Posted by hejupirk
in category: Setting the research focus
What do we want to study, what is the problem?
The key problem: Individuals are unlikely to partake in online virtual communities for idea sharing unless it's part of their everyday work and a contractual obligation. How to get people involved and staying in the co-creation process?
Most likely, motivation theory would easily explain that. There has to be the need behind. When we speak about "technology" and how it motivates people, maybe we should think about the reasons why. It can be true that technology helps to implement a task quicker and most effective (we can find numerous examples on that). It can also be true that technology involves "playing" and "enjoying" the process. Then (most probably) there comes the theory of human curiosity satisfaction or the need to play (to discover, to enhance cognitive processes and thinking, etc.). I would draw a line between the need behind using the technology and getting online to "solve a problem/ need" that is behind. If there is the need to get for a piece of advice, people get online and search for the answer. If there is the need to socialise - they do the same (due to shifting social habbits). If there is the need to validate an idea that crossed one's mind - we "check" what is online on the issue. We also need certainty (if we take actions responsibly). However, this also adds to the culture and the nature of a person. Others are just stating ("always true"). There has to be the need behind. we can post various need examples (career, task (professional, academic, family, other), personal idea validation - but can also ask people "why". There is nothing but the need.
-Henri: The questions why are crucial. They also require substantial amount of elaboration and should be a big emphasis in the qualitative part of our analysis (the focus groups and interviews). With questionnaires it's extremely hard to capture these as people usually don't even give full sentences. We could review the interview guidelines and see that these issues are well covered.
Posted by hejupirk
in category: Setting the research focus
What is the gap in the current body of knowledge we need to address?
Influencing factors to knowledge sharing in virtual communities are widely explored. One of the promising findings has been discussed through affective commitment, when individuals feel trust and belonging to the group and for emotional ownership, the extent people feel committed to the resources they create. To this end, organizational contexts and situations where knowledge exchange is taking place on a voluntary basis are less explored. Such situations can relate to competence development of personnel in social media and networking, innovation activities of knowledge workers, such as exploring a new project in an international setting. The time of initiation of collaboration and the timing when an individual enters (early ideas) has been neglected and should be further studied as early commitment is critical for being able to influence the aims, objectives and the process of collaborative activities. Further to elaborate on the research gap, the previous research models have not emphasized the critical role of the envisioned outcome and common vision of the collaboration and its influence on the individuals commitment. There should be one more thing - at least - which is conscious learning or conscious and targeted knowledge creation. It would be interesting to measure that.
Posted by hejupirk
in category: Setting the research focus
What is the context we need to address?
Virtual community participants (Applicable to both educators and companies) in your own topic area with common interest but no obligation. Relating to personal development of an employee -open professional virtual communities (Chiu et al., 2011)
Posted by hejupirk
in category: Setting the research focus
What is the research question?
Explaining attitude towards engagement 1. Does the early involvement in the online idea sharing process positively influence contribution likelihood 2. Which aspects are critical for the commitment of individuals in the group
Key paper to psychological ownership. Very close to our focus Pierce JL, Kostova T and Dirks KT (2003) The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of General Psychology, 7(1), 84–107. Barki H, Paré G and Sicotte C (2008) Linking IT implementation and acceptance via the construct of psychological ownership of information technology. Journal of Information Technology, 23(4), 269–280. -Close to emotional ownership but this is about the system itself. not the conceptualizations or ideas or knowledge. Literature review on approaches taken to study psychological ownership: Olckers C and Du Plessis Y (2012) The role of psychological ownership in retaining talent: A systematic literature review. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 10(2), 1–18.
Something for emotional ownerships I didn't encounter before: From: Karahanna, E., Xu, S. X., & Zhang, N. A. (2015). Psychological Ownership Motivation and Use of Social Media. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 23(2), 185–207. doi:10.1080/10696679.2015.1002336 As users of social media create their own content, they devote effort into the production of social media, and in so doing, develop a feeling of ownership, that is, psychological ownership (Pierce, Kostova, and Dirks, 2001, 2003). For instance, as employees invest their time and effort in their organizations, they develop a psychological feeling that it is “their organization” (Pierce, O’driscoll, and Coghlan, 2004; McIntyre, Srivastava, and Fuller, 2009); through participating in product design, assessment, and selection, empowered custo- mers can develop a feeling that it is “their product” (Fuchs, Prandelli, and Schreier, 2010); by participating in systems development, users develop a feeling of “ownership” toward the information system (Barki, Paré, and Sicotte, 2008). In the same vein, as users of social media invest their time and effort to create social media content (e.g., blogs, Facebook profiles, pictures, etc.; Wikipedia content; YouTube videos), they may develop a feeling that it is “their own media” (e.g., Belk, 2013; Harrison and Barthel, 2009; Hodkinson and Lincoln, 2008).
-Ownership discussed often but more towards Attachment to the group or community. Examples: Several studies (Blanchard & Markus, 2004; Maloney-Krichmar & Preece, 2005) have reported that members develop some sort of emotional attachment or obligation to the VC. To argue our approach: ...........Attitudinal component signifies an enduring intention of the parties to develop and maintain a stable long-term relationship. This could be recognized as members’ commitment to go beyond their prescribed roles and perform above the call of duty. Existence of a committed relationship implies acting instinctively for each other’s benefit, which is possible when parties share goals, values and an affective attachment. The From Gupta S and Kim H-W (2007) Developing the Commitment to Virtual Community. Information Resources Management Journal, 20(1), 28–45. Building Member Attachment in Online Communities: Applying Theories of Group Identity and Interpersonal Bonds, MISQ Emergence of Power Laws in Online Communities: The Role of Social Mechanisms and Preferential Attachment, MISQ
This tight connection between possession and feelings of ownership can be directed at the organiza-tion (or workplace) as a whole or at specific aspects of the organization such as the group, job, work tools (i.e., a computer or production machine), or work itself. Van Dyne L and Pierce JL (2004) Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: Three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(4), 439–459.
Ownership here is regarded as where the website resides and who are the main initiator and organizer of the online community. Nonnecke et al  refer to this person as the Community Manager. - Hunter MG and Tk A (2009) Taxonomy of Online Communities : Ownership and Value Propositions Professor Information Systems Faculty of Management The University of Lethbridge Institute of Information and Mathematical Email : R.J.email@example.com. Sciences-New York, 1–7.
-Wikipedia related studies Ownership only mentioned, not discussed in detail: Raitman R, Augar N and Zhou W (2005) Employing Wikis for Online Collaboration in the E-Learning Environment: Case Study. Third International Conference on Information Technology and Applications (ICITA’05), 2(July), 142–146.
E-learning related: Ownership mentioned, Students were able to instill an honor and trust into their research and collaboration which nurtured a collaborative piece of work that they could claim ownership. Raitman R, Ngo L, Augar N, et al. (2012) Security in the Online E-learning Environment Ruth. Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT’05), 3–19. IS perspectives: -Beliefs of organizational ownership relate to whether information andknowledge created by an individual knowledge worker are believed to be owned bythe organization. Beliefs about property rights affect information and knowledge shar-ing. This study explored factors that help determine an individual’s beliefs about theorganizational ownership of information and expertise that he or she has created Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS (2001) Exploring perceptions of organizational ownership of information and expertise. Journal of Management Information systems, 18(1), 151.
Jarvenpaa and Staples (2001) who coined the term ‘‘shared ownership’’ of information by the individual and the organization. Raban DR and Rafaeli S (2007) Investigating ownership and the willingness to share information online. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(5), 2367–2382.
System ownership- Hunton JE and Beeler JD (1997) Effects of User Participation in Systems Development: A Longitudinal Field Experiment. Mis Quarterly, 21(4), 359–388.
Ownership of IT: Barki H, Paré G and Sicotte C (2008) Linking IT implementation and acceptance via the construct of psychological ownership of information technology. Journal of Information Technology, 23(4), 269–280.
KM perspective: Ipe M (2003) Knowledge Sharing in Organizations: A Conceptual Framework. Human Resource Development Review, 2(4), 337–359. Contribution Behaviors in Distributed Environments, MISQ
-co-creation in general Some getting quite close:
GOOD BACKGROUND (SEE FURTHER DOWN SOME KEY PARAGRAPHS)"Collaborative writing may evoke conflict between individuals’ feeling of contribution and their sense of ownership toward the collective outcomes....We conclude that students may avoid collaboration partly because they do notwant to lose a sense of personal ownership or to lessen peer ownership.".. Further operationalized perceived ownerships as " Pre-revision Perceived ownership before the revision was measured by the average of two significantly correlated items (“I feel that the text I wrote is mine” and “I am responsible for the text I wrote”, r = .52, p <.001 perceived ownership after the revision was measured by average of three items feel that text i wrote is mine am responsible for and even if others contributed to its development a blau collaboration psychological ownership: how does tension between two influence learning>Social Psychology of Education, 14(2), 283–298. ownership to resources! Blau I and Caspi A (2009) What Type of Collaboration Helps ? Psychological Ownership , Perceived Learning and Outcome Quality of Collaboration Using Google Docs. Quality, 48–55, Available from: http://telem-pub.openu.ac.il/users/chais/2009/noon/1_1.pdf.
OSS community members value altruism, reciprocity and gift giving, reputation and ideology highly (Perkins, 1999; Markus et al., 2000; Raymond, 2001). Although they are motivated by the personal benefit of using an improved software product, financial reward does not seem to be that important. They value fairness, transparency and consensus in decision-making. As a consequence, much of the OSS work is co-ordinated in the open and visible environ- ment of the Internet, by which one’s performance can be monitored by other members of the society. There is no individual ownership of products, rather, recognition of expertise is impor- tant. They believe in shared risks, shared rewards and shared ownership; (Yamauchi et al., 2000) ... Sharma S, Sugumaran V and Rajagopalan B (2002) A framework for creating hybrid-open source software communities. Information Systems Journal, 12(1), 7–25. ...We argue this is not the case when you are sharing your intellectual capital and sharing ideas that are built upon. One way of thinking about ownership: For there to be sharing, there must first be feelings of possession, if not owner- ship. Otherwise, we have nothing to share. INTERESTING VIEW: We can come to feel possessive about and have a sense of ownership toward things that are not our property—a panoramic view, our children, a seat in a class- room, and even our beliefs (Abelson 1986). from Belk, R. (2007). Why not share rather than own?. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 611(1), 126-140.
Related topics: Proximity (psychological) Beyond Being There: The Symbolic Role of Communication and Identification in Perceptions of Proximity to Geographically Dispersed Colleagues, MISQ
User innovation: Comparing Potential and Actual Innovators: An Empirical Study of Mobile Data Services Innovation, MISQ
Team climate for innovation: Liang, Huigang; Xue, Yajiong (Lucky); Ke, Weiling; and Wei, Kwok Kee (2010) "Understanding the Influence of Team Climate on IT Use," Journal of the Association for Information Systems: Vol. 11: Iss. 8, Article 2
Friendship and herding: Friendship in Online Peer-to-Peer Lending: Pipes, Prisms, and Relational Herding, MISQ
Idea evaluation: Dean DL, Hender JM, Rodgers TL, et al. (2006) Identifying quality, novel, and creative ideas: Constructs and scales for idea evaluation. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 7(10), 646–698. Idea integration in teams. Javadi, Elahe; Gebauer, Judith; and Mahoney, Joseph (2013) "The Impact of User Interface Design on Idea Integration in Electronic Brainstorming: An Attention-Based View," Journal of the Association for Information Systems: Vol. 14: Iss. 1, Article 2. Available at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/jais/vol14/iss1/2
Research Report: Modifying Paradigms—Individual Differences, Creativity Techniques, and Exposure to Ideas in Group Idea Generation, ISR, 2001.
Gatekeepers in social networks. The role of facilitators in idea space!!! Whelan E, Golden W and Donnellan B (2013) Digitising the R&D social network: Revisiting the technological gatekeeper. Information Systems Journal, 23(3), 197–218.
BACKGROUND ON EMOTIONAL OWNERSHIP: Psychological ownership is defined as “the state inwhich individuals feel as thoughthe target of ownership or a piece of that target is ‘theirs’“ (Pierce et al. 2003, p. 86). This sense of possession is not restricted to physical objects, but may be felt toward ideas,words, creations, academic products (Pierce et al. 2003), or information (Raban and Rafaeli 2007). It is also distinct from the legal ownership of objects (Etzioni 1991; Heyman et al. 2004; McCracken 1986). Pierce et al. (2003) ascribed the genesis of psychological ownership to either biological structure, namely an innate genetic needs for possession, or to socio-cultural practices that begin at the very early developmen- tal stages of a child, in which possession of an object helps to define the boundaries between self and others. Pierce et al. (2001) argued that psychological ownership has important emotional, attitudinal and behavioral effects. Psychological ownership can be manifested in terms of what is “mine” or what is“ours”. For example,VanDyne and Pierce (2004)measured psychological ownership by using items that emphasize possessions (e.g., “I sense that this is my company”, or “This is our company”). Similar phrasings are found in other study instruments (e.g., Avey et al. 2009; Fubry 1978). In many cases, “my”, “mine”, “our”, and “ours” have similarmeaning and have no conflict. However, in other cases, what is “mine” cannot at the same time be perceived to be “ours”. Sharing knowledge is an example. Owning certain knowledge or information gives superiority to the owner over those who don’t have this specific knowledge or information (Szulanski 1996; Webster et al. 2008). Webster et al. (2008) claimed that generating ideas is likely to engender feelings of territoriality, because of the time and effort one has invested in generating the ideas, and the intimate familiarity with that knowledge. Thus, people tend to withhold their own self-generated knowledge and are reluctant to share it. O nly after sharing the knowledge, it may become “our” knowledge instead of “my” knowledge. -Caspi A and Blau I (2011) Collaboration and psychological ownership: How does the tension between the two influence perceived learning? Social Psychology of Education, 14(2), 283–298.
Define and prepare your research instruments, operationalization etc.
Preparing a survey with critical constructs and items (Variance model option)
*Preparing a survey with critical constructs and items (Variance model option)
Purposive value of idea sharing in virtual communities (Dholakia et al., 2004) - modified for OEI2 -To exchange information -To learn how to do things -To generate ideas -To solve problems -To collaborative turn ideas to real outcomes
Key constructs?? Each construct should hopefully be predefined with tested items within (minimum 3 for each)
Emotional attachment / affective commitment?
Frequency of past knowledge exchange (experience) A in general B related to OER/OEP
Relation to the collaborators
Expected value of the outcome
Time of initiation
Working with raw-ideas
What else? does shared vision/value fit in this? Shared vision (Chiu et al., 2006) http://idea-space.eu:19001/up/515486f5131ebee688cdd8b0d435af0f.pdf SV1 Members in the virtual community share the vision of helping others solve their professionalproblems. SV2 Members in the virtual community share the same goalof learning from each other. SV3 Members in the virtual community share the samevalue that helping others is pleasant
*CONSTRUCT1 dependent variable: contribution willingness Theoretical definition: The extent person feels contributingto the virtual community is beneficial Existing construct to use??? Relating to the particular community: (Could only address idea space users!)
Should be towards intention (Ajzen, 1991) -modified -I will engage in virtual communities for the sake of my personal development in the future -I will engage in vc for improving my business contacts -I will share my knowledge with others in vc related to my work
Venkatesh and Bala (2008) behavioral intention - modified to OEI - I plan to engage in virtual communities to exchange knowledge with my peers - If I had access to a relevant virtual community, I intend to engage into exchange of ideas - Given that I had access to relevant virtual communities, I predict that I would engage to exchange ideas
*CONSTRUCT2 Emotional attachment /affective commitment Theoretical definition: The extent individual feels emotionalattachment and commitment to the group of collaborators. Existing constructs??? Do we need to operationalize a new contruct for commitment, attachement or ownership to the resources developed within virtual communities. Or maybe just the value of the outcome on top of group based commitment?
Reasons for being in the group because they like the group as a whole — identity-based attachment, or because they like individuals in the group — bond-based attachment (Back 1951) (from Ren et al., 2007). In this study we don't want to expand that far.
Common identity theory makes predictions about the causes and conse-quences of people’s attachment to the group as a whole. Common bond theory makespredictions about the causes and consequences of people’s attachment to individualgroup members. (Ren et al., 2007)
sense of belonging 1) giving and taking responsibilityincreases activity, involvement (Carsky et al., 1985)? (NOTFOCUSING ON normative commitment) Is it necessary to include continuancecommitment if looking at a process rather than single event? Also Wasko andFaraj, 2005 focus on commitment -Thedistance factor could do the same trick. The geographical distance affects whenthe context differs dramatically, but also the cognitive distance and beingfamiliar or a stranger is equally as important -Might be that the emotional attachment / ownership is cut to two constructs: Affectivecommitment related and time of initiation (early involvement) -Keydifference: affective commitment to the group and the collaboration effort at hand, not the site as previously operationalized.
POTENTIAL ITEMS: modified from Bateman et al., 2011 - affective commitment -Feeling like a part of the group is important for me inonline collaboration -Emotional attachment to the group of collaboratorsencourages me to share knowledge online, even outside my contractualobligations -Feeling a strong sense of belonging is important for me in virtual communities -Feeling a strong connection to the virtual community is important for me
-Feeling a strong emotional attachment to the
If only for Idea space users, then the Chiu et al., 2006) could fit: Identification ID1 I feel a sense of belonging towards the virtualcommunity. ID2 I have the feeling of togetherness or closeness in the virtualcommunity. ID3 I have a strong positive feeling toward thevirtual community. ID4 I am proud to be a member of the virtual community.
Perceived Online Relationship Commitment(PORC)Sources: (Rusbult et al., 1998) - from Ma and Yuen, 2011
I am committed to maintaining my relationshipwith other members using the ILN to learn (subject). I want my relationships with other members using the ILNto learn (subject) to last for a very long time. I feel very strongly linked to my relationship with othermembers using the ILN to learn (subject). I would feel very upset if my relationship with other membersusing the ILN to learn (subject) were to end. I seek the long-term future of my relationship with other membersusing the ILN to learn (subject).
CONSTRUCT3 frequency of past knowledge exchange (experience)
*CONSTRUCT3 frequency of past knowledge exchange (experience) Available constructs? Construct3A: Past knowledge exchange Construct3B: About OER/OEP - should still use general terms, avoiding re-use, re-mixing etc
A.6. Knowledge sharing behavior (KSB) Definition: The degree to which a member has conducted knowledge-sharing activities in VCs (Davenport & Prusak, 1998).
– I frequently participate in knowledge-sharing activities and share my knowledge with others virtual communities. – I usually spend a lot of time conducting knowledge sharing activities in virtual communities. - I frequently share my experiences with my peers in virtual communities – (When discussing a complicated issue, I am usually involved with virtual communities) (Lin et a., 2009)
CONSTRUCT4 Org openness and fairness/innovativeness/
*CONSTRUCT4 Org openness and fairness/innovativeness/ Existing constructs??
ALTERNATIVELY: Could use from Gilson and Shalley (2004)Climate supportive of creativity: “In my team, we are encouraged to develop newways of doing things” and “In my team, when team members come up with new ideasthey receive appropriate praise. OR job creativity: “The nature of the projects that my teamworks on requires us to be creative” and “My team is required to come up withnovel ways of doing things.” potential items adapted from innovativeness construct:
My organization encourages suggesting ideas for newcross-organizational business opportunities on the internet
My organization puts much value on taking risks even ifthat turns out to be a failure
My organization encourages employees to start newcollaborations with external stakeholders and organization
My organization encourages employees to develop theircompetences as they see best
My organization encourages employees to activelypromote the organization on the internet.
CONSTRUCT5 Personal relation /Distance
*CONSTRUCT5 Personal relation /Distance Theoretical definition: The extent person is likely toactively exchange knowledge with a virtual community member without a personalrelationship
What to focus on? (cognitive, cultural,weak ties?) –
Social distance (Cha et al., 2014) from that paper (Stephanet al., 2010; Lim et al., 2012). Social distance is based on the social capital theory. The social capital theory states that an individual or a group contains potential resources which are linked by networks (Bourdieu, 1985; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). Therefore, in teams where the social ties are strong, the formation of social network can greatly benefit the team. operationalized as: (don't reflect on interacting with strangers etc)
-It was easy to become friends with members of the group -I felt I became more intimate with members of the group -I felt our group held a socially important meaning to me modified to potential users
-It is important to me that I know who my collaborators are in an open professional virtual community -I prefer to collaborate only with peers I know in an open professional virtual community -I do not mind exchaning ideas with peers unfamiliar to me in an open professional virtual community
Perceived proximity (Wilson et al., 2008) as a conceptpromising but no good operationalization of the construct. familiar vs stranger perceptions (Affiliation – perception oftogetherness Kim and Lee 1995, Koys and Decotiis 1991). Affiliation not enoughand might cross load to commitment. Tie Stregth, friendship (Levin and Cross,2004). Social capital based on Weak ties? Krackhardt (1992) discussed "philos" (friends) in relation to strong ties. No construct to use
Can also take it further and look at the expectations out of the communication with weak ties. Focusing on reciprocity. Doesn't tell to which extent one A.1. Norm of reciprocity (NR) Definition: People’s salient beliefs that current knowledge sharing to VCs would lead to future request for knowledge being met (Davenport & Prusak, 1998). – I know that other members will help me, so it’s obligator and fair to help other members in this virtual community. – When I share knowledge with other members, I believe that the members in this virtual community would help me if I need it – When I share knowledge with other members, I believe that my queries for knowledge will be answered in the future in this vir- tual community
CONSTRUCT6 expected value of the OUTCOME /personal outcome expectations
*CONSTRUCT6 expected value of the OUTCOME /personal outcome expectations of exchangingknowledge, -personal org gain etc? potential constructs?? Relative advantage is conceptualized as a multidimensionalconstruct that captures the benefits of an innovation on lower costs, savings in time and effort, and a decrease in discomfort (Rog- ers, 2003). Handfield and Bechteln (2002) perceived relative advantage refers to the knowl-edge contributor’s cognition of likely advantages and benefits that the individual’s knowledge sharing behavior will produce and carry to him. (Lin et al., 2009) A.4. Perceived relative advantage (PRA) Definition: The degree to which encouraging knowledge sharingis perceived to benefit the conduct of members (Moore & Benbasat, 1991). – Sharing knowledge with members in this virtual community will increase my solving-problem capability. – Sharing knowledge with members in this virtual community will rapidly absorb and react to new information regarding the area. – Sharing knowledge with members in this virtual community will help me in my job and improve my performance. (Lin et al., 2009) Could extend with one or two items on expected value of the outcome.
Another approach by Chiu et al., 2006 Personal outcome expectations (POE) -Sharing my knowledge can build up my reputation in the virtual community -Sharing my knowledge will give me a sense of accomplishment. -Sharing my knowledge strengthen the tie between other membersin the virtual community and me. -Sharing my knowledge will enable me to gain bettercooperation from the outstanding members in the virtual community
Also discussed as disconfirmation (Chiu et al., 2011) the degree towhich performance exceeds, equals, or falls short of anindividual’s expectations, resulting in positive, zero, and negative disconfirmation, respectively (Oliver and Swan, 1989a).
if still want towards emotional ownership???
Construct7 Time of initiation / Importance of Early involvement
*Construct7 Time of initiation / Importance of Early involvement
potential constructs?? Hard to find... team work lifecycle, or steps turned to a construct? But maybe only about the early involvement, not about different timing to avoid multiple items per timing. Group formation stages discussed by Tuckman and Jensen (1977) - Forming, storming, norming, performing
preference in role (Not as crucial for the model if can skip it) or through preference in terms of leadership, expert, coordination ( -I prefer taking responsibility
When entering - Being involved with the virtual community when group is being formed increases my activity, - - It is easier to engage in collaboration early when -“I want to be included in exchanging ideas when the group is being initiated”
- I prefer to collaborate on
putting a scenario in and priorizing the most pleasant form? Preferred way of handling. But would need at least 2 options for each stage of the Tuckman and Jensen model
OER specific: (could differentiate group formation and idea sharing from developing and polishing) -I prefer to use already existing Open educational resources for my work rather than creating the resources collaboratively in an online environment (negation) - I prefer to create OER through an exchange of ideas with my peers rather than creating them alone -
CONSTRUCT8 Working with raw-ideas
*CONSTRUCT8 Working with raw-ideas The degree an individual is fine with working and contributing to raw-ideas (unfinished and unmatured) Just have to avoid this overlaps with construct 7
I enjoy online collaboration on ideas that haven't matured I enjoy engaging in collaborative settings online when ideas are still raw and enable creativity I enjoy brainstorming online with my peers on how to turn raw ideas into real solutions
Conditional for OER re-use:
Implications to the qualitative interviews or focus groups:
*Implications to the qualitative interviews or focus groups: -Personal relation to the collaborators (should know to exactly who of them. Go through the idea once discussing. Important for understanding to which extent they exchange with weak ties and even strangers. HOWEVER, idea space etherpads don't really differentiate between users. One necessarily doesn't know if they are working with a stranger in the doc.