CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 78Open Source Software InnovationsSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesKnowledge Management and Sharing

Folding and Unfolding: Balancing Openness and Transparency in Open Source Communities

Open access
Shaikh, Maha, Vaast, Emmanuelle·2016·Information Systems Research
DOI 10.1287/isre.2016.0646
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Open source communities rely on the espoused premise of complete openness and transparency of source code and development process. Yet, openness and transparency at times need to be balanced out with moments of less open and transparent work. Through our detailed study of Linux Kernel development, we build a theory that explains that transparency and openness are nuanced and changing qualities that certain developers manage as they use multiple digital technologies and create, in moments of needs, more opaque and closed digital spaces of work. We refer to these spaces as digital folds. Our paper contributes to the extant literature by providing a process theory of how transparency and openness are balanced with opacity and closure in open source communities according to the needs of the development work; by conceptualizing the nature of digital folds and their role in providing quiet spaces of work; and, by articulating how the process of digital folding and unfolding is made far more possible by select elite actors’ navigating the line between the pragmatics of coding and the accepted ideology of openness and transparency.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/isre.2016.0646

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Vendor control of an open source project is a position where a single vendor has unilateral control over key project governance practices.

    “Vendor control of an open source project is a position where a single vendor has unilateral control over key project governance practices (Shaikh and Vaast 2016;Shaikh and Henfridsson 2017).”

    From Freeriding and Rebellion: An Investigation of Open Source Vendor Relicensing and Member Hard Forking Events (2026) · cites this paper as Shaikh and Vaast 2016

    The discussion of governance (p. 7) describes layers of access and elite maintainers, while “Process of Siphoning – Privileged policymaking” (p. 22) describes high-level decisions made in spaces accessible only to a privileged few. Neither passage establishes that a single vendor has unilateral control over those governance practices. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Project practices can be used to define patterns of work.

    “We demonstrated that while project practices can be used to define patterns of work (Wenger 1998;Yavuz et al. 2022;Shaikh and Vaast 2016)”

    From Freeriding and Rebellion: An Investigation of Open Source Vendor Relicensing and Member Hard Forking Events (2026) · cites this paper as Shaikh and Vaast 2016

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. Bagozzi, R.P., and Dholakia, U.M. 2006. "Open Source Software User Communities: A Study of Participation in Linux User Groups " Management Science (52:7), pp. 1099-1115.
  2. Barrett, M., Heracleous, L., and Walsham, G. 2013. "A Rhetorical Approach to It Diffusion: Reconceptualizing the Ideology-Framing Relationship in Computerization Movements," MIS Quarterly (37:1), pp. 201-220.
  3. Ben-Menahem, S., von Krogh, G., Erden, Z., and Schneider, A. 2015. "Coordinating Knowledge Creation in Multidisciplinary Teams: Evidence from Early-Stage Drug Discovery," Academy of Management Journal ), June 16, 2015.
  4. Benkler, Y. 2002. "Coase's Penguin, or, Linux and the Nature of the Firm," Yale Law Journal (112:3), pp. 369-446.
  5. Benkler, Y. 2004. "Sharing Nicely: On Shareable Goods and the Emergence of Sharing as a Modality of Economic Production," Yale Law Journal (114:273-358).
  6. Berliner, B. 1990. "Cvs Ii: Parallelizing Software Development," Proceedings of the USENIX Winter 1990 Technical Conference , Washington D.C.
  7. Bonaccorsi, A., and Rossi, C. 2003. "Why Open Source Software Can Succeed," Research Policy (32:7), pp. 1243-1258. Boudreau, K. 2010. "Open Platform Strategies and Innovation: Granting Access Vs. Devolving Control," Management Science (56:10), pp. 1849-1872.
  8. Butler, T. 1998. "Towards a Hermeneutic Method for Interpretive Research in Information Systems," Journal of Information Technology (13), pp. 285-300.
  9. Campbell-Kelly, M., and Garcia-Swartz, D.D. 2009. "Pragmatism, Not Ideology: Historical Perspectives on Ibm's Adoption of Open-Source Software," Information Economics and Policy (21:3), pp. 229-244.
  10. Casadesus-Masanell, R., and Ghemawat, P. 2006. "Dynamic Mixed Duopoly: A Model Motivated by Linux Vs. Windows," Management Science (52:7), pp. 1072-1084.
  11. Choi, N., Chengalur-Smith, I., and Nevo, S. 2015. "Loyalty, Ideology, and Identification: An Empirical Study of the Attitudes and Behaviors of Passive Users of Open Source Software," Journal of the Association for Information Systems (16:8).
  12. Clegg, S., Kornberger, M., and Rhodes, C. 2005. "Learning/Becoming/Organizing," Organization (12:2), pp. 147-167.
  13. Clemm, G. 1989. "Replacing Version-Control with Job-Control," Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Software configuration management , Princeton, New Jersey, United States, pp. 162-169.
  14. Cornford, T., Shaikh, M., and Ciborra, C. 2010. "Hierarchy, Laboratory and Collective: Unveiling Linux as Innovation, Machination and Constitution," Journal of the Association for Information Systems (11:11).
  15. Crowston, K., and Howison, J. 2006. "Hierarchy and Centralization in Free and Open Source Software Team Communications," Knowledge, Technology, and Policy (18:4), Winter, pp. 65-85.
  16. Dabbish, L., Stuart, C., Tsay, J., and Herbsleb, J. 2012. "Social Coding in Github: Transparency and Collaboration in an Open Software Repository," in: Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work . Seattle, Washington, USA: ACM, pp. 1277-1286.
  17. Heracleous, L., and Barrett, M. 2001. "Organizational Change as Discourse: Communicative Actions and Deep Structures in the Context of Information Technology Implementation," Academy of Management Journal (44:4), pp. 755-778.
  18. Hertel, G., Niedner, S., and Herrmann, S. 2003. "Motivation of Software Developers in Open Source Projects: An Internet-Based Survey of Contributors to the Linux Kernel," Research Policy: Special Issue on Open Source Software Development (32:7), pp. 1159-1178.
  19. Hoegl, M., Weinkauf, K., and Gemuenden, H.G. 2004. "Interteam Coordination, Project Commitment, and Teamwork in Multiteam R&D Projects: A Longitudinal Study," Organization Science (15:1), pp. 38-55.
  20. Von Hippel, E., and Von Krogh, G. 2006. "Free Revealing and the Private-Collective Model for Innovation Incentives," R&D Management (36:3), pp. 295-306.
  21. von Hippel, E., and von Krogh, G. 2016. "Crossroads-Identifying Viable 'Need-Solution Pairs': Problem Solving without Problem Formulation," Organization Science (27:1), pp. 207-221.
  22. von Krogh, G., Haefliger, S., Spaeth, S., and Wallin, W. 2012. "Carrots and Rainbows: Motivation and Social Practice in Open Source Software Development," MIS Quarterly (36:2), pp. 649-676.
  23. von Krogh, G., and Spaeth, S. 2007. "The Open Source Software Phenomenon: Characteristics That Promote Research," Journal of Strategic Information Systems (16:3), pp. 236-253.
  24. von Krogh, G., and von Hippel, E. 2006. "The Promise of Research on Open Source Software," Management Science (52:7), pp. 975-983.
  25. Weber, S. 2004. The Success of Open Source . Harvard University Press.
  26. West, J. 2003. "How Open Is Open Enough? Melding Proprietary and Open Source Platform Strategies," Research Policy (32), pp. 1259-1285.
  27. West, J. 2007. "Seeking Open Infrastructure: Contrasting Open Standards, Open Source and Open Innovation," First Monday, Peer Reviewed Journal on the Internet (12:6).
  28. West, J., and Bogers, M. 2014. "Leveraging External Sources of Innovation: A Review of Research on Open Innovation," Journal of Product Innovation Management (31:4), pp. 814-831.
  29. Wright, A.L., and Zammuto, R.F. 2013. "Wielding the Willow: Processes of Institutional Change in English County Cricket," Academy of Management Journal (56:1), February 1, 2013, pp. 308-330.
  30. Yin, R. 1981. "The Case Study Crisis: Some Answers. ," Administrative Science Quarterly (26), pp. 58-65.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shaikh, M., & Vaast, E.
Affiliations
  • University of Warwick (GB)
  • McGill University (CA)
ORCID
Venue
Information Systems Research
Publisher
Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS)
Published
2016-12
Volume
27
Issue
4
Pages
813-833
ISSN
  • 1047-7047 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5536
DOI
10.1287/isre.2016.0646
OpenAlex
W2472152857
Cited by
78
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1
FWCI
6.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Information Systems Research (publishedVersion)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Knowledge Management and Sharing
Keywords
open source communities, transparency, openness, opacity, closure, elite actors, process theory, software development

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review