The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Knowledge Collaboration in Online Communities
Open accessAbstract
Online communities (OCs) are a virtual organizational form in which knowledge collaboration can occur in unparalleled scale and scope, in ways not heretofore theorized. For example, collaboration can occur among people not known to each other, who share different interests and without dialogue. An exploration of this organizational form can fundamentally change how we theorize about knowledge collaboration among members of organizations. We argue that a fundamental characteristic of OCs that affords collaboration is their fluidity. This fluidity engenders a dynamic flow of resources in and out of the community—resources such as passion, time, identity, social disembodiment of ideas, socially ambiguous identities, and temporary convergence. With each resource comes both a negative and positive consequence, creating a tension that fluctuates with changes in the resource. We argue that the fluctuations in tensions can provide an opportunity for knowledge collaboration when the community responds to these tensions in ways that encourage interactions to be generative rather than constrained. After offering numerous examples of such generative responses, we suggest that this form of theorizing—induced by online communities—has implications for theorizing about the more general case of knowledge collaboration in organizations.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“In online communities, such as Amazon Mechanical Turk or Upwork, platforms that attract very large numbers of contract workers or volunteer contributors from all over the world, algorithms are used to solve the organizational problem of recruitment, negotiating contracts, and motivating employees.”
From Working and organizing in the age of the learning algorithm (2018) · cites this paper as Faraj et al., 2011
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511815355 · Cited by 35,324
The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception
Bornstein, M. H., & Gibson, J. J. (1980) · The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism · doi:10.2307/429816 · Cited by 22,935
The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception: Classic Edition
Gibson, J. J. (2014) · doi:10.4324/9781315740218 · Cited by 12,132
Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences
Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/6352.001.0001 · Cited by 6,188
Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction
WALTHER, J. B. (1996) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/009365096023001001 · Cited by 4,798
10 Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and Organization
Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520802211644 · Cited by 2,571
Market, Hierarchy, and Trust: The Knowledge Economy and the Future of Capitalism
Adler, P. S. (2001) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.12.2.215.10117 · Cited by 1,512
The top five reasons for lurking: improving community experiences for everyone
Preece, J., Nonnecke, B., & Andrews, D. (2004) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2003.10.015 · Cited by 1,038 · cited 1×
“Fluidity recognizes the highly flexible or permeable boundaries of OCs, where it is hard to figure out who is in the community and who is outside (Preece et al. 2004) at any point in time, let alone over time.”
BackgroundOut of Sight, Out of Sync: Understanding Conflict in Distributed Teams
Hinds, P. J., & Bailey, D. E. (2003) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.14.6.615.24872 · Cited by 974
Bentley University, U., Markus, M. L., Silver, M., & Fordham University (2008) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00176 · Cited by 927
The Emergence of Governance in an Open Source Community
O'Mahony, S., & Ferraro, F. (2007) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2007.27169153 · Cited by 909
Charisma, positive emotions and mood contagion
Bono, J. E., & Ilies, R. (2006) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.04.008 · Cited by 905
Boundary Organizations: Enabling Collaboration among Unexpected Allies
O'Mahony, S., & Bechky, B. A. (2008) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2189/asqu.53.3.422 · Cited by 626
Getting Clear About Communities in Open Innovation
West, J., & Lakhani, K. R. (2008) · Industry and Innovation · doi:10.1080/13662710802033734 · Cited by 497
Anonymity and Self-Disclosure on Weblogs
Qian, H., & Scott, C. R. (2007) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00380.x · Cited by 343
Cited by
Algorithms at Work: The New Contested Terrain of Control
Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A. (2020) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2018.0174 · Cited by 2,732
Organizing for Innovation in the Digitized World
Yoo, Y., Boland, R. J., Lyytinen, K., & Majchrzak, A. (2012) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1120.0771 · Cited by 2,469
Self-citationService Innovation: A Service-Dominant Logic Perspective1
Lusch, R. F., & Nambisan, S. (2015) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2015/39.1.07 · Cited by 1,949
Technology Ecosystem Governance
Wareham, J., Fox, P. B., & Cano Giner, J. L. (2014) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2014.0895 · Cited by 931
Working and organizing in the age of the learning algorithm
Faraj, S., Pachidi, S., & Sayegh, K. (2018) · Information and Organization · doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2018.02.005 · Cited by 929
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Faraj, S., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Majchrzak, A.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2011-10
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1224-1239
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2143952996
- Cited by
- 1,034
- References
- 15
- FWCI
- 150.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
