View source for Code-Centrism


=Description=

Samer Hassan et al. :

"“code-centrism”: reducing the conceptualization of participation and performance in FLOSS projects to the understanding of the activities surrounding the development of source code (Carillo et al., 2014, p. 3276). This is despite, as we shall see, the diversity of activities carried out in FLOSS communities, such as the organization of events, mentoring and training practices, and the creation of documentation and translations. Krogh and Von Hippel's (2006) literature review on FLOSS shows how studies that include the notion of contribution have principally examined the development of source code as the main type of contribution. This can be observed, for example, in studies focused on motivations to contribute (e.g., Bergquist and Ljungberg, 2001; Ghosh et al., 2002; Lerner and Tirole, 2002; Lakhani and Wolf, 2003; Stenborg, 2004); as well as in those focused on the relationship between organization and contribution (e.g., Dempsey et al., 2002; Koch and Schneider, 2002; Franck and Jungwirth, 2003; Grewal et al., 2006; MacCormack et al., 2006). Another illustration of this “code-centrism” in research on FLOSS can be found in the literature review of Crowston et al. (2012), in which they developed a framework based on an inputs-mediators-outputs-inputs model4 (Ilgen et al., 2005) to review 135 papers. In the case of inputs, most of the literature related to individual participation considers source code related activities (e.g., Luthiger, 2005; Robles et al., 2005; Roberts et al., 2006; Fershtman and Gandal, 2007), or more recently between governance and authoritative structures associated with the management of such contributions (Shaikh and Henfridsson, 2017), as well as in the development of theory of how such forms of collaboration are organized (e.g., Howison and Crowston, 2014). A similar “code-centric” character can be observed with regard to outputs, for example regarding FLOSS team performance (e.g., Bezroukov, 1999; Samoladas et al., 2004; de Joode and Egyedi, 2005; Gyimothy et al., 2005). This issue is not, however, exclusive to FLOSS. Jemielniak (2014, p. 39–41) describes an analogous phenomenon in Wikipedia (“editcountitis”) around the number of edits as a major measure to evaluate participants' contributions, in spite of an awareness of its reductionism. In other words, a similar “object-centric” character, in which the objects are digital commons, such as articles and maps, can be found regarding the notions of contribution with respect to CBPP communities. For example, the writing of articles in Wikipedia (e.g., Kittur et al., 2007; Kostakis, 2010; Crowston et al., 2013; Jemielniak, 2014; Matei and Bruno, 2015) or the editing of maps in OpenStreetMap (e.g., Haklay et al., 2010; Neis and Zipf, 2012).

With the aim of questioning our understanding of the notion of contribution in the study of peer production beyond the most traditional “object-centric” conceptions, we carried out an analysis of these perceptions. We framed our analysis drawing on the three layer system of value for CBPP communities developed by Pazaitis et al. (2017). Concretely we explored the (1) production of value and the (2) record of value. The first layer refers to the modality of production: what particular actions are rationalized as meaningful contributions according to the communitarian needs? In this respect, we queried the notion of contribution, framing it as a set of meanings which are constantly evolving through negotiation among community members according to their internal logics of value. The second layer relates to the tools employed to record these forms of value. For this, we carried out an analysis of the previously identified activities considered contributions, showing a lack of visibility in the collaboration platforms of some despite their relevance for the sustainability of the community. The third layer, (3) actualization of value (Pazaitis et al., 2017), concerns the rationalization of such meaningful actions within the logic of external economic systems. For example, through monetization. Since our research question focused on internal production, perception and recording of value, Fuster-Morell et al.'s (2016b) conceptualization of internal systems of recognition and rewarding of value creation in peer production, meant we excluded this last outer layer5 from our analysis."
(https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fhumd.2021.618207/full)