italicized)
5. Writing Quality (2 Points)
a. This includes proper grammar and spelling. I recommend
getting feedback on your paper from the Pearson Writer
program prior uploading it on Canvas.
6. Between the title page, literature review, and reference page,
I expect a minimum of 4 pages and a maximum of 7 pages for
this assignment. But like I said, the shorter the paper, the less
likely it is to get a good grade, so aim for 5 pages minimum.

The above information is required for your paper, but I wanted
to provide a few tips about writing your literature review as
well. Students often struggle with the first paper, but hopefully
this will give you some good directions:
· First, remember that you need 5 references, all of which
MUST be peer-reviewed (three coming from the Canvas folder
and one or two that you find on your own using PsycInfo).
· Second, I don't expect a lengthy discussion for each and every
article that you cite. You might spend a page talking about
Article A and a sentence or two on Article B. The amount of
time you spend describing an article you read should be
proportional to how important it is in helping you defend your
hypotheses. See if there is a prior study that looks a lot like
yours (hint – there is at least one, which I based this study on,
but you’ll have to find it on your own!). I would expect you to
spend more time discussing that prior research since it is hugely
relevant to your own study. If an article you read simply
supports a global idea that ties into your study but has very
different methods (like "frustrated people get mad!"), you can
easily mention it in a sentence or two without delving into a lot
of detail. Tell a good story in your literature review, but only go
into detail about plot elements that have a direct bearing on
your study!
· Third, this paper is all about supporting your hypotheses.
Know what your hypotheses are before you write the paper, as it
will help you determine how much time to spend on each article
you are citing. My suggestion is to spend some time describi ng
the nature of consensus and conformity, and then talking about
studies that looked at this area. Use those studies to help defend
your own study hypothesis. That is, “Since they found X in this
prior study, that helps support the hypothesis in the present
study”. Do you remember your hypotheses? Okay, I’ll be really

helpful here. BELOW are your hypotheses. In your paper,
support it! Just remember that the rest of your paper needs to be
at least two full pagesNOT INCLUDINGthe hypothesis below.
In other words, including the hypotheses below, your actual text
for your paper should be at least two and a half pages!
In general, we predict that participants who read unanimously
supportive feedback will rate the Facebook user’s conduct as
more acceptable than participants who read unanimously
oppositional feedback, with those who read mixed feedback
falling between these extremes.
More specifically, participants in the unanimously supportive
condition will more strongly agree with supportive survey
statements (“Abigail’s behavior was understandable, “Abigail’s
behavior was reasonable”, “Abigail’s behavior was
appropriate”, “I would advise Abigail to keep silent”, and “I
would try to comfort Abigail”) and more strongly disagree with
oppositional survey statements (“Abigail’s behavior was
wrong”, “Abigail’s behavior was unethical”, “Abigail’s
behavior was immoral”, and “Abigail’s behavior was
unacceptable”) compared to participants in the unanimously
oppositional condition, with participants in the mixed condition
falling between these extremes. However, participants in both
the unanimously supportive and unanimously oppositional
conditions will strongly agree that they would give Abigail the
same advice that her friends gave her.
· Fourth, make sure to proofread, proofread, proofread! Use the
Pearson Writer for help, but note that their suggestions are just
that – suggestions. It is up to you to make sure the flow of the
paper is easy to understand. Good luck!
· Fifth, go look at the supporting documents for this paper.
There is a checklist, a grade rubric, and an example paper. All
will give you more information about what we are specifically

looking for as well as a visual example of how to put it all
together. Good luck!
· Finally, note that you have a lot of help available to you. You
can go to the Research Methods Help Center (which is staffed
by research methods instructors and teaching assistants). You
can go to the Writing Center in the Green Library (at MMC) and
get help with writing quality. You can attend workshops from
the Center for Academic success (CfAS) focusing on APA
formatting, paraphrasing, and statistics. Your instructor might
even be willing to give you extra credit for using these
resources, so make sure to ask your instructor about it.
Chapter 3
The Organization of the
Open Source Community
In 1976, when he was 21, in "Open Letter to Hobbyists" Bill
Gates
wrote: "Who can afford to do professional work for nothing?
What
hobbyist can put their three man-years into programming,
finding all
bugs, documenting his product, and distribute for free?"29 In
this letter he
claimed that the ethic of free-of-charge software was wrong and
that
there was a commercial market for software. He was right that
there was
a market for software, but 24 years later a young university
student in
Finland disagreed that the ethic of free software was wrong. In
an on-line

message, Linus Torvalds, then 22, publicized his creation
LINUX by
writing an online message in which he stated: "This is a
program for
hackers by a hacker. I've enjoyed doing it, and somebody might
enjoy
looking at it and even modifying it for their own needs."30 The
result was
the creation of an international community of hackers who
voluntarily
dedicate their free time to developing open source software.
Hackers are
people whose hobby and passion is figuring out computer
problems.
They should not be confused with crackers, who are people that
use their
computer skills to commit illegitimate and/or illegal actions,
i.e. break
computer security systems, create viruses, etc. Since Torvald's
first
message the community has grown exponentially and produced
many
high quality, technologically advanced products.
How is this possible? How does this community work? This
chapter
deals with the open source community. First we will identify the
key
players in the community and describe the relationships existing
between
them. Then we will take a look at the demographics of the
software
developers in particular. We will also consider w hat motivates
49

Muffatto, Moreno. Open Source : A Multidisciplinary
Approach, Imperial College Press, 2006. ProQuest Ebook
Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/scad-
ebooks/detail.action?docID=1679623.
Created from scad-ebooks on 2020-04-16 19:16:33.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
6
.
Im
p
e
ri
a
l C
o
lle
g
e
P

re
ss
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
50 Open Source: A Multidisciplinary Approach
individuals, organizations and society to keep the community
alive and
functioning. After having considered "who" the community is,
we will
focus on "how" the community works. We will do this through
an
analysis of the main characteristics of the organization of the
open source
community, (open participation and bottom-up organization)
and of the
open source software development process (fast development

and
parallel development).
3.1 "Who" is the Open Source Community?
Open source products are developed within a community made
up of a
heterogeneous group of independent players who interact but
are driven
by different interests and motivations.31 This community,
though
seemingly chaotic, actually has specific organizational
characteristics.
Some authors refer to the open source community using the
metaphor
of a bazaar since it expresses the idea of the frenzy and chaos
with which
the activities in the community are carried out.32 The open
source
community has also been seen as an immense "magic cauldron"
of ideas
to which volunteers contribute on a continuous basis.33 Anyone
can draw
from this cauldron to suit his/her needs without having to
contribute
money or knowledge.
The community of players meets online and creates a dynamic
virtual
team, i.e. a team characterized by the constant coming and
going of
players who contact each other via virtual meetings such as
forums and
mailing lists. These meeting points make it possible to diffuse
concepts,

ideas and strategies to the whole community without dispersing
or
slowing down the flow of information and decisions. What is
interesting
about this community is that this virtual team is made up not
only of
software developers, but of other players as well.
By observing numerous open source projects, it is possible to
identify
five categories of players involved in the community: users,
prosumers,
leader teams, companies and non-commercial/public
institutions. These
five categories and the relationships that exist between them are
shown in
Figure 3.1.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0

0
6
.
Im
p
e
ri
a
l C
o
lle
g
e
P
re
ss
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e

d
.
The Organization of the Open Source Community 51
P r o s ume rs
Autonomously
develop codes and
solve technical
problems.
Instructions
"""1
L e a d e r Teams
Launch projects
and develop initial
code. Keep projects
on track.
Use software and
provide feedback.
V i r t u a l Teams
Meeting point to
exchange:
• ideas
• information
• codes
I n s t i t u t i o n s

Stimulate research,
innovation and
competition. Check
standards.
Package
and
C o m p a n i e s
Share their own
code, collaborate
and provide support
and consulting.
.4- f *°£ an^ niformatio_n^xchanges_-
Figure 3.1 - Structure of the open source community.
Depending on what they do, players can take on one or more of
the
following three roles: customer, actor or decision-maker.34
Before
describing each category and the various roles that players can
take on,
let's look at a brief definition of each role.
Customers
Customers neither take part in the community nor finance
product
development. Their relationship with the open source
community is
limited to using open source products and exploiting the
community to
meet their own needs.

re
ss
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
Actors
The words itself, "actor", highlights the "active" role these
agents play,
i.e. actors actively participate in product development. Their
participation
involves not only analyzing products and identifying and
correcting any
errors or incongruities (re-actor) but also producing new code
and adding
on new features (pro-actor). Anyone who provides technical

support or
finances a project is also part of this category.
Decision-makers
These players influence the direction a project takes during the
development, diffusion and distribution stages of a product.
Now, let's take a look at who makes up each category of players
and
which of the three roles these players can take on.
Users. This category is made up of all the people who use open
source
products but do not directly participate in their development
because they
do not have the ability, time and/or resources to do so. Users
are of
fundamental importance to the community as they carry out the
timely
and exhaustive process of observing and testing products and
produce
feedback for the software developers.
The main role of users is as customers of open source software
products. They use products to satisfy their personal needs,
which may
be both professional and personal in nature. Users are also often
defined
using the term "free riders" since they use the fruit of the
community's
work without directly contributing to development. Nonetheless,
the
presence of free riding is not looked down upon within the
community
because free riders are actually indirectly involved in product
development. The feedback users provide is considered to be a
significant and integral part of the development process.

Feedback can
contain both criticism of existing features and ideas for new
ones.
Furthermore, since users use the software in real situations,
they can
assess the overall quality of the products. This assessment
implicitly
leads to product selection and thus influences the evolution of
open
source software products. This is why we can say that users can
have
some of the characteristics of actors and decision-makers in the
development process.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
6
.
Im

p
e
ri
a
l C
o
lle
g
e
P
re
ss
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.

Prosumers. Prosumers (producer and consumer) are software
developers who actively participate in product development to
meet their
own needs, for the pure pleasure of developing products, and, in
many
cases, with the hope of improving their own professional
prospects. This
group is the nucleus of open source software development. It is
generally
made up of people who come from different walks of life and
use their
free time to work on the development of a code. These people
might be
students or software developers/ professionals with very
different
cultural backgrounds and professional needs.
The main role of prosumers is as actors. The voluntary work of
these
agents provides the main contributions to product development.
The role
of actor can have two different connotations. In the first case,
reaction,
the agent's responsibility is to correct errors and imperfections
in the
code {re-actor). In this case, prosumers help stabilize products
so that
they can actually be used by customers. The second behavior is
related to
production. In this case, prosumers are involved in the research
and
implementation of new features and consequently contribute to
the

creation of new code (pro-actor). Nonetheless, the word itself
"prosumer", made by putting the words producer and consumer
together,
shows the twofold nature of these agents. In fact, in addition to
being
actors in the development of codes, they are often the first ones
to use
open source products, i.e. customers. Finally, prosumers can
make
proposals and thus influence the direction the development of a
product
goes in. In other words, they have a significant role in the
management of
development processes as well and are, in this sense, decision-
makers.
Leader Teams. This category is made up of software developers
and is a
sort of elite group chosen by the community based on merit.
This group
of people is given the authority and responsibility of managing
projects.
A leader team is made up of a tight circle of prosumers who
have
participated in the definition and development of open source
products
from the beginning of the projects.
The main role of the leader teams is as decision-makers.
Leaders
dedicate much of their time to planning, managing and checking
the
product development processes and often do not participate in
programming. They guide the development process of a project
and are

re
ss
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
responsible for project management. The leader teams have to
try and
resolve any disputes regarding the project. They are responsible
for
motivating development efforts and integrating the various
contributions
received. Finally, since the leaders are made up of prosumers,
they
continue to carry out the role of actor and customer, even if to a
lesser
degree.

Companies. This category is made up of the companies that are
interested in the open source community and its products. They
interact
with the open source community by using open source software,
financing product development, and/or participating in the
development
of software. Therefore, they can either influence the
development process
and evolution of products or simply support the community.
Companies can have one or more of the three roles. Many
companies
have chosen to use open source products for their own
production and
management processes and have thus helped diffuse these
products. By
using these products, they act as customers, and by diffusing
them they
act as decision-makers. Other companies get more involved by
having
their personnel directly participate in the development of open
source
software. In this case, they have a role as actors in the
community. The
different ways companies can and are interacting with the open
source
community are dealt with in Chapter 6.
Institutions. This category of players is essentially made up of
universities and governments. Some universities have created
the cultural
environment in which many open source products have been
developed.
Some important products, such as Linux, were created thanks to
the

technical support, and sometimes financial support, of
universities.
Recently, governments have also shown interest in open source
products
first by carrying out studies and then, sometimes, by promoting
the use
of open source software in their own structures.
Universities can take on all three roles. They are among the
main
users of open source products and as such are customers. Many
professors and students are also involved in researching and
developing
open standards and open source products, and are, therefore,
actors.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
6

.
Im
p
e
ri
a
l C
o
lle
g
e
P
re
ss
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.

Finally, some universities are even decision-makers in that they
support
the community and products through specific investments.
So far, governments have mostly taken on the role of customers,
though they could potentially play an important role as
decision-makers
as well. As we will see in Chapter 7, many governments are
considering
adopting OSS or have already started doing so. If they actually
do start
implementing OSS on a large scale, this decision could
influence the
software choices the public makes.
Table 3.1 sums up the different characteristics taken on by
agents
depending on the role they play.35
Table 3.1 - Roles of the players in the open source community.
(Adaptation from Feller & Fitzgerald, 2002)
Users
Prosumers
Leader
Teams
Companies

Institutions
Customer
Use of OSS for
personal or
professional reasons.
Use of OSS within
the OSS
development process.
Use of OSS within
the OSS development
process.
Internal use of open
source products.
Internal use of open
source products.
Actor
Feedback to the
community produced
from actual use.
Re-actor: stabilization
of software.
Pro-actor: addition of
new features.
Product design.
Integration of
contributions.

Partial contribution to
OSS development.
Involvement in the
research and
development of OSS
(universities) and open
standards
(governments).
Decision-maker
OSS quality
assessment.
Influence on the
direction development
takes.
Project management.
Product diffusion and,
sometimes,
distribution.
Specific investments
in support of the
community.

C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
6
.
Im
p
e
ri
a
l C
o
lle
g
e
P
re
ss
.
A

ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
3.2 Demographics
We have just seen that the open source community is made up
of a
variety of stakeholders who, in different ways, support the
community.
This is a concept of community in a broad sense, but there is no
doubt
that the heart of the community is the development community.
Prosumers are the most active players in the development
community.
Who are these people that dedicate a significant amount of their
free time
to developing open source software? In order to answer these
questions
we can look at the results of studies carried out by the
Technical

University of Berlin (TUB, 2001), the International Institute of
Infonomics at the University of Maastricht (FLOSS, 2002) and
The
Boston Consulting Group in cooperation with the Open Source
Development Network (BCG/OSDN, 2002).
Men or women? All three surveys confirm that the participation
in the
open source community is overwhelming male, about 98%.
How old are they? More than 70% were aged between 22 and 27
at
the time of the study and are thus members of what is now
commonly
called Generation X, i.e. the generation of people born in the
late 1960s
and 1970s. (The term comes from Douglas Coupland's 1991
book
Generation X: Tales For An Accelerated Culture?) The second
largest
group, about 16% of the total, consists of people born between
1945 and
1964, followed by members of the so-called Generation Y, i.e.
people
born in the 1980s.
What degrees do they have? The majority of open source
software
developers have a university (Bachelor's or Master's) degree,
about a
fifth have just a high school degree and fewer than 10% have a
PhD. The
members of this community do not seem to give significant
importance
to very high levels of education, i.e. post-graduate work.

What is their professional background? About 60% are IT
professionals, e.g. programmer, software engineer, IT manager,
and the
second largest group is made up of people in academia (ca.
30%),
two-thirds of whom are students.
Where do they come from/Where do they live? Over 80% live in
North America and Europe. However, the data regarding the
distribution
of these people by nationality differs significantly in the three
surveys
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
6
.
Im

considered: while the FLOSS study found 70% are from Europe
and
only 14% from North America, the BCG/OSDN survey and TUB
study
found a more equal distribution in North America and Europe.
How much time do they spend on developing OSS? The data
from
all three studies reveals that even though some professionals are
now
paid to work on OSS, participation in OSS projects continues to
be
mainly a hobby. From a third to a half spend less than 5 hours a
week on
OSS, about a third spend from 6 to 20 hours a week, about a
tenth spend
from 21 to 40 and only 5% spend more than 40 hours a week.
How many projects do they contribute to at the same time?
According
to the BCG/OSDN survey, 30% work on 1 project, 28% on 2
projects,
22% on 3 projects and 18% on 4 or more projects. The FLOSS
survey
reported similar percentages. Both surveys had respondents who
were
not currently working on an OSS project but who had in the
past. About
80% of the developers work on at most 3 projects and the
distribution
from 1 project to 3 projects is relatively even.
How might these demographics change 10 or 20 years from
now?

Is it plausible to think that a community of young graduate
males
who dedicate their spare time to developing free software is
sustainable?
At present there is no reason to believe it is not. It is possible
and
reasonable to imagine that new generations, born in the
Information Age,
will continue to show an interest in open source software
development.
What might change is the geographical distribution. Developing
countries, such as India and China, have a large population of
potential
contributors. The age distribution might change as well.
3.3 The Motivating Factors of Individuals and Organizations
The question Bill Gates asked in 1976 continues to be one of
the most
frequently asked questions when speaking about the open source
community: who can afford to do professional work for
nothing? In other
words, what drives and motivates software developers,
companies and
organizations to invest their resources in activities which do not
produce
immediate profits?
C
o

p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
6
.
Im
p
e
ri
a
l C
o
lle
g
e
P
re
ss
.
A
ll
ri

g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
In order to answer these questions, we must distinguish between
individual software developers, organizations and society as a
whole.
Although these are all heterogenous groups, it is possible to
identify
motivating factors that the players in each group have in
common. Open
source can offer individuals, organizations and society benefits
that
motivate these groups to directly or indirectly participate in or
support
the community.
3.3.1 Motivations for individuals
As we have just seen, the majority of the software developers in
the open
source community are IT professionals or IT students who
receive no

financial compensation for their contributions. Furthermore,
though the
average amount of time they spend per week on open source
projects is
5 hours, some spend up to 40 hours or more per week. So the
question
we pose here is what moves these people to dedicate their time,
most
often free time, to participating in this community. We will
consider a
well-known distinction between two types of motivation:
"intrinsic
motivation, which refers to doing something because it is
inherently
interesting or enjoyable, and extrinsic motivation, which refers
to doing
something because it leads to a separable outcome".36 We will
look at the
extrinsic motivations first as they tend to be the more evident
and
'tangible'.
Surveys have shown that one of the most important reasons
respondents give for participating in an open source project is
to improve
their own technical knowledge base. Learning and improving
one's
performance tend to be ranked among the top reported reasons
for
contributing to open source projects.37 Another high-ranking
motivating
factor is the so-called scratching an itch phenomenon, i.e.
people
participate in a project to solve a particular technical problem
or satisfy
specific technical needs. Furthermore, these people can exploit

the
contributions that the community can offer, such as independent
peer
review and feedback from the community regarding the quality
of the
work carried out. The so-called "Linus's Law", from Linus
Torvalds,
states that "given enough eyeballs, all the bugs are shallow",
i.e. with a
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
6
.
Im
p
e
ri

a
l C
o
lle
g
e
P
re
ss
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
given number of users any problem can quickly be identified

and pointed
out.
The knowledge individuals gain by participating in projects or
solving problems can lead to other extrinsic motivations which
are
more economic in nature. The fact that the source code is open
increases
the visibility of each individual's contribution. Therefore, not
only is
each programmer that much more responsible for his own
contribution,
but the fact that other programmers have access to it can
improve
one's own reputation within the community. The main
motivating factor
for software developers, from an economic point of view, is, in
fact, to
have their abilities recognized by the community (peer
recognition) in
order to increase their value as professionals in the job market.
An
improvement in reputation can lead to job offers and promotion,
future
career benefits and even paid consulting opportunities. The
benefits
gained by improving one's reputation can justify what voluntary
participation costs software developers in terms of time, money
and
opportunities lost.38
It is worth pointing out, however, that economic motivations
seem to
be much less important than increased knowledge or improved
reputation
motivations. In the BCG survey, 93% of respondents mentions

"increased knowledge base" as an important benefit of
participating in
the open source community, 50% "improved reputation", and
33% "new
job offers". In the FLOSS study, about 75% responded that one
of the
reasons to join the community was to "learn and develop new
skills"
while only 4% cited "make money" as one of these reasons.
The intrinsic motivations seem to be just as, if not more,
important as
the extrinsic motivations for the software developers in the open
source
community. This explains and justifies the fact that so many
professionals keep the community thriving even without
financial
compensation for the work they do. Linus Torvalds, the initiator
of one
of the most successful open source software projects (Linux),
was not
primarily motivated by reputation concerns, but rather by a
desire to
participate in a community he identified with. 9 In fact, surveys
have
shown that "self-determination", i.e. the feeling of
accomplishment,
competence, enjoyment and effectiveness, and enjoyment-based
intrinsic
motivation, i.e. the sense of creativity and intellectual
stimulation

C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
6
.
Im
p
e
ri
a
l C
o
lle
g
e
P
re
ss
.

A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
experienced when working on an open source software project,
are
mentioned as two of the most important reasons for
participating in the
open source community.40 These intrinsic motivating factors
can be
either personal or social in nature. For example, the second
most
important benefit of participating in an open source software
project
cited in the BCG/OSDN survey was "personal sense of
accomplishment
for contribution" and in the FLOSS survey about 60% answered
"share
knowledge and skills" as the reason they joined or continue to

participate
in the community.
Many open source software developers find working on open
source software projects intellectually stimulating and
participate for
the pure creative satisfaction of doing so. The creation of a code
can be
considered a form of artistic production similar to musical
composition
or painting, where gratification and intellectual satisfaction play
a
fundamental role.41 Paul Graham, author of Hackers &
Painters, a book
that examines the world of hackers and what motivates them,
stated:
When I finished grad school in computer science I went to art
school to study painting. A lot of people seemed surprised that
someone interested in computers would also be interested in
painting. They seemed to think that hacking and painting were
very different kinds of work - that hacking was cold, precise,
and methodical, and that painting was the frenzied expression of
some primal urge. Both of these images are wrong. Hacking
and painting have a lot in common. In fact, of all the different
types of people I've known, hackers and painters are among the
most alike. What hackers and painters have in common is that
they're both makers. Along with composers, architects, and
writers, what hackers and painters are trying to do is make good
things42
What Graham is describing here is what Raymond has called the
joy of
hacking. It is "...the pure artistic satisfaction of designing
beautiful
software and making it work. Hackers all experience this kind

of
satisfaction and thrive on it".43 Furthermore, the very way in
which the
community is organized creates an environment where people
can
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
6
.
Im
p
e
ri
a
l C
o

lle
g
e
P
re
ss
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
express their creativity, …
3 Here Today, Gone Tomorrow: Open Access, Open

Data and Digital Preservation
Ray Moore and Julian Richards
3.1 Introduction
The increasing popularity and pervasiveness of open access and
open data ap-
proaches within contemporary society continues to have a
signi�cant impact on the
archaeological profession. A primary concern within these
discussions has been the
movement towards providing unrestricted access to the peer-
reviewed textual content
produced in the aftermath of archaeological research,
particularly content published
in scholarly journals, although other forms of written output
(monographs, thesis,
books, etc.) have become increasingly drawn into the
discussion. A more recent re-
focusing of this debate generally, and increasingly within
archaeological discourse,
has seen a return to the issue of accessibility of the primary data
produced during re-
search in the hope that openness will promote wider discussion
and revitalise under-
standing. Certainly, the increased and unrestricted access
promised by a more open
approach to archaeological data is likely to change the nature of
archaeological dis-
course and to facilitate new interpretations of the past. At the
same time, the e�ects
of access to the grey data produced during �eldwork within
commercial archaeology,
although less well understood, could have huge bene�ts both
intellectually and eco-

nomically. Discussions have suggeste d that in order to deal with
the increasing quan-
tities of open data generated during �eldwork and research the
profession will need
to develop infrastructures to deal with both the dissemination
and preservation of
this data (Kintigh, 2006; Snow et al., 2006). It is our intention
here to suggest that
these two outcomes need not be mutually exclusive; that digital
archives and reposi-
tories can take a leading role in both the maintenance of access
and in the curation of
datasets. The experiences of the UK based Archaeology Data
Service (ADS) are brought
into focus as an instance where both these outcomes have been
successfully achieved.
Discussions of the work of the ADS have often focused on its
role in the preservation
of data, but it also taken a leading role as a data broker,
aggregator and distributor.
It is hoped that a better understanding of the sharing of
archaeological data over the
longue durèe will help us understand contemporary concerns. In
focusing on the work
of the ADS we contend that when promoting open data a hybrid
approach to dissemi-
nation and preservation has the greatest potential to succeed.
Ray Moore: Archaeological Data Service, York, UK
Julian Richards: Archaeological Data Service, York, UK
© 2015 Ray Moore and Julian Richards
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License.
Open Source Archaeology : Ethics and Practice, edited by

Andrew T. Wilson, and Ben Edwards, Walter de Gruyter GmbH,
2015. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/scad-
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
1
5
.
W
a
lte
r
d
e
G
ru
yt
e
r

G
m
b
H
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
Sharing Data: The ‘Traditional’ Treatment of Archaeological
Data | 31
3.2 Sharing Data: The ‘Traditional’ Treatment of
Archaeological
Data
The destructive nature of many forms of archaeological

investigation has compelled
researchers to make considerable e�orts, both legally and
ethically, to preserve and
disseminate their results. The principal outcome of this research
continues to be text-
based publication; whether the monograph, book, journal or
grey literature report. Yet
at the same time archaeological investigations generate
signi�cant quantities of pri-
mary data which are not easily reproduced or disseminated
using traditional media.
Data sharing has often been di�cult for technical reasons and
while paper has proved
convenient for the distribution of the textual outputs of
archaeological research, it has
never been an e�cient medium for the dissemination of complex
datasets (Je�rey,
2012). As early as 1975, a review by the Ancient Monuments
Board for England con-
cluded that “publication in printed form of all the details of a
large modern excavation
is no longer practicable” (Frere, 1975, p. 2). This
unsustainability led to a ‘publication
crisis’ within British archaeology as the profession struggled to
deal with the quan-
tity and scale of the outputs produced by archaeological
�eldwork (Richards, 2002).
Solution
s typically involved limiting the print-based publication, with
increased em-

phasis placed on the archiving of associated data (Frere, 1975;
Cunli�e, 1983; Carver
et al., 1992). In providing an answer to the crisis in publication,
solutions often did so
at the expense of accessibility of the data produced during
archaeological �eldwork. A
working group, created by the Council for British Archaeology
and the Department the
Environment, attempted to address the accessibility issue by
promoting micro�che as
an alternative to print (Cunli�e, 1983), but this solution never
gained popular accep-
tance (Richards, 2002; Jones et al., 2001). Unfortunately,
“technology lagged behind
and lacked the means of providing access to an archive with
links between it and the
summary publication” (Richards, 2002, p. 356). The increased
pervasiveness of digital
technology, and the growing popularity of the web, marked a
signi�cant sea-change
in the landscape opening new avenues for the sharing,
collaboration, and analysis of
archaeological data. The Publication of Archaeological Projects
(PUNS) report, com-
missioned by the Council for British Archaeology, took a user -

driven perspective in
examining the use of publications and the data within the
profession (Jones et al.,
2001). It concluded that:
“While print remains favoured, it is clearly no longer the only
or even main medium for
dissemination. The point has been reached, indeed, at which
‘publication’ and ‘dissemination’
must be seen as di�erent things. As a means of giving access to
archives or disseminating material
that would otherwise be relegated to grey literature, the
advantages of the Internet are immense,
and increasingly accepted” (Jones et al., 2001, p. 69–70).
The PUNS report promoted a ‘layered’ approach to the
publication and dissemination
of archaeological research; an approach that takes advantage of
the bene�ts of tex-
2015. ProQuest

C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
1
5
.
W
a
lte
r
d
e

G
ru
yt
e
r
G
m
b
H
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e

se
rv
e
d
.
32 | Here Today, Gone Tomorrow: Open Access, Open Data and
Digital Preservation
tual and digital technologies and where the traditional narrative
can give contextual
information and meaning to the archaeological data1. Since
PUNS there have been
no further reviews of publication policy, and its
recommendations are still valid, al-
though implementation has been slow. There have been a
number of experiments in
alternative forms of online and mulit-layered publication,
including Scottish Archaeo-
logical Internet Reports (Society of Antiquaries of Scotland,
2013) and the LEAP project

(Richards et al., 2011). Similarly, Takeda et al. (2013) promote
a ‘rich interactive frame-
work’ which incorporates supplementary information to support
journal based pub-
lication.
This volume itself demonstrates a growing awareness of the
issues associated with
openness within archaeological discourse, whilst the recent
dedication of an entire
volume of World Archaeology, one of the discipline’s premier
and mainstream jour-
nals, to the subject of ‘open archaeology’ attests to its
pervasiveness and entrance
into the mainstream (Lake, 2012). At the same time the broad
subject matter of these
works attests to the innate complexity of the open movement
within archaeology; with
concepts like open access, open source, open software, open
standards, open archae-
ology etc. already �rmly entrenched in the vernacular and
increasingly implicated in
archaeological practice2.
Within archaeology the debate on openness has typically

focused on ‘open access’
publication, and have been particularly focused on its impacts
on the ‘traditional’ out-
puts of research and grey literature (Lake, 2012). Yet, as the
bene�ts of openness within
archaeological publication have been recognised, its expansion
to the structured data
produced during archaeological research and �eldwork seems
logical. The develop-
ment of so-called ‘open data’ has, and will continue to have a
signi�cant impact on the
development of the profession. However, what do we mean by
open data? Open data
can be broadly de�ned as, “data that can be freely used, reused
and redistributed by
anyone – subject only, at most, to the requirement to attribute
and share-alike” (Open
Knowledge Foundation, n.d.). More speci�cally it can be
de�ned according to three
concepts:
1. Technical openness: data should be made available in widely
used, non-
proprietary formats that can be used across multiple computing
and software plat-

forms.
2. Legal openness: data must be free of encumbering
intellectual property restric-
tions.
3. Access: datasets must be made available freely and, unless
there are overriding
1 The implications of this ‘linked’ approach to the textual and
digital outputs of archaeological re-
search will be discussed below.
2 It would be redundant to rehearse the discussions articulated
by others in de�ning the nuances of
open archaeology consequently we would refer those seeking a
wider understanding of the concept
to the other papers in this work and the World Archaeology
volume on the subject (Lake, 2012).
2015. ProQuest

C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
1
5
.
W
a
lte
r
d
e
G

ru
yt
e
r
G
m
b
H
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se

rv
e
d
.
Data | 33
privacy or security needs, data releases need to be both
comprehensive and su�-
ciently documented to enable reuse (Kansa, 2012, p. 506).
For many Open Data is often equated with Linked Open Data
and attempts to de-
velop a linked data cloud of open data sets, in which key
concepts are each linked
to other online sources, in ful�lment of Berners Lee’s original
vision of a semantic
web of machine-readable data (Binding, 2010; Wright, 2011;
Isaksen, 2011; Tudhope,
Binding, Je�rey, May and Vlachidis, 2011; Tudhope, May,

Binding and Vlachidis, 2011).
However, in this paper we are concerned with open data more
broadly. In fact the con-
cept of open access to scienti�c data is not a new one, and long
pre-dates the Internet.
Indeed, it was �rst institutionally established in preparation for
the International Geo-
physical Year of 1957-8. The International Council of Scienti�c
Unions established sev-
eral World Data Centers to minimize the risk of data loss and to
maximize data accessi-
bility, further recommending in 1955 that data be made
available in machine-readable
form. In 2004, the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development)
Science Ministers ruled that all publicly funded archive data
should be made publicly
available.
The European Commission has outlined a ‘digital agenda for
Europe’ which seeks
to promote open data for publicly funded research (2011).
Similarly the UK Govern-
ment has advocated ‘a culture of openness’ which contends that
“access to data is fun-

damental if researchers are to reproduce and thereby verify
results that are reported in
the literature” (House of Commons, Department for Business
Innovation and Skills,
2012). Endorsing the �ndings of the Finch report (2012), the
UK Government has pro-
moted greater accessibility for research data and grey literature
through subject and
institutional repositories (House of Commons, Department for
Business Innovation
and Skills 2012, p. 4; Finch 2012). The government ‘Open Data
White Paper’ “sets out
clearly how the UK will continue to unlock and seize the
bene�ts of data sharing” by
enhancing access to data and safeguarding it from potential
misuse (UK Government
Cabinet O�ce, 2013). In light of these developments research
councils, funding agen-
cies and higher education institutions have outlined
commitments to open data (Re-
search Councils UK, 2013). The implications of these
statements are currently being
worked out through the policies and procedures of individual
councils, with the Engi-
neering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)

taking one of the strongest
positions to date, namely that research organisations are
expected to publish online
appropriately structured metadata describing the research data
they hold, normally
within 12 months of the data being generated, and for the data
themselves to be made
available without restriction for a minimum of 10 years.
Although no additional fund-
ing has been made available to support data archives or
institutional repositories, re-
search organisations in receipt of EPSRC funding are expected
to have a roadmap in
place by May 2012 for compliance with the EPSRC policy
framework on research data
by May 2015.
2015. ProQuest
C

o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
1
5
.
W
a
lte
r
d
e
G
ru

yt
e
r
G
m
b
H
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv

e
d
.
The international Open Data Movement has recently received
two further boosts.
On 13 June 2013 the European Parliament rati�ed new rules on
Open Data, and specif-
ically included cultural heritage data held by public archives
museums and galleries.
Less than a week later, on 18 June 2013, the Open Data Charter
was unveiled at the G8
Summit at Loch Erne, in Northern Ireland. It recognises “a new
era in which people
can use open data to generate insights, ideas, and services to
create a better world for
all” (UK Government Cabinet O�ce, 2013). The G8 Charter
establishes 5 principles:
(1) that data should be open by default; (2) that steps should be

taken to increase the
quality, quantity and reuse of data that is released; (3) that it
should be usable by all;
(4) that releasing data should improve governance; and (5) that
releasing data should
increase innovation.
Within archaeology we have long recognised the bene�ts and
potential impact
that the sharing and reuse of data can bring. Yet, as Kansa
observes
“...these barriers show growing cracks as current norms of
closed access and data withhold-
ing research in archaeology become increasingly untenable and
new modes of understanding
and communicating the past take root” (Kansa, 2012, p. 499).
Nonetheless, the bene�ts of increased accessibility, and the
messages of open access
and open data, are especially poignant for archaeology, given
the primary and unre-
peatable status of most data sets. Indeed, within
“...a discipline that relies upon destructive research methods,

lack of information sharing
not only inhibits scholarship, but also represents a tragic loss of
irreplaceable cultural and histor-
ical knowledge. The discipline urgently requires a more
professional approach if researchers are
to make credible and replicable knowledge claims and act as
better stewards of cultural heritage”
(Kansa and Kansa, 2013, p. 88).
As a profession archaeologists have sometimes been reluctant to
share their primary
research data with others. For some this is attributed to the
technical barriers asso-
ciated with providing access to data (Condron et al., 1999;
Kansa and Kansa, 2013) or
more practical restrictions on the dissemination of data imposed
by publishers or data
providers. Yet by far the greatest hurdle to overcome is
conceptual; while Pratt has ob-
served that “archaeologists are eager to �nd ways to publish
these data sets” (Pratt,
2013, p. 101), some remain unconvinced about the bene�ts that
open data promotes.
Others may be reluctant to expose perceived de�ciencies in
primary data recording to

the critical scrutiny of their peers, or may believe that there is a
risk that their data will
be published by others before they have the opportunity to do it
themselves. An aware-
ness of the academic, symbolic and economic ‘capital’ of
archaeological data streams
has hindered the sharing of data (Porter, 2013); whilst potential
misuse and misap-
propriation of data have always been concerns. For Kansa “the
discipline should not
continue to tolerate the personal, self-aggrandizing
appropriation of cultural heritage
2015. ProQuest
C
o
p
yr

ig
h
t
©
2
0
1
5
.
W
a
lte
r
d
e
G
ru
yt
e
r

G
m
b
H
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.

Data | 35
that comes with data hoarding”, indeed data withholding
“represents a clear threat
to preserving the archaeological record” (Kansa, 2012, p. 507).
Such cultural reluctance is not new to archaeology; yet these
issues have not pre-
cluded the sharing of data in the past, but have simply
constrained the scale of dissem-
ination. Within the current climate with disparate groups and
communities conduct-
ing related research; where the scale of research and the data
produced has increased
exponentially, such an approach is unsustainable. Open data
o�ers researchers a
mechanism to improve disciplinary interaction and, as a
consequence, enhance re-
search. The unrestricted accessibility presented by open data
also presents archaeol-
ogy with opportunities to use, and reuse data. O�ering the

potential for the ‘remix-
ing’ of archaeological data and its application in new and
innovate ways that will
enhance understanding the past. The use of text mining and
natural language pro-
cessing within the Archaeotools project, for example illustrates
how the application
of new analytical techniques to archaeological data can lead to
enhanced understand-
ings (Richards et al., 2011). Such re-use may also provide
unexpected dividends in the
form of re-use of data of research questions that were not
envisaged at the outset. In
the case of Archaeotools for instance, it became apparent that
the application of tech-
niques of information extraction to historic journal runs (in this
case the Proceedings
of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland) not only provided a
means of automated
indexing, but also allowed us to trace the development of
controlled vocabularies in
archaeology (Bateman and Je�rey, 2011).
Archaeologists have always been mindful of the need for
transparency and re-

peatability within our negotiations with the past; driven, in part,
by a concern over the
historical misappropriation of previous generations Trigger
(1989); Jones et al. (2001).
Increased accessibility has the potential to allow others to test
the validity of our in-
terpretations; allowing them to examine and reanalyse the
original data. As Lake con-
tends these “[o]pen approaches to knowledge have the potential
to bolster scienti�c
rigour by increasing transparency” (Kansa, 2012, p. 473). At the
same time this trans-
parency can serve to illustrate the professionalism of data
creators by highlighting
good research practice (Kansa, 2012).
As ever increasing quantities of open data are released onto the
web, concerns
have been expressed over the quality of the data. While there
are data creators pro-
ducing well-formed data accompanied by the appropriate
metadata, there are large
quantities accompanied with only minimal or no documentation.
The development
of data content, documentation and ontology standards within

archaeology has facil-
itated the creation of ‘good’, well documented data; data with
the highest potential
for use and reuse (Richards, 2009; Mitcham et al., 2010). Yet,
much is still down to
individuals, communities and those institutions hosting data to
ensure that these, or
similar, standards are adhered to and enforced. Many of these
standards are already
deeply engrained in archaeological practice. The Guides to
Good Practice, created by
the ADS and Digital Antiquity have become pivotal to the
profession, providing as-
sistance with the ever increasing diversity of data types and
formats (Mitcham et al.,
2015. ProQuest
C
o

p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
1
5
.
W
a
lte
r
d
e
G
ru
yt

e
r
G
m
b
H
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e

d
.
2010)3. At the same time quality assurance of digital resources
has become necessary,
encouraging data creators to document data appropriately. The
Journal of Open Ar-
chaeology Data (JOAD)4 and Internet Archaeology (reference
forthcoming) each pro-
mote good practice through the production of peer-reviewed
data papers which “en-
sure that the associated data are professionally archived,
preserved, and openly avail-
able. Equally importantly, the data and the papers are citable,
and reuse is tracked”
(Journal of Open Archaeology Data, n.d.). Whilst there is
certainly a place for such for-
mal appraisals of data, we should not underrate the abilities of
data users themselves

to make assessments of data quality. The simple fact of the
matter is that good data
will continue to be used, whilst poor data will not.
3.3 Accessing Data: The Case of the Archaeology Data Service
Founded in 1996 the Archaeology Data Service (ADS) was
established as one of �ve
disciplinary data centres, under the auspices of Arts and
Humanities Data Service
(AHDS), to provide specialist advice and expertise during the
lifecycle of digital data
from its creation, through to its preservation, and onward to its
potential reuse. At
the same time an awareness of the need for subject speci �c
expertise to assess the
research value and successfully validate digital assets and
documentation was recog-
nised. From the outset the
“...speci�c brief of the ADS [was] to collect, describe,
catalogue, preserve, and provide user
support for the re-use of digital data generated in the course of
archaeological research by British
archaeologists, wherever they are working” (Richards, 1997, p.

1058).
In doing so it provides support for research, learning and
teaching within the archae-
ological sector, through the provision of freely available, high
quality and dependable
digital resources. This is achieved through the preservation and
dissemination of dig-
ital data over the long term; an action that has allowed data
creators and users to plan
not only for preservation, but also use and reuse of digital
assets. Throughout its ex-
istence the ADS has maintained a broad collections policy that
covers all the archae-
ology of the British Isles, and all areas of the globe where
British archaeologists un-
dertake research. It maintains data resources from
chronologically, thematically and
geographically disparate areas, so much so that now maintains
over 1100 digital col-
lections created by individuals, projects and organisations
working within both aca-
demic and commercial sectors. Of course this is not to say that
all digital data should
be preserved. As one of the authors has previously suggested

the costs of archiving
3 The Guides to Good Practice, developed by the Archaeology
Data Service and Digital Antiquity,
http://guides.archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/, accessed 30 August
2013.
4 JOAD - http://openarchaeologydata.metajnl.com/, accessed 30
August 2013.
2015. ProQuest
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©

2
0
1
5
.
W
a
lte
r
d
e
G
ru
yt
e
r
G
m

b
H
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
Accessing Data: The Case of the Archaeology Data Service | 37

mean that “it is important to establish the reuse potential of any
data set before ex-
pending resources on its preservation” (Richards, 2002, p. 347);
a belief that continues
to underpin the ADS philosophy (Richards, 1997). As a result
the focus of the ADS has
always been in preserving quality, well documented datasets
that show the greatest
potential for reuse.
Throughout its history a principal focus of the ADS has been
the preservation of
data created during archaeological �eldwork and research. As
noted above the major-
ity of UK funding bodies now recommend, and increasingly
require, that digital data
produced during research should be preserved. At the same time
the landscape has
changed signi�cantly in recent years as museums and
‘traditional’ physical archives,
many of which lack the necessary digital expertise,
progressively compel those work-
ing in commercial archaeology to deposit the digital outputs of
�eldwork into a man-

dated digital archive. In both instances the ADS has taken a role
in the preservation
of archaeological data. Many will be familiar with its work in
traditional academic re-
search environments, but it also works with partners within the
commercial sector.
Acting as a data broker, it has assisted in the creation of
OASIS, an online form used
throughout the profession to record the outcomes of
archaeological �eldwork (Hard-
man, 2009)5. The OASIS system has been enhanced by a
facility that allows users to
upload the reports produced as a consequence of these
activities. These outputs are
preserved and, perhaps more signi�cantly, disseminated
through the ADS’ Grey Lit-
erature Library6. This library now provides direct access to
some 20,000 unpublished
�eldwork reports, produced by over 140 contracting units
working within Britain; and
has become an important research tool in its own right (Fulford
and Holbrook, 2011).
While much discussion has focused on the work of the ADS in
preserving the

outputs of archaeological research its role as a data
disseminator has received much
less attention. It has o�ered free access to its collections and
the data therein, a
policy developed long before the concepts of open access had
been rigorously de-
�ned. The terms of use developed by the ADS provide access to
data through a “non-
exclusive, non-transferable licence” with the depositor
(Archaeological Data Service,
n.d.); which means:
“Anyone is permitted to use data held by the ADS so long as it
is for research or educational
purposes, and these are de�ned quite broadly as purposes
intended to develop knowledge and
where the research output is itself destined for the public
domain. Therefore reuse of data held
by ADS by commercial contractors is not prevented so long as
publication of their work is not
limited by issues of client con�dentiality” (Richards, 2002, p.
349).
5 OASIS standing for Online AccesS to the Index of
archaeological investigationS - http://oasis.ac.uk/,

accessed 21 September 2014.
6 The Grey Literature Library -
http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/greylit/,
accessed
21 September 2014.
2015. ProQuest
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0

1
5
.
W
a
lte
r
d
e
G
ru
yt
e
r
G
m
b
H

.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
In seeking to protect the rights of the depositor the ADS

conditions of use are there-
fore broadly equivalent to a CC-BY-NC licence. Indeed, the
terms of use state that the
ADS “seeks to protect the intellectual property rights and
copyright of the originators
of data where …
6
Adoption of Open Standards in
Massachusetts
INTRODUCTION 1
In 2003, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts launched a
series of new initiatives that sought to foster the use of open
standards and OSS. The centerpiece was an open standards
policy that required all government- owned IT software to rely
on open standards. As a result, Massachusetts became the fi rs t
U.S. state to adopt an open standards policy. In 2005, this
policy was extended to include document formats, and Mas-
sachusetts became the fi rst government to mandate the use of
the open document format for offi ce applications (ODF). This
mandate incorporated de facto use of Open Offi ce, an OSS,

because it was the only implementation of ODF available at
that time.
This chapter relates the history of the open standards policy
with respect to the OSS adoption process model and describes
the issues concerning the adoption of an open standard policy
by applying the framework derived in chapter 2. The resulting
analysis shows the utility of the framework for understanding
the adoption of the open standards policy.
Fitzgerald, Brian, et al. Adopting Open Source Software : A
Practical Guide, MIT Press, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/scad-
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©

2
01
1.
M
IT
P
re
ss
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed

.
86 Chapter 6
There are differences between open standards and open
source. The defi nition of open standards has never been abso-
lute, and several scholars regard it as a gray area (Krechmer
2006; West 2007). Massachusetts defi ned an open standard in
its policy initiative (I. T. D. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
2004b):
For the purpose of this policy, open standards are defi ned as
fol-
lows: specifi cations for systems that are publicly available and
are
developed by an open community and affi rmed by a standards
body.
Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) is an example of an open
standard. Open standards imply that multiple vendors can
compete
directly based on the features and performance of their
products. It
also implies that the existing information technology solution is

por-
table and that it can be removed and replaced with that of
another
vendor with minimal effort and without major interruption.
Open standards are specifi cations for developing software,
but OSS is also an approach for developing software. OSS
is based on the idea of making the source code for software
publicly available. OSS typically relies upon and makes use of
open standards. Proprietary software is an alternative devel-
opment model for OSS, but even proprietary software can uti -
lize open standards. In sum, an open standards policy should
not affect the choice of a particular vendor because both open
source and proprietary software development models can
support open standards.
A number of governments and organizations, including the
United States (Committee for Economic Development 2006),
the United Kingdom (Offi ce of Government Commerce 2004),
Belgium, Finland, France, Japan, Norway, Malaysia, South
Africa, and Russia, have called for policies that strongly en-
courage or mandate the implementation or further evaluation
of open standards. Massachusetts is a pioneer in adopting an
open standards policy.

ss
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Adoption of Open Standards in Massachusetts 87
This chapter applies the adoption framework to an open
standards policy. In general, open standard policies are closely
linked to decisions regarding OSS. Once an open standard
exists, it is possible for OSS solutions to compete with pro-

prietary ones. Without an open standard, there is no way to
ensure that an OSS solution can always compete with propri -
etary solutions. When Massachusetts initially mandated ODF,
it appears to have understood that it would involve migrating
from Microsoft Offi ce and to an OSS offi ce suite.
The chapter begins with a short history of the open stan-
dards policy in Massachusetts and includes an emphasis on
the open formats policy. This discussion relies on the his-
tory and analysis of the Massachusetts open standards policy
as analyzed in a previous article (Shah, Kesan, and Kennis
2008). In addition, Andrew Updegrove detailed the history
of the standards policy in his e- book (Updegrove 2008). The
remaining sections discuss the adoption process using the
framework derived in chapter 2.
HISTORY OF THE OPEN FORMATS POLICY
In 2002, Jim Willis, who was then the director of e-
government
for the secretary of state in Rhode Island, pushed the imple-
mentation of OSS within the state government (Vaas 2003).
Willis was a pioneer—many state governments felt at that time
that OSS was not ready for use at the enterprise level. Willis
demonstrated that OSS was enterprise- worthy and much less

expensive than proprietary software. One year later, Oregon
considered a bill that would have required the state to con-
sider using OSS when buying new programs. Although the
bill did not give preferential treatment to OSS, it was defeated
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
01
1.
M

IT
P
re
ss
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
88 Chapter 6

before a committee vote took place (Bowman 2003; Peter-
son 2004). Massachusetts took a different approach than the
other states with respect to OSS and navigating the associated
political trenches.
At fi rst, Massachusetts appeared to follow the lead of
Rhode Island and Oregon in not going beyond considering
the use of open standards and OSS. Massachusetts —as well
as other state governments that create, manage, and store vo-
luminous electronic records—was constrained by IT compat-
ibility, costs, and capability. In September 2003, Eric Kriss,
then- secretary of administration and fi nance in Massachu-
setts, released a memo to the state’s Information Technology
Division (ITD) Director Peter Quinn, which stated (Senate
Committee on Post Audit and Oversight, Commonwealth of
Massachusetts 2006):
[W]e can no longer afford a disjointed and proprietary
approach that
locks in legacy systems, generates excessive use of outside
consul-
tants, and creates long, often misguided project plans. . . .
Effective
immediately, we will adopt, under the guidance of the Common-

wealth’s Chief Information Offi cer Peter Quinn, a
comprehensive
Open Standards, Open Source policy for all future IT
investments
and operating expenditures.
On January 13, 2004, the ITD followed up with three sepa-
rate policy statements concerning open standards and open
source. The fi rst policy was an enterprise open standards
policy that stated that Massachusetts was moving to open
standards for its IT investments (Commonwealth of Massa-
chusetts ITD 2004a). The motives for the new policy were
clearly spelled out and included a threefold rationale: govern-
ment services are delivered more effi ciently with system inte-
gration and effective data sharing; IT investments should be
based on total ownership costs that can be constructed once
C
op

s
re
se
rv
ed
.
and used many times by different groups and agencies; and,
lastly, open standards are cheaper to acquire, develop, and
maintain and do not result in vendor lock- ins.
The second policy was an acquisition policy for all future
selections of IT products and services (Commonwealth of
Massachusetts ITD 2004a). It mandated “that information
technology solutions are selected based on best value after
careful consideration of all possible alternatives including
proprietary, public sector code sharing and open source so-
lutions.” This policy ensured that OSS could be used by the
state.

The fi nal policy was an enterprise technical reference man-
ual, which provided a framework for the standards, speci-
fi cations, and technologies that must be incorporated into
prospective IT investments (Commonwealth of Massachu-
setts 2008). It continues to function as a living document and
is updated periodically as the policy evolves. The enterprise
technical reference manual is now at version 5.0 and repre-
sents a diverse set of technological domains. Twenty- seven
technology areas currently fall under its management. The
remainder of this section focuses on the issues concerning the
policy regarding document formats.
Document formats allow a computer to store memos or
spreadsheets. Some well- known document formats are Micro
soft’s .doc format for word processing, .xls format for spread-
sheets, and .ppt format for presentations. Massachusetts
sought to move away from Microsoft’s proprietary formats
and toward open standard document formats. Massachu-
setts shifted to open standards because it believed that it
could lower costs and increase fl exibility. These advantages
were signifi cant for Massachusetts because they feared that

. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
90 Chapter 6
a proprietary standard locked to a proprietary application
might result in documents that could become unreadable in
fi ve, ten, or one hundred years. Given the rapid development
and turnover of software, older proprietary software is often
replaced. By using an open standard, Massachusetts believed
that it could ensure that documents would be permanently

readable.
On September 21, 2005, Massachusetts published version
3.5 of its enterprise technical reference manual, which re-
quired that all new documents saved after January 1, 2007
meet the open format guidelines. The notion of open format
was redefi ned to refer to two formats: open formats , which in-
clude .txt, .rtf, HTML and ODF formats, and acceptable for-
mats , which includes the pdf format. Microsoft’s document
formats were excluded. This policy change would eventually
prohibit the use of the default document formats found in
Microsoft Word, Excel, and PowerPoint and other proprie-
tary document formats used by other vendors. This exclusion
was important and drew immediate attention to the Massa-
chusetts policy.
Among the acceptable open formats listed was ODF, a stan-
dard that began as an XML interchangeable fi le format for
Sun’s Star Offi ce product. It was initially used in Star Offi ce
and Open Offi ce, the latter being a freely available offi ce
suite
program. The adoption of ODF as an open standard for offi ce
applications was made under the aegis of an industry con-
sortium known as the Organization for the Advancement of
Structured Information Standards (OASIS).

Microsoft responded to its exclusion and the concerns that
had been raised by Massachusetts. It began by opening up
its new XML document formats, which are the successors to
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
01
1.
M

IT
P
re
ss
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.

the current document formats (e.g., .doc format) and which
eventually became known as Offi ce Open XML (OOXML).
It submitted OOXML to two international standards bodies,
the European- based Ecma International and the ISO. Micro-
soft also posted a “covenant not to sue” regarding its Offi ce
XML formats, thus easing the licensing requirements. The
covenant was founded upon Microsoft’s earlier agreement
regarding royalty- free licensing.
While Microsoft was responding to Massachusetts’s criti-
cism, a new form of opposition to the document formats pol -
icy emerged. Beginning in March 2006, disability advocates
publicly voiced strong concerns over the planned switch from
Microsoft Offi ce to an ODF- compliant OSS offi ce suite such
as Open Offi ce. Disabled workers depend on extra technol -
ogies that are usually developed by third- party vendors who
primarily catered to Microsoft products due to their domi -
nation of the document- creation market (Noyes 2006). The
advocates for the disabled argued that without Microsoft they
would lose accessibility.
A Massachusetts state senate committee, chaired by Sena-
tor Marc Pacheco, released a blistering report in June 2006,
which criticized the open standards measure (Senate Commit-

tee on Post Audit and Oversight, Commonwealth of Massa-
chusetts 2006). The report argued that the policy had been
drafted and implemented in an undemocratic, closed- room
manner and recommended delaying the plan’s 2007 imple-
mentation unless the ITD acceded to a number of measures,
including demonstrating its accessibility for disabled state
workers.
Despite the public relations damage infl icted by the report
and opposition by disability advocates, then- Governor Mitt
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©

2
01
1.
M
IT
P
re
ss
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv

ed
.
92 Chapter 6
Romney maintained his support for the plan, and the ITD did
not delay its implementation. However, in order to address
the concerns raised about accessibility, the ITD had to change
its implementation strategy in order to accommodate Micro-
soft Offi ce products. This required a plug- in for Microsoft
Offi ce to support ODF and delayed the implementation pro-
cess. The deadline was extended to June 2007. Even with this
extension, as of late June 2007, only 250 of the state’s com-
puters had been successfully equipped with software plug- ins
that enabled conversion abilities (create, read, and save) for
the change to ODF (Lai 2007b).
On August 1, 2007, version 4.0 of the enterprise technical
reference manual offi cially added Microsoft’s OOXML to the
approved list of open formats (Pepoli and Dormitzer 2007).
In revising the enterprise technical reference manual, Massa-
chusetts recognized that Microsoft had made several changes
to OOXML, including moving OOXML to a standards or-

ganization, adding a covenant not to sue, and getting it ap-
proved as an open standard by Ecma International in 2006.
Massachusetts offi cially reasoned that, “there is industry sup-
port for Open XML and we believe that by adopting the stan-
dard we will be able to accelerate the pace of migration to
XML document formats” (Lai 2007a).
Despite the painstaking evolution of the enterprise tech-
nical reference manual and Microsoft’s efforts to adhere to
Massachusetts’s criteria for open standards, as of January
2008, both OOXML and ODF were little- used by the gov-
ernment of Massachusetts. A Google search identifi ed 17,300
.doc fi les, 31 .odt fi les based on ODF, and 0 .docx fi les based
on OOXML. These numbers include only fi les that are pub-
licly available through the Web site for the Commonwealth
C
op

re
se
rv
ed
.
of Massachusetts (<http://www.mass.gov>) but suggest how
infrequently these standards are used. Nevertheless, the lat-
est offi ce suites, such as Microsoft Offi ce and Open Offi ce,
all
make use of ODF or OOXML, so the numbers of fi les are
likely to rise as users begin using these new formats.
Several other states have considered legislation that would
mandate open standards for document formats. OOXML was
only recently approved as meeting ISO standards, and these
bills effectively encouraged or mandated the ODF format. To
date, open format initiatives have failed in many states, in-
cluding Connecticut, Florida, Texas, Oregon, California, and

Minnesota. These failures can be explained by the fear of the
implementation problems that arose with ODF and an initial
lack of cost savings, which made the transition to ODF too
problematic to undertake. As a result, states are beginning to
move in a slower, more measured manner. In New York, a
recent bill resulted in a study of how government can incor -
porate open formats (New York State Chief Information Of-
fi cer 2008). While it is true that states understand the benefi ts
of open standards, they are currently taking a more cautious
approach to open formats and are seeking a clearly specifi ed
set of benefi ts.
ANALYSIS OF OPEN STANDARDS ADOPTION
This section discusses the adoption of the open standards pol -
icy using the framework derived in chapter 2.
Managerial Intervention
The open standards policy persisted due to a strong organiza-
tional commitment for the policy, despite occasional criticism.

rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
94 Chapter 6
The Massachusetts open formats policy broke new ground.
Massachusetts was the fi rst government in the world to man-
date ODF. Initiating and maintaining such a policy required
resources, knowledge, and commitment. The state govern-
ment faced considerable criticism for its decision from the
Massachusetts Software Council, the legislature, and advo-
cacy groups.

This policy lasted for several years due to the commitment
of a number of key public offi cials: Information Technology
Division’s (ITD) CIO Peter Quinn and Director Louis Gutier-
rez, Secretary Eric Kriss, and Governor Mitt Romney. These
offi cials understood the relevant issues and trusted the techni -
cal judgment of the ITD and its implementation plan. Without
their strong organizational commitment, the standards policy
initiative would have collapsed. Their support helped pressure
Microsoft to change its licensing policy, move its OOXML
document format into a standards body, and support ODF
plug- in technologies.
A central part of the adoption framework is managerial in-
tervention. In this case, without the leadership and the knowl-
edgeable and committed support, Massachusetts would not
have decided to transition to open formats and would not
have sustained its policy for four years while attempting to
implement a pioneering policy. This managerial leadership
was a key difference between Massachusetts and other states
that considered, but did not implement, such a policy.
Subjective Norms
Subjective norms concern how individuals believe their peers
and coworkers expect them to behave in relation to technol -
ogy. From the values and norms perspective, the ideology

re
ss
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
represented by OSS can infl uence the adoption process. In
the case of Massachusetts, the ideological values of OSS were
constrained by the importance of making reasoned and prag-

matic government decisions.
The subjective norms in the adoption process were domi -
nated by concerns regarding pragmatism and saving money
for the citizens of Massachusetts. For example, Peter Quinn,
the former CIO, refers to the decision making as being
“driven by the business of best value and good government”
(Quinn 2006). In a similar manner, the guidance for the stan-
dards strategy suggested that standard strategy “rationalizes
IT investments, reduces risk, fi nds best ways to extend IT,
and promotes fl exibility and interoperability” (Massachusetts
Information Technology Commission 2003). These norms
show how little infl uence there was over the subjective norms
of OSS.
Facilitating Conditions
Chapter 2 discussed several innovation attributes that previ -
ous research has determined infl uences innovation adoption.
This section discusses the attributes that are most relevant to
the open standards policy—relative advantage, compatibility,
complexity, and trialability.
Innovation Attributes
Relative Advantage

The open standards policy was seen as offering two distinct
relative advantages in Massachusetts. These advantages con-
stitute part of the reason why the policy was initiated and
sustained.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
01
1.
M

IT
P
re
ss
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
96 Chapter 6

Facebook Consensus Literature Review

Facebook Consensus Literature Review

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Facebook Consensus Literature Review

Similar to Facebook Consensus Literature Review (6)

More from MalikPinckney86

More from MalikPinckney86 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Facebook Consensus Literature Review