THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF PARIS MASTER OF ARTS IN GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS

IN GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS

The Value Between Us: Exploring Informal Cooperatives, Kernels, Weak Ties, and the Role of the New Curator

Heather Blanchardheather@newcicada.com

THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF PARIS

MASTER OF ARTS IN GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS

AUTHOR/STUDENT

APPROVED:

Thesis Director____________________________________________

Committee member________________________________________

Committee member________________________________________

Program Director__________________________________________

STATEMENT OF AUTHENTICITY

I have read the American University of Paris’s policies on plagiarism and certify that the

content of this thesis entitled The Value Between Us Us: Exploring Informal Cooperatives,

Kernels, Weak Ties, and the Role of the New Curator is all my own work and does not

contain any unacknowledged work from any other sources.

Number of words: 16,398

Signed:_______________________________

Date:_________________________________

Copyright statement:

A printed copy and an electronic version of this thesis have been given to The American University of Paris (AUP) for its library collection and to grant scholarly access. As of today, I authorize AUP to archive, perform any needed cataloging, keep records of this thesis and disseminate it in France and abroad. In addition, I authorize AUP to provide free access to the entire work for on-site consultation, loan, and dissemination via Internet/Intranet and for interlibrary loan, for as long as this work exists. The University must acquire my explicit approval before making any additional copies of this thesis.

L'œuvre ayant le caractère d'un travail universitaire, un exemplaire dans son intégralité sous format papier et sa version électronique ont été déposés à la bibliothèque de The American University of Paris - AUP. J‟autorise, à partir d‟aujourd‟hui, la bibliothèque d‟AUP à donner un accès gratuit à l‟intégralité du texte de mon mémoire, à le citer, à l‟archiver, à en faire des résumés, et à sa diffusion, soit en France ou à l‟international, pendant toute la durée de vie de ce mémoire. Ainsi je donne à AUP l„autorisation pour sa consultation sur place, sa diffusion par internent/ intranet pour le prêt local entre bibliothèques. En cas de besoin de reproduction AUP doit obtenir mon accord explicit pour toute reproduction ultérieure.

________________________________ __________________________20___

Signature Date

Page i

DEDICATION

"When in the end, the day came on which I was going away, I learned the strange learning that things can happen which we ourselves cannot possibly imagine,

either beforehand, or at the time when they are taking place, or afterwards when we look back on them."

– Isak Dineson, Out of Africa, 1937

To Mom, Bill, Eric, Jen, Tommy, Ellie & Nateycakes - We’ll always have Paris and dinner time Skype. *Sparkles*

To the Bank of Atkinson, the Colonel, Tinkerbell and Veep - Thanks for being my personal Kickstarter and my role models.

Paris would not have happened without your guidance and support.

To WR41- Thanks for Chuck E. Cheese and Busch Gardens.

Where joie de vivre lives in gadgets, art, music and and hamster searching.Thanks for being a rock for Mom. Thanks for being awesome.

To Val, Olga, DB, Ida, Russ and Glo - Missing you. Wishing you were here.

To my friends, all my weak and strong connections - I couldn’t have done it without you guys.

Thanks for filling my Facebook with love and nonsense.Cheers for Sunday night dinners. #CallMeMaybe #GangnamStyle

To the Hawk - To my bestie. Thanks for being my beta-tester, COO and Chief Stylist.

I couldn’t have done it (...meaning life) without you.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Sometimes you have to go outside to find the gold that is inside. Special thanks to Claudia Roda who went above and beyond the call of duty to provide the coaching I needed to get what is in my head on paper. It is still not exactly what is in my brain, but at least some of it is on paper.

We are living in a material culture world, and I am a material culture girl. Thanks to Julie Thomas who opened my eyes to a world that I knew was there, but failed to recognize or fully appreciate. I see things differently now.

Americans take their Starbucks to go. Thanks to @PaulRichardset for inspiring me to move to Paris and his tolerence of an American who still hasn’t learned proper French. Thanks to the gang at @LaCantine for giving me a one year student discount.

We want to think outside of the box. Thanks to the European Commission, specially CONNECT DG, for including me in their efforts to explore how best to reach web entrepreneurs. Special thanks to @Ringrda, Isidro and Miguel for your time and inclusion. And to @eurohumph thanks for being so welcoming and interested in hearing new ideas.

#GirlsInTech: Graditude to the Brussels-based technology policy insights from Alia, Cheryl and Ellen. Special thanks to @MsWz for making the venture happen in the first place.

Page ii

ABSTRACT

The Value Between Us examines groups and the potential value that connects today’s network of networks. The information economy and the derived value is rooted in exchanges which occur not just among institutions but groups who may have no legal or institutional affiliation, informal cooperatives. These groups attract attention and participation of those who have similar interests and are guided by kernels. These groups operate between ecosystems as alternative open spaces for collaboration. When informal cooperatives and institutions collaborate they form a collaboration sphere, an independent space of engagement. While informal cooperatives are fueled by similar interests they can infuse diversification through their weak ties. These relationships create balance within groups to mitigate against polarization. The distance between and within informal cooperatives and institutions are structural holes. These gaps require brokering by a new kind of communicator, the new curator. This new brokering role bridges the gaps between today’s network of networks, especially those with dissimilar interests and values. The new curator is an independent actor who straddles between informal cooperatives and institutions. The new curator cultivates environmental conditions conducive for dialogue, cooperation and ultimately, collaboration. Through a multi-discipinary theoretical approach with current qualitative examples, this thesis argues that while we might believe we are in a connected world, we are not. The Value Between Us issues a call to action to invest in new curators to support and protect informal cooperatives, cultivate the value between today’s networks of networks.

keywords: distributive networks, informal cooperatives, kernels, crowdsourcing, weak ties

Page iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction 1

Are We Really Connected? 2

Our Ecosystem, Ourselves 3

Chapter One: Informal Cooperatives 8

A Historical Perspective 9

Act Locally, Impact Globally 11

Crowdsourcing Has Changed 12

Motivation 15

New Media Object 19

Common Features 21

Risk, Culture and Intra-preneurs 25

Chapter Two: Kernels and Collaboration Spheres 31

The Light Touch 33

Institutional Kernel 34

Structural Holes 35

Collaboration Sphere 38

Chapter Three: The Value of Weak Ties 43

Gladwell’s Challenge 44

Latency to Sensory Systems 45

Diversity 46

Facebook and Weak Ties 47

Sense-making and Proxy Services 49

Relationship Storage Units 50

Page iv

Cost and Value 52

Chapter Four: The New Curator 54

Characteristics 56

Vantage Point 59

The Missing Link 60

Call For Investment 62

Conclusion 65

References 70

Biography 75

Page v

Introduction

Page 1

Are We Really Connected?

The Value Between Us discusses the transformation of the networked world from

nodal systems to participatory communities which overlap, ebb and flow with interest.

Sometimes people who have great ideas and skills to solve problems come from the most

unusual places. Crowdsourcing may have hit its stride engaging the wisdom of the crowds,

institutions seem to overlook the talents within their own organization. The wisdom of the

crowd once famed for its unique problem solving capabilities is dependent on the

independent nature of the people within the crowd. Today, we can no longer assume this

independence to be true. Through activities like crowdsourcing people form relationships

across cultural, language and geographic differences. The need and ability to connect is

fundamental to our lives.

This thesis breaks down the world into two groups: institutions and informal

cooperatives. Institutions have organizational structure, legal boundaries and processes create

efficiency. Informal cooperatives frequently lack organizational structure and are often not a

legal entity. Informal cooperatives are groups who share a similar interests and values which

can drive innovation and problem solving. This can occur without formal management

processes and leadership.

The Value Between Us asks a fundamental question: “If we are in a world where it is

easy to find and collaborate with those who are like us, are we marginalizing ourselves into

sameness or is it there an independent space between us where we can cultivate pathways for

dialogue and collaboration within and among today’s network of networks?”

Page 2

Our Ecosystem, Ourselves

Facebook is perhaps the most famous example of how we live and work within a

social network of people. Everything we do is social. Just take a look at your friends list.

Some people you went to school with others are people you have worked with in the past.

There might be old boyfriends or people you met at a party one night. These connections

have a new ability to be stored permanently. Some people you may know intimately (e.g.,

strong ties), others you know at a distance (e.g., weak ties). The same can be said about the

institutions which manage society. Governments, companies, non-profits, academia and

NGOs travel in their own set of communities and have varied levels of connection.

Informal cooperatives and institutions have interpersonal and community ecosystems

which they traverse on a daily basis. Through repetition, we begin to foster trust within

relationships we hold. The more we engage each other, the more they are familiar and the

more we may trust one another. However, the challenge today is that while informal

cooperatives and institutions have the ability to connect to those who have similar interest

and values, there are gaps within the ecosystem with those who don’t hold those interests and

values. For example, would Occupy Wall Street proactively build a long term relationship

with the financial sector to support the achievement their goals? While we may believe that

we live in an information economy where our networks are connected through technology,

this may not mean that we engage with those who have dissimilar interests and values.

Informal cooperatives have an increasing ability to attract attention and drive

participatory collective action. Informal cooperatives can be borderless, leaderless, and

without legal status. Informal cooperatives build and manage a new kind of soft power which

can create global movements like Occupy Wall Street or collective action such as

Page 3

Anonymous and digital humanitarians. The Value Between Us defines a new landscape where

informal cooperatives and institutions play new roles in today’s information economy. Today,

there is a new kind of brokering role—the new curator—who helps informal cooperatives

and institutions navigate the gaps between these two worlds and foster a new space of

independent space where dialogue and collaboration can take place.

The Value Between Us is broken into four chapters addressing: informal cooperatives,

kernels and collaboration space, weak ties and the new curator. These chapters outline

today’s new environment where institutions are no longer the only entities who can foster and

influence the marketplace. The Value Between Us explores trends such as crowdsourcing and

seeks to understand why independent open collaboration spaces are necessary to address gaps

(e.g. structural holes) between the information economy’s network of networks.

Chapter one discusses the value and characteristics of informal cooperatives. For

centuries individuals have clustered together in informal groups to do all kinds of things from

transforming the art world through impressionist to regime change in the Middle East.

Informal cooperatives transform once strangers into new relationships. These relationships,

however strong or weak, are motivated by self-interest through reciprocity, reputation and

efficacy. (Kollock, 1999: 6) Participation within informal cooperatives develop social capital

for individuals and the informal cooperative alike. This chapter discusses the shift of

crowdsourcing, individual motivation and identity through mediation, common features of

informal cooperatives and the challenges facing institutions in this brave new world.

Chapter two describes the small group of people who drive informal cooperatives, the

kernel. These people are often seen as leaders, when in fact they might have characteristics

Page 4

akin to what Horgen, Joroff, Porter and Schon describe as a process architect (Horgen, Joroff,

Porter and Schon, 1999: 56). Mentoring skills are leveraged by the kernel to guide rather than

direct a management process. One of the primary activities of an informal cooperative kernel

is to attract new participation, while institutional kernels seek to develop a new space for

collaboration within their own organization.

Within chapter two, the gap between two networks (or within an network itself) is

characterized as a structural hole. Ronald Burt first coined the term structural hole which are

“...missing relationships that inhibit information flow between people.” (Burt, 2007: 119)

Burt discusses that within groups people are likely to think similarly than those beyond their

network. Burt describes the advantages of the role of the connector (e.g., broker) between

those two relationships. “Information, opinion, and practice are more homogeneous within

than between groups, so a manager whose network spans structure holes (call him a network

broker, connector, or entrepreneur) has a vision advantage in early exposure to diverse

information and a general political advantage as a hub in the information flow.” (Burt, 2007:

119) Chapter two discusses these topics as well as the relationship between the institutional

kernel and informal cooperatives and the formation of a new collaboration sphere.

Chapter three discusses the value of weak ties. In 2012, Malcolm Gladwell ignited a

firestorm with his rejection of the use of weak ties in high risk social activism. (Gladwell,

2012: 1) This chapter argues that weak ties are an important part of the fabric of today’s

network of networks, especially within informal cooperatives. Weak ties can transform latent

connections into a sensory network. This chapter argues that every tie is a potential

communications pathway. We have an unfettered ability to permanently store relationships

Page 5

—either strong or weak— through social technologies. These storage units allow us to call

upon these relationships when they are needed, during high risk events (e.g., crises). There is

mounting evidence, despite Gladwell’s assertion, that weak ties can transform themselves

from latency to action such as becoming a proxy agent and sense-making. This chapter

argues that weak ties are necessary to maintain a healthy balance within informal

cooperatives and that every relationship comes with a value and a cost associated with its

storage and maintenance.

Chapter four discusses the missing link between informal cooperatives and

institutions, the new curator. While the profession of curation is well established, a new kind

of curation is emerging across every domain to help address structural holes within the

networks by brokering across two group (e.g., informal cooperatives and institutions),

catalyzing collaboration, preserving and sharing widely actions and knowledge of the groups

engagement. While this role ideally would be independent of the institution and the informal

cooperative, resources suggest that the role of the new curator often is picked up by kernels.

The new curator role is different than that of the kernel. The new curator brokers between

informal cooperatives and institutions who had dissimilar interests and values. They are

independent of either group and foster environmental conditions which allow for dialogue

and engagement within the collaboration sphere. Burt discusses the role of the connector

between these groups: “Opinion and behavior are more homogenous within than between

groups, so people connect across groups are more familiar with alternative ways of

thinking.” (Burt, 2004: 349) This chapter presents the role of the new curator, its

characteristics and unique vantage point (Burt, 2004: 351). This chapter issues a call to action

Page 6

for investment to support new curators who are needed to bridge today’s information

economy.

The Value Between Us concludes with a call for investment to mitigate against the

potential effects of connecting to only those who share our interests and values. The thesis

presents three areas where investment should be made to potentially lessen polarization in

today’s information economy. First, we must invest in new curators to be the bridge builders

between groups and fill the structural holes which exist today. Second, we must invest in

greater understanding the value of and utility of weak ties. Third, we must invest the creation

of independent open collaboration spaces. These investments may develop the first steps to

recognizing the shifting landscape of today’s information economy and begin the discussion

on the value of informal cooperatives, kernels, new curators and the rise of the new

collaboration sphere.

Page 7

Chapter One: Informal Cooperatives

Page 8

People like to do things together. We eat together. We learn together. We work

together. The ability to connect with one another is a fundamental need that many of us have.

When people get together to share information and potentially collaborate, an informal

cooperative is born. Informal cooperative work defined by Richard Fikes within a systems

engineering context as “the challenges involved in constructing computer-based systems for

supporting such work.” (Fikes, 1984: 345) This thesis seeks to adapt informal cooperation to

define an entity with today’s network of networks, the informal cooperative.

Informal cooperatives can be as little as two people or can fuel movements to create

production beyond what any one individual could ever accomplish. Informal cooperatives

can be temporary such as an afternoon Meetup, (Meetup.com, 2012) or can ignite a global

movement like Occupy Wall Street. (Occupy Wall Street, 2012) Everyday there are barcamps

(Singal, 2012) (Caulfield, 2012) and hackathons (Krueger, 2012) which serve as temporary

open spaces of collaboration. There are more long-term groups which may evolve over time

such as fan communities (Jenkins, 2012), digital humanitarians (CrisisCamp, 2009), car clubs

(Santa Clara Corvette Club, 2012), fantasy football (Hutchins, 2009: 89) and technology user

groups (Ruby User Groups, 2012).

A Historical Perspective

Informal cooperatives have probably existed for centuries. As an example, we can

examine the Parisian café culture of the nineteenth century which fostered the Impressionist

movement. “In the beginning the café was a place where young people could meet, mix

freely, speak openly of politics and literature. Often the proprietor of the establishment

participated in these informal meetings, sometimes even presiding, not particularly concerned

Page 9

about making money...[T]hese social gatherings brought together future men of letters,

painters, sculptors and students, a scene which brings to mind the café Momus.” (Dees, 2002:

7-8) Indeed this open collaboration space was important to the work of artists who would

eventually lead the Impressionist movement.

Cafés provided the open collaboration space to bring together Impressionist artists

that shared a similar view: they rejected the drawing-focused teachings of the art institution,

Ecole Beaux-Arts. Artists such as Degas, Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Cezanne and Sisley would

gather together each week to discuss topics of the day. While the physical space of the café

may have existed previously, the open space of dialogue supporting color-oriented art had

not. Dialogue gave way a collaborative effort to launch the first independent exhibition of

Impressionism. (Dees, 2002: 9-10)

The institutional high art culture of Ecole Beaux-Arts valued economic interest over

art freedom. A leader within the art institution remarked of the challenges between the

Impressionists (e.g., informal cooperative) and the Ecole Beaux-Arts (e.g. institution)

The Salon (e.g., institution) stifles and corrupts the feeling for the great, the

beautiful; artists are driven to exhibit there by the attractions of profit, the

desire to get themselves noticed at any price, by the supposed good fortune of

an eccentric subject that is capable of producing an effect and leading to an

advantageous sale. Thus the salon is literally no more than a picture shop, a

bazaar in which the tremendous number of objects is overwhelming and

business rules instead of art. (Dees, 2002: 11)

Page 10

The dialogue amongst the artists produced a collaboration to launch the first

independent public display of Impressionist works.

The independents may have not come about if the artists had not a play

outside of the Academy. The café gave them the freedom to be independent

artists, event if it meant facing hurdles. Their little group offered the support

to bear the harsh criticism and public opinions. A solitary artist would not

have been as able to defy the system. (Dees, 2002: 38)

While the exhibition may have failed in the eyes of the art institution, the ability of the

Impressionist artists to create their own space to showcase their work may be seen as a

success. The Impressionists were able to establish their own independent space of

collaboration external to the art institution.

Act Locally, Impact Globally

Today, the Internet acts as a global communications platform. The use of technology

makes it easy to find like-minded individuals across the world. When people share an

interest, they begin to form relationships. Initially, these relationships may be weak, but as

time goes by, they may strengthen, especially when there is a physical space for

collaboration. It is just like working with someone whom you have only exchanged email.

You both have a shared experience but when you meet, that experience and relationship can

be heightened.

Informal cooperatives are able to expand beyond geographic and organizational

boundaries. “Suddenly, in the blink of an evolutionary eye, people not longer must be in the

same place—collocated—in order to work together. Now many people work in virtual teams

Page 11

that transcend distance, timezones, and organizational boundaries.” (Lipnack and Stamps,

1997: 1) While in the nineteenth century informal cooperatives, such as the Impressionists,

might have centered around the social halls of Parisian cafés, today the Internet allows for

billions of people to create their own social halls where they affiliate and dialogue with

others who have similar interests and values.

Today, there are countless examples of online collaborations. For example, musicians

from four countries collaborate together to play cover songs by the rock-n-roll band Rush.

Although the collaborators may have never met in-person, each member contributes to the

band by recording his or her part of a song which is then layered into a music video and

posted to the Virtually Rush YouTube Channel. (Virtually Rush, 2012) Another example is

Apache HTTP Project, a cooperative of software developers who contributed computer code

create the open source Apache Web Server. (Apache Foundation, 2012) As of 2010, Apache

powers over fifty-three percent of the Web servers online. (Netcraft, 2012)

The Internet provides a platform which allows for offline collaboration and assembly.

For the last twenty years, volunteer hackers (e.g., DEFCON Goons) created and managed the

world’s largest annual hacker conference, DEFCON. (DEFCON, 2012) In 2012, the

conference attracted over 12,000 participants and hosted the Director of the National Security

Agency, General Keith Alexander. (Mills, 2012) These examples showcase not just the social

nature of online collaborations, but the ability to create production value and participation

offline.

Crowdsourcing Has Changed

Often we use the term crowdsourcing (Howe, 2006: 1) incorrectly to attempt to

describe how people participate within informal cooperatives. The Wisdom of the Crowds,

Page 12

written by James Surowiecki, advocated that the online crowd “under the right

circumstances, groups can be remarkably intelligent, and often smarter than the smartest

people in them.” (Surowiecki, 2005: xiii-xiv) The sticky wicket is that crowdsourcing

participants are independent, they do not hold relationships with each other. Discussing

independences and other characteristics, Surowiecki defined “...four conditions that

characterize wise crowds: diversity of opinion (each person should have some private

information, even if it’s just an eccentric interpretation of the known facts), independence

(people’s opinion are not determined by the opinions of those around them), decentralization

(people are able to specialize and draw on local knowledge), and aggregation (some

mechanism exists for turning private judgements into a collective decision).” (Surowiecki,

2005: 10)

Jeff Howe, writer for Wired Magazine, followed up Surowiecki’s book with his own

discussion of the crowd in Crowdsourcing: Why the Power of the Crowd is Driving the

Future of Business. Howe uses examples from companies and their experiences asking for

ideas, production and other outcomes outside of their organizational boundaries. This book

forecasted that crowdsourcing (Howe, 2006: 8) would be the future of how businesses would

gain competitive advantage and value. While Howe provides examples such as iStockphoto

and Threadless, Howe mixed the approach of engagement between individuals contributing,

and groups of people who have similar interests who co-create together. This mixture of

approaches and Howe’s inability to have a meta view of the ecosystem beyond business,

challenges the notion of crowdsourcing that we have today. Six years since its publication

there have been countless examples of how people work together to create value, whether or

Page 13

not a business (e.g., institution) asks for their help. While not the focus of this thesis, the

definition of crowdsourcing may need to be updated to incorporate lessons learned,

effectiveness, sustainability and best practices experienced online. (Tice, 2009)

This chapter discusses how actions of people who cluster together through similar

interest should be defined as a different kind of group, the informal cooperative. The primary

difference between informal cooperatives and the concept of crowdsourcing is that informal

cooperatives are not independent actors, but people who have identified common interests

and seek to collaborate with others who share those similar interests. This often is confused

with crowdsourcing due to its poor definition. (Kleemann, Voß and Rieder, 2008: 1)

Individuals who participate in crowdsourcing activities cease to be independent when they

begin to form relationships and collaborate with each other. While there is an assured number

of independent actors, today the ability to connect with those sharing common interests is as

easy as a Google search. People who are interested in a particular topic are not part of an

independent crowd, rather they have transformed themselves by working with others into an

informal cooperative.

Today, independent actors may be harder to find. Just like when you move to a new

town, you might not know your neighbors initially but over time you might build a

relationship with them. The same is true with crowdsourcing. People are attracted to events

and communities who share their interests and might begin to form relationships with people

who they find there. Crowdsourcing is a beacon for common interest, however, when a

request for assistance (e.g., problem solving or tasks) is over, individuals may connect with

Page 14

other participants to dialogue and continue the collaboration. When relationships are formed

between individuals, crowdsourcing ceases because the actors are not longer independent.

Today, crowdsourcing often serves as a point of entry catalyzing common interest

within the ecosystem. Crowdsourcing often can transform strangers into collaborators.

Jennifer Wright Cook, Executive Director of The Field describes the collapse of

independence among people after they begin to connect to one another: “They exposed their

ideas to each other and to the public, and demanded fearless analysis. They progressed, their

art progressed, and their businesses moved forward. They are no longer strangers.” (The

Field, 2012)

Motivation

People use informal cooperatives as extensions of themselves. Like a brand, they see

their affiliation as a reflection of their values and interests. In fact, informal cooperatives can

be aspirational in nature. For example, if someone wants to learn how to code in Ruby they

may join the Ruby User Group and participate socially with those who know Ruby better

than they do. (Ruby User Groups, 2012) This relationship suggests that while common

interest may drive participation within the informal cooperative, it is the ability of the

individual participant to see a reflection of themselves within the actions of others. The basis

of an informal cooperative is rooted in self-interest and affiliation with those who have

similar interests and values.

In The Economies of Online Cooperation Peter Kollock discusses three key

motivational behaviors of individuals participating in virtual communities: reciprocity,

reputation and self efficacy. (Kollock, 1999: 6) Indeed, it could be argued that much of the

Page 15

behavior described by Kollock of individuals within virtual communities may have been

observed behavior of individuals who build informal cooperatives.

Reciprocity

Kollock begins with the idea of sharing where “...it is sometimes the case that

reciprocity will occur within the group as a whole in a system of generalized exchange. This

kind of network-wide accounting system creates a kind of credit, in that one can draw upon

the contributions of others without needing to immediately reciprocate.” (Kollock, 1999: 6)

This describes an informal environment where there are no checks and balances about who is

contributing more or less to the group. “If each person shares freely, the group as a whole is

better off, having access to information and advice that no single person might match. A

loose accounting system can also serve as a kind of insurance, in that one can draw from the

resources of the group when in need, without need to immediately repay each

person.” (Kollock, 1999: 6)

Informality plays a key role in reciprocity. Within informal cooperatives

reciprocity is an important cultural norm of individuals who participate. When exchange

within the informal cooperative is stifled, circulation cannot occur. This can challenge the

development of an open collaborative space conducive for exchange. A co-worker from La

Cantine in Paris discussed the tragedy of formality:

In economic environments like today which can be austere, the

concept of sharing and creating is a challenge. People don’t want

to help each other in an environment which is focused on optimization.

Information is power. When the economy is booming it’s so much

Page 16

easier to collaborate and work together, but when jobs are being

threatened people tend to keep to themselves. They are scared to lose

their job or their status. (Blanchard, 2012)

This underscores the importance of reciprocity within informal cooperatives. Chen

underscores this value where “Building up the social goods (e.g. rationality and reciprocity)

(Turner, 1991), establishing trust and creating norms (Coleman, 1988) are important

cornerstones for the success of a virtual community.” (Chen, 2006: 114)

Reputation

Social capital is a derivative product of reputation building. Portes describes social

capital as a valuable non-monetary form of capital where “...it places those positive

consequences in the framework of a broader discussion of capital and calls attention to how

such non-monetary forms can be important sources of power and influence, like the size of

one’s stock holdings or bank account.” (Portes, 2000: 2) Social capital can be exchanged.

Within the informal cooperative this exchange occurs between those who have similar

interest via participation within the group.

Kollock discusses this exchange as a motivational factor to increase “...the effect of

contributions on one's reputation. High quality information, impressive technical details in

one's answers, a willingness to help others, and elegant writing can all work to increase one's

prestige in the community.” (Kollock, 1999: 7) Reputation building creates social capital

from the relationships within the informal cooperative. Brass and Krackhardt discuss the

fragility of social capital and the dependence of its worth on participation. “Social capital is

the property of relationships; if either actor withdraws, the relationships and the social capital

Page 17

dissolve.” (Brass and Krackhardt, 1999: 180) As an extreme view of the importance of social

capital, Brass and Krackhardt claim that social capital is the interdependency from which all

capital is derived. Without it, the other forms of capital can fail. “Without social capital,

human capital and financial capital (money, credit and so forth) may be worthless.” (Brass

and Krackhardt, 1999: 180)

Efficacy

While contribution may be paramount to the energy and growth of informal

cooperatives, the ability of people to see their impact (e.g., efficacy) is of great interest and

value to participants. Kollock describes participation which results in “...valuable information

because the act results in a sense of efficacy, that is, a sense that she has some effect on this

environment” (Kollock, 1999: 7). While there may not be a wealth of literature specifically

discussing informal cooperatives, Kollock argues that there is a great deal known about the

value of efficacy within informal groups. Efficacy is common and an important motivational

factor of online participation. Kollock describes research “...has shown how important a

sense of efficacy is (e.g., Bandura, 1995), and making regular and high-quality contribution

to the group can help a person believe she has an impact on the group and support her own

self-image as an efficacious person.” (Kollock, 1999:7)

Kollock cites Constant, Kiesler, and Sproul (Kollock, 1999: 7) in his argument that

efficacy is an important element to online cooperation. “If a sense of efficacy is what is

motivating someone, then contributions are likely to be increased to the extent that people

can observe changes in the community attributable to their actions. It may also be the case

that as the size of the group increases, one will be more motivated to contribute because the

Page 18

increasing size provides a larger audience and a potentially greater impact for one's

actions” (Kollock, 1999: 7). By including this argument, Kollock emphasizes that while

people may contribute more if they can see the impact of their participation. In terms of

informal cooperatives, the more people participate, the more their contribution is seen as

meaningful within the community, the greater potential for growth. (Kollock, 1999: 7) The

more growth, the more others will be attracted to jump on the bandwagon to participate in the

informal cooperative.

New Media Object

Informal cooperatives establish an identity through social capital contributions of

others. Informal cooperatives may be an object of mediation, specifically a new media object.

Celia Lury, author of Consumer Culture, gives the example of how brands become new

media objects: “In media theory, the terms ‘frame’, ‘window’, ‘mirror,’ ‘screen’, and

‘interface’ are used in many discussion of media such as architecture, painting, cinema and

computing. The most basic definition of the frame in media theory is ‘a window that opens

onto a larger space that assume to extend beyond the frame’ (Manovich, 2011: 80);

alternatively the frame is said to separate ‘two absolutely different spaces that somehow

coexist’ (Manovich, 2001: 95).” (Lury, 2011: 152) Similar to what Lury discusses as

“...brands organize the activities of the market by acting as a dynamic frame or interface of

communication.” (Lury, 2011: 152)

Adam Arvidsson takes Lury’s argument that brands are new media objects and applies

her argument to the information economy. “I would like to expand on Lury’s suggestion to

argue that brands can be understood to exemplify, not only the status of objects in the

Page 19

information age, but the very logic of information capital.” Arvidsson argues that “Like the

factory times of Fordism, the brand stands out as a central institutionalization, a concrete

manifestation of the abstract logic of accumulation that drives capital in the information

age.” (Arvidsson, 2006: 124) Like brands, informal cooperatives attract attention and

circulation around those who see themselves or seek to affiliate others who have a common

interest. While brands are contrived objects by institutions, informal cooperatives are organic

objects which serve the special interests of individuals who seek affiliation with others. In the

information economy, informal cooperatives garner social capital through the reputation of

the individuals participating and the reputation of the actions of the group as a whole.

Ridings and Gefen describe the connection between identity of informal cooperatives

and the self “...according to social identity theory (Hogg, 1996; Tajfel, 1978; Turner, 1978,

1985), people form a social identity of values, attitudes and behavioral intentions from the

perceived membership in distinct self-inclusive real or imagined social groups. An

individual’s self-identity typically results from the membership in a preexisting self-inclusive

social group, including vocation (Hogg & Terry, 2000) and avocation (Underwood, Bond, &

Baer, 2001).” (Ridings & Gefen, 2004) This underscores Kollock’s argument that individuals

participate through self-interest.

Informal cooperatives, similar to other mediated objects, depend on circulation for

their value. The circulation of informal cooperatives is supported through: (1) attraction to a

common interest; (2) provision of an open collaboration space where mediation with the

shared interest occurs; and (3) participation of others to share skills, knowledge and

Page 20

resources. Informal cooperatives create their own worlds of distinction where affiliation and

participation take place.

Whether informal cooperatives seek to establish an identity or not, they become a

new media object within the ecosystem which others may be required to mediate. While the

ecosystem may focus on recognized legal entities, clearly these ecosystems are filled with

informal cooperatives who generate value in today’s information economy. Informal

cooperatives are mediation points for individuals and non-economically viable interests

where circulation occurs through the pooling of skills, knowledge and resources toward a

shared interest to create peer production projects. Benkler writes about this shift, “...likely

most radical, new, and difficult for observers to believe, is the rise of effective, large-scale

cooperative efforts—peer production of information, knowledge, and culture. These are

typified by the emergence of free and open-source software. We are beginning to see the

expansion of this model not only to our core software platforms, but beyond them into every

domain of information and cultural production...” (Benkler, 2006: 5) This circulation

competes for attention within the information economy beyond institutional borders or even

the ability of individuals to act on their own.

Common Features

Today, there are probably hundreds of models of how informal cooperatives work.

Informal cooperatives have an unfettered ability to create ideas, share knowledge, and make

decisions for themselves. Informal cooperatives provide open collaboration spaces for

participants to share skills, knowledge and resources. Often participants are affiliated and

participate in several informal cooperatives at the same time, including ones who seem to

Page 21

compete with one another. Informal cooperatives are often free (i.e., without cost) to

participate and use common tools such as wikis, IRC and Google groups to communicate.

Informal cooperatives require little capital investment. Levels of participation range from

those who want to merely be updated to the group’s activities to those who are active

participants. The following are eight features of informal cooperatives:

1. Informality: Informal cooperatives offer an environment of informality with little barrier

to entry to participate. Conditions which exist around these groups can foster experiential

learning, rapid prototyping, market insights, and trend identification. “Environment plays

a major role in shaping his ideas and intentions. Learning occurs primarily through the

association between stimulus and response.” (Kolb, 1984: 24)

2. Trust: Trust is established through the relationships within the informal cooperative that

supports the social norms of the group and reinforces the reciprocity ethos that drives

open collaboration culture. The ability to trust first and ask questions later is a common

characteristic of online communities. A level of trust between participants enables an

environment where creativity is nurtured through open collaboration.

3. Independence: Informal cooperatives are not governed by external agents, rather they are

guided by participants within the group. Participants are attracted to the informal

cooperative because there is a space where they have autonomy and can self-direct their

contributions to the group. Independence is a vital characteristic of the informal

cooperative. Individuals expect to manage their own contribution and to have input on the

management of shared resources. Informal cooperatives require an environment free from

constraints.

Page 22

4. Normative Governance: Informal cooperatives have normative (i.e., undocumented)

governance structures such as meritocracy, which places value on the level and length of

participation as well as on adherence to social norms (e.g., being helpful, no flame

throwing or credit taking). Role-modeling behavior communicates to the community

what is acceptable behavior and what is not. Governance may be written down

informally as guidance rather than hard, fast rules. Social norms are learned through

active listening and observation by participants.

5. Open Collaboration: Informal cooperatives often work out loud, meaning that they work

out in the open where people can access what they are working on and can provide

insights. (Gray, 2012) (Milton, 2012) Kollock mentions that groups share resources and

transactions are recorded in the public eye. (Kollock: 1999: 6) Technology tools such as

wikis and Google groups provide open spaces where knowledge can be recorded and

knowledge can be transferred seamlessly. By placing this information in a public space,

this offers an increased level of transparency to potentially increase trust within the group

and allow for latent participants to get up to speed on how they can contribute. Benkler

shares a related perspective in his book The Wealth of Networks: “My claim is that the

emergence of a substantial non-market alternative path for cultural conversation increases

the degrees of freedom available to individuals and groups to engage in cultural

production and exchange, and that doing so increases the transparency of culture to its

inhabitants.” (Benkler, 2006: 293) Therefore, open collaboration isn’t necessarily aimed

at transparency for accountability sake rather alternative paths for knowledge transfers

and potentially, peer production. As Kollock references, it is in the best interest of the

Page 23

group that information be shared widely using tools which are accessible to all

participants. (Kollock, 1999: 7)

6. Experiential Learning: Individuals who participate within an informal cooperative are

learning by doing. Kolb discusses three core areas of experiential learning: (1) “Learning

is best conceived as a process, not in terms of outcomes;” (Kolb, 1984: 26) (2) “Learning

is a continuous process grounded in experience;” (Kolb, 1984: 27) and (3) The process of

learning requires the resolution of conflicts between dialectically opposed modes of

adaption to the world.” (Kolb, 1984: 29) Participants learn through the experience by

attempting to learn skills or create projects which they may have never tried beforehand.

Learning through experience often is tied to mentorship. This allows for participation in

an open space where individuals have varied levels of skills. Informality fosters

conditions which allow for iteration and failure.

7. Mentorship: Those who guide can act as mentors within informal cooperatives. Mentors

often are individuals who have participated for an extended period of time or whom have

a specific expertise that they are willing to share with others. Mentors manage the flow of

new contributions towards productive use. Mentors guide with a light touch to reinforce

social norms and knowledge transfer within the open collaboration space. Similar to a

lifeguard, mentors support the safety and wellness of participants within the informal

cooperative. Mentors maybe self-appointed, but are a critical element to supporting the

overall health and wellness of the cooperative. Mentors empower the free flow of

information through open collaboration so new participants can see what has been done

Page 24

before and best decide how they would like to contribute to the cooperative. (Sinclair,

2003: 79)

8. New Space for Collaboration: Informal cooperatives create a new space for collaboration

between individuals who may have not worked together previously. This open space

allows for risk taking, creativity, and failure. When informal cooperatives work beyond

their immediate interest with other groups, such as institutions, a collaboration sphere is

created. This independent space allows for people to work beyond their immediate

interests towards a common goal between the both groups.

Risk, Culture and Intra-preneurs

An entrepreneur from La Cantine, a local Parisian co-working space, discussed the

challenge that institutions have in creating an enabling environment for innovation and

exchange.

Idea is that the kind of people who run companies are sometimes just alike.

Often they are similar kinds of people who have been taught to optimize the

company (e.g., MBAs). They are there not to create new ideas but to optimize

processes and systems which are already there instead of creating a creative

process. In effect, what they do is castrate the company from all of its

ideas...Companies are often only focused on optimization where the sole focus

is to eliminate excess instead of trying to do something that is new. These are

different things. They [the companies] don’t have the space to actually exploit

their ideas. (Blanchard, 2012)

Page 25

Institutions are victim to process and accountability in order to be competitive within the

marketplace. The ability to create a space to experiment and prototype ideas may not exist

within an organization’s business model (i.e., humanitarian relief). The tendency to value

optimization over innovation (e.g., creationism) challenges institutions ability create a space

where experimentation and failure is tolerated.

Randy Komisar, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur and venture capital investor, discusses

the deep cultural challenges that institutions have with respect for taking risks required to

propel the organization forward. Komisar argues that institutions have an inability to tolerate

risks, even within the most innovative companies.

Innovation is about taking risk to do things that haven't been done before. If

you could do them with a level of certainty that would increase the odds above

50%, we wouldn't need Silicon Valley. Big companies would do it, and they'd

do it well. The reason big companies don't venture into what Silicon Valley

does is because their business models do not tolerate the level of failure

required for innovation. (Komisar, 2004)

Failure isn’t an option for institutions. Conversely, within informal cooperatives, failure is

embraced. Komisar links the inability to tolerate failure within institutions (e.g., companies)

relation to organizational culture.

What generally is lacking is a culture of constructive failure. Constructive

failure, the ability to tolerate failure, proceed with your career, and do it again;

Page 26

and take your experience and cash in on it as an asset. Still, many business

cultures where when you fail, you're finished. (Komisar, 2004)

The Trouble with Culture

Informal cooperatives often can serve a role within the ecosystem by providing

institutions an external open collaboration space where new ideas can be tested. Within

many institutions, open space for collaboration may not exist. This has nothing to do with

resources, rather its cause is market forces which reinforce priorities, culture and investment

choices. Without an independent open collaboration space within today’s network of

networks, the ability to innovate may become seriously paralyzed. Even when emerging

trends are brought into the institution, they may be discounted or ignored. Kurt Eichenwald, a

writer for Vanity Fair, profiled Microsoft’s culture challenges which have impacted its

position within the marketplace. (Eichenwald, 2012)

In 2003, a young developer noticed that friends in college signed up for AIM

exclusively and left it running most of the time. The reason? They wanted to

use the program’s status message, which allowed them to type a short note

telling their online buddies what they were doing, even when they weren’t at

the computer. Messages like “gone shopping” and “studying for my exams”

became commonplace. (Eichenwald, 2012)

“That was the beginning of the trend toward Facebook, people having

somewhere to put their thoughts, a continuous stream of consciousness,” said

the developer, who worked in the MSN Messenger unit. “The main purpose of

Page 27

AIM wasn’t to chat, but to give you the chance to log in at any time and check

out what your friends were doing.” (Eichenwald, 2012)

The developer concluded that no young person would switch from AIM to

MSN Messenger, which did not have the short-message feature. He spoke

about the problem to his boss, a middle-aged man. The supervisor dismissed

the developer’s concerns as silly. Why would young people care about putting

up a few words? Anyone who wanted to tell friends what they were doing

could write it on their profile page, he said. Meaning users would have to open

the profile pages, one friend at a time, and search for a status message, if it

was there at all. (Eichenwald, 2012)

“He didn’t get it,” the developer said. “And because he didn’t know or didn’t

believe how young people were using messenger programs, we didn’t do

anything.” (Eichenwald, 2012)

This behavior is indicative of what Horgeon, Joroff, Porter and Schon discuss in relation to

their call for a process architect within the institution. “Fear on the part of the less powerful

players coupled with arrogance and blindness on the part of the more powerful ones [which]

kept the key issues undiscussable, preventing them from surfacing soon enough to be

productively dealt with” (Horgen, Joroff, Porter and Schon, 1989: 99). Institutions lack

organizational culture which will can allow for greater experimentation and exchange. Open

collaboration culture is the foundation of informal cooperatives.

Page 28

Larry Page, founder and CEO of Google, sees troubles ahead. Page along with Sergey

Brin created Google to be synonymous with innovation. Today, Google is a multi-national

company and its CEO now fears that culture, not resources, is the number one obstacle to

innovation.

When I asked him last September (in one of the very rare opportunities for

reporters to pose questions to him on the record) what he thought was

Google’s threat, the answer was out of his mouth even before I finished the

query. “Google,” he said. Page lives in horror of the company being bogged

down by inertia, timidity or the sluggishness of bureaucracy. (Levy, 2012)

Ironically, founders of many of the world’s leading technology companies have benefited

from open collaboration environments which, like Google and Microsoft, they later find

challenging to recapture.

Individuals within institutions who seek to apply emerging trends, new technologies

and skills toward the mission of the institution are intra-preneurs. These employees often

crave a culture of open collaboration and are employed at innovative institutions such as

Google and Microsoft. Gifford Pinchot describes this role as “Intra-preneur is short for intra-

corporate entrepreneur. Within an organization, intra-preneurs take new ideas and turn them

into profitable new realities. Without empowered intra-preneurs, organizations don’t

innovate. Yet too many organizations water their intra-preneurial talent.” (Pinchot, 1985; ix)

Employees within institutions who are intra-preneurs serve as catalysts for entrepreneurship

within their own institution. They seek to empower open collaboration and engagement to

new communities outside of its organizational boundaries. Institutional culture challenges the

Page 29

ability for intra-preneurs to share their ideas, skills, and knowledge. Instead, intra-preneurs

often go elsewhere (e.g., informal cooperatives) to give life to their ideas.

Page 30

Chapter Two: Kernels and Collaboration Spheres

Page 31

When two or more people get together to collaborate, they develop an informal

cooperative. When an informal cooperative is created, the original or high energy

participants of the informal cooperative are its kernel. Andrew Turner, co-founder of

CrisisCommons, used this term in an organizational perspective where he stated, “I think it's

just missing a few kernels to form a more cohesive and solid organization that will make it

much easier to grow all the other ideas we keep pondering.” (Turner, 2012) This term is

derived from computer operating systems where “The kernel is a program that constitutes the

central core of a computer operating system.” (Linux Project, 2004) This chapter moves the

definition of the kernel from a systems engineering concept to an organizational development

construction whose primary role is to guide and cultivate an environment conducive for

dialogue, cooperation and collaboration.

Kernels are living stewards of the informal cooperative. “In stewardship theory, the

model of man is based on a steward whose behavior is ordered such that pro-organizational,

collectivistic behaviors have higher utility than individualistic, self-serving behaviors. Given

a choice between self-serving behavior and pro-organizational behavior, a steward’s behavior

will not depart from the interests of his or her organization.” (Davis, Schoorman &

Donaldson, 1997: 24) Similar to ambassadors, kernels display agency and are often born

diplomatic skills. To institutions and external groups, kernels may be characterized in an

activist or leadership role. Ultimately, kernels are adept at bringing people together to foster

an enabling environment conducive for dialogue, cooperation and collaboration.

Page 32

The Light Touch

The relationship between kernels and participants within the informal cooperatives is

akin to process architect. Horgen, Joroff, Port and Schon offer “The process architect can

help the organization to address, and often to reframe, its problems.” (Horgen, Joroff, Porter

and Schon, 1999: 56)

An effective process architect will get the team to draw upon this accumulated

learning as a platform for moving forward. The client group and other

stakeholders, with support of the process architect, continuously evaluate the

existing environments for work, the design process, and the artifacts it

produces, seeking to discover what works. Evaluation and learning are

continuous and quite mess, because the very meaning of “what works” and the

criteria to be used to make those judgements are open to question and

determination as part of the design inquiry. (Horgen, Joroff, Porter and Schon,

1999: 60)

While the position described by Horgen, Joroff, Porter and Schon is within the workplace, it

can be applied to an informal cooperative where the kernel provides a light touch to guide

and enable conditions conducive to collaboration. The authors claim this is not a random

volunteer role, rather “The role of the process architect is not given, but it must be created.

Workplace-making may play itself out in the hands of a single participant, or it may move

from one person to another—or no single person that actually direct the process.” (Horgen,

Joroff, Porter and Schon, 1989: 91)

Kernels often evolve into their role rather than being appointed. They may exhibit

similar characteristics as process architects. In a way, kernels may in fact be managing the

Page 33

emotion of the group. “I propose that one role of a group leader, especially an emergent

group leader, is to interpret ambiguous situations and then to model an appropriate emotional

response. This modeled emotional response resolves immediate problems of ambiguity and

emotional expression that the group needs to confront for it to move forward.” (Pescosolido,

2002: 4) In both informal cooperatives and institutions, the kernels may apply lessons learned

and best practice strategies towards guiding and documenting participation within the group.

Kernels may be misunderstood by participants and external stakeholders as holding

positions of power rather than a guiding role. Horgen, Joroff, Porter and Schon discuss this

through the lens of the process architect role. “What they do and how and when they do it is

affected by the roles they are given or assume, the authority they begin with or accumulate,

and their own normative frameworks of action. In any case, the process architect enters the

game with the aim of directing it toward greater collaboration and co-invention.” (Horgen,

Joroff, Porter and Schon, 1989: 91) Kernels can act as process architects, but their role is

contingent upon establishing trust and participation within the group that they support.

Institutional Kernel

Institutional kernels are first adopters and change agents. While informal cooperatives

may need more than one person to create a kernel, institutions may have several individuals

who act as kernels but are not part of any internal group. Institutional kernels can have a

limited ability to connect with others within the institution. Institutional kernels play an intra-

preneurial role to shift their organization towards a more open collaboration culture. “These

people were not just ‘business-as-usual,’ but they were actually trying to shift their

company’s corporate course.” (Clay, 2012) Often institutional kernels may be unable to reach

Page 34

decision-makers or have a space to connect with others within the institution because of

organizational culture, management structures and geography. Institutions may not

incentivize the ability for their employees to contribute to the organization beyond their job

description. Such contribution is often discouraged as detailed in the Microsoft messenger

example. (Eichenwald, 2012) As such, institutions may be unable to leverage their most

valuable resource: their own people.

Structural Holes

If the information economy is comprised of a network of networks, the question then

is: are these networks connected or are there gaps between groups? Sociologist Ronald Burt

describes gaps within social structure as structural holes. Burt defines this space between

disconnected groups as “...missing relationships that inhibit information flow between

people.” (Burt, 2007: 119) Characteristic of information cooperatives, the affiliation of only

those who have similar interest and values are echoed by Burt. “Information, opinion, and

practice are more homogeneous within than between groups, so a manager whose network

spans structure holes (call him a network broker, connector, or entrepreneur) has a vision

advantage in early exposure to diverse information and a general political advantage as a hub

in the information flow.” (Burt, 2007: 119) Burt describes this phenomenon not as a

competition within the environment but rather the effort in extracting value from the distance

between two groups. “The structural hole argument is not a theory of competitive

relationships. It is a theory about competition for the benefits of relationships.” (Burt, 1995:

5)

While Burt describes structural holes from an external perspective, from

organizational development we know that structural holes also exist within institutions. There

Page 35

is not one kind of gap between disconnected people and groups, there can be many. We can

expand upon Burt’s concept of the structural hole to also address gaps within informal

cooperatives and institutions. External structural holes are gaps between groups (e.g.

institutions and informal cooperatives) while internal structural holes are gaps within the

group or institution. This distinction is important because institutions and informal

cooperatives alike have gaps within their own culture and social composition.

Bridging structural holes may be seen as an act of negotiating between two cultures.

The value of structural holes is that they may be recognized and bridged. Those who span

between structural holes are brokers, who can act as new curators (See Chapter 4).

“Structural holes are thus an opportunity to broker the flow of information between people,

and control the projects that bring together people from opposite sides of the hole.” (Burt,

2001: 35)

Structural holes are not invisible. Burt suggests that these gaps may in fact be visible

to the participants. This signals that gaps which exist, both internal and external, often can be

conscious choices of the groups who might have a benefit by not addressing the

disconnection. Often structural holes are clearly visible, if not strategically place, to those

who operate within the ecosystem. (Kollock, 1999: 7) “The structural hole between two

groups does not mean that people in the groups are unaware of one another. It only means

that people are focused on their own activities such as they do not attend to the activities of

people in the other group.” (Burt, 2001: 34-35)

Addressing structural holes, both within and external to a group, can produce

outcomes such as increased empathy. Preece and Kambiz describe “Research on empathy

Page 36

shows that people who share common experiences, who have similar interests, who are

similar or who know each other well, tend to be more empathetic (Colvin, Vogt, & Ickes,

1997; Ickes, 1997) than people without these circumstances.” While empathy may be a

cohesion element to the information cooperative, it can also go a long way to build

understanding and trust between two groups who have dissimilar interests and values.

(Preece and Kambiz, 2001: 250) Open collaboration space can be seen as a tool to bridge the

distance between groups. In a self-actualized state, open collaboration space can set the

condition conducive for co-creation between groups to fuel a new marketplace of ideas and

joint prototype development.

Legitimacy

In some instances, institutional kernels participate within informal cooperatives. In

fact, informal cooperatives can be created due to the frustration of institutional kernels who

have an inability to collaborate beyond their own job. Participants of informal cooperatives,

whether active or latent, may represent an institution’s interest. When institutional kernels

participate within informal cooperatives, they often present a public disclaimer which

distances their personal interests and the interests of their employer. Participants often will

say that I’m here in my personal capacity and I do not represent the interests of my company.

(Graham, 2012) This public disclaimer is a social form of due diligence attempting to satisfy

an unsaid need to create distance between their personal and professional contributions.

While these statements may comfort the individual, institutional kernels, whether they intend

to, or not, give gravitas (CrisisCamp, 2009) and legitimacy (CrisisCamp Ignite, 2009) to

activities within the informal cooperative.

Page 37

Collaboration Sphere

The space between informal cooperatives and institutions is an independent open

collaboration space called the collaboration sphere. This space is independent and free from

ownership. The collaboration sphere exists when two groups come together beyond

organizational borders of their institutions and interests of informal cooperatives. This space

acts as a catalyst to move groups beyond dialogue towards co-creation. Institutions describe

external stakeholders as partners and the space that the relationship exists within is a

partnership. This space is a forum for dialogue, however the collaboration sphere catalyzes

action which neither group could accomplish on their own.

Analyzing social work, Colin Whittington frames the distance between dialogue and

action among stakeholders within a partnership. Whittington believes that partnerships

transition from a state of a relationship (e.g., dialogue) to a state of partnership in action

(e.g., collaboration). (Whittington, 1988: 39-40) This new space, where these actions take

place, is the collaboration sphere. Whittington underscores the existence of other spheres and

the identities that they employ. “Underlying the model are two sets of ideas, ‘system’ and

‘identity’, and a perspective known widely as ‘the social construction of reality (Berger and

Luckman 1967). The idea of system enables us to think of each sphere as being real in the

sense of having dynamics and characteristics that are experienced as independent of any

individual people involved.” (Whittington, 1988: 39-40)

Whittington uses the concept of the sphere ”to encapsulate identity and system and

the processes which bind them.” (Whittington, 1988: 40) Processes within the informal

collaboration, Whittington explains, are the cultural norms and interest of the participants.

This points to Jürgen Habermas and his concept of the public sphere. Habermas discussed in

Page 38

order for democracy to take room that a open space for reasoned discourse to discuss topics

of the day between civil society and the state should exist. (Habermas, 1991: xi) Habermas

portrayed the public sphere as an ideal state. “As a sphere between civil society and that

state, in which critical public discussions of matters of general interest was institutionally

guaranteed, the liberal public sphere tool shape in the specific historical circumstances of a

developing market economy.” (Habermas, 1999: xi) If we apply the concept of the public

sphere to those who cooperate and form relationships within the information economy, a new

collaboration sphere exists where knowledge and production can occur among those who

have similar interests. While Habermas’ public sphere has been widely criticized as an

utopian state, it provides a structuralization from which to view the interaction which occurs

between groups and ideally how they can be empowered to participate in processes which

they do not own or control.

In the 1950s, Fowle described how a London art community created their own space

of collaboration in an unorthodox way. “In London, the Independent Group transformed the

audience from a spectator into a participant in the production of culture. Consisting of artists,

architects and critics—Richard Hamilton, Alison and Peter Smithson, and Lawrence

Alloway, to name a few—the group developed around the Institute of Contemporary Art

from 1952, providing a forum for public debate through lectures, dialogues, and

exhibitions.” (Fowle, 2007: 13) This space for dialogue and engagement reflects back to

Habermas’ public sphere. Today, the public sphere has transformed the information economy.

No longer are citizens interested in dialogue but they are interested in participating in what

interests them. (Habermas, 1999: xi)

Page 39

If we examine Whittington’s view of collaboration as partnership in action, we can

understand that the collaboration sphere is an action-oriented space that straddles informal

cooperatives and institutions. Whittington proposes that within social work there is the team

sphere. “The team or workgroup represents for many social workers, and some other

professionals, the most tangible connection between their personal and professional self and

the organization which they work. For some, the team provides a human face of an otherwise

large and impersonal organization. It may help them in locating a real sense of membership

and with it an important identity.” (Whittington, 2003: 44)

Related to Whittington’s example of the team sphere, the collaboration sphere is

where people can meet (e.g., in-person or virtually), discuss topics of the day and potentially

collaborate on interests that are shared, but may not be common to either groups. This new

space nurtures connectivity, co-creation, risk-taking, remix and do-it-yourself Maker cultures

(Lahart, 2009). An ethos of failure is embraced by those who participate in the space as a

precursor towards finding the break through or innovation.

To extrapolate from Whittington and Habermas, we know that there are three

characteristics that support the argument that a collaboration sphere exists. First, we

recognize a sphere as a space of identity where people within groups (or individually) come

together towards an interest. Second we see the value produced by the circulation created by

these spheres. Third, we know that these sphere may not be inclusive to anyone wishing to

participate and can be negatively affected by external forces which may seek to influence

information and outcomes within the sphere. Finally, we know that while the sphere is meant

Page 40

to be an open space, it is through the use of technology where the space can facilitate

collaboration beyond what Habermas or Whittington envision.

Value of the collaboration sphere to institutions

Some institutions may look upon participation within collaboration sphere, especially

with informal cooperatives, as extensions of their research and development capacity.

Institutions may seek new talents and ideas by being part of what is happening on the ground.

Informal cooperatives may be seen as test beds where institutions can pilot new ideas with

others. Informal cooperatives may be utilized to demonstrate a proof of concept where intra-

preneurs seek a validation to create a business case for investment. During Random Hacks of

Kindness hackathons prototype products are created in a weekend to aid in disaster relief.

(Mills, 2009) One of the prototypes, “I’m Okay” was used during the 2010 Haiti earthquake.

(World Bank, 2012) Institutions may see informal cooperatives as personal development

and learning opportunities for their employees to broaden their skills and professional

networks. Informal cooperatives provide an environment where their employees can work

beyond their organization’s borders.

Overall, institutions may leverage the collaboration sphere’s unique environment

where high tolerance of risk and support for creativity is championed as opposed to the

overtly managed and optimized institutional environment. The collaboration sphere becomes

the space between interests of individuals and institutions, by promoting circulation between

those who may not necessarily have connected to one another. This reduces the possibility

that nodes stagnate or become polarized by their own interests. Collaboration within the

sphere can create empathy, understanding and trust between groups fostering diversity with a

Page 41

common interest rather than polarity. The collaboration sphere connects networks that

wouldn’t have been able to bridge themselves creating a new independent space that neither

group could create on their own.

Page 42

Chapter Three: The Value of Weak Ties

Page 43

Gladwell’s Challenge

Malcolm Gladwell, author of the Tipping Point, ignited a firestorm on Twitter when

he penned for New York Magazine, “Small Change: Why the revolution will not be

tweeted.” (Gladwell, 2012: 1) Gladwell argues that weak ties, such as those that inspired the

Arab Spring, will not create lasting change.

There is strength in weak ties, as the sociologist Mark Granovetter has

observed. Our acquaintances—not our friends—are our greatest source of new

ideas and information. The Internet lets us exploit the power of these kinds of

distant connections with marvellous efficiency. It’s terrific at the diffusion of

innovation, interdisciplinary collaboration, seamlessly matching up buyers

and sellers, and the logistical functions of the dating world. But weak ties

seldom lead to high-risk activism. (Gladwell, 2012: 3)

Gladwell, while understanding the significance of weak ties, negates their utility to create

action. Sociologist Mark Granovetter developed the term weak ties to discuss how there is

greater value within distant relationships than with strong ones. In this chapter, we explore

the weaknesses of Gladwell’s argument and the importance of weak ties.

Granovetter describes weak ties in his book, The Strength of Weak Ties, as a concept

where: “Most intuitive notions of the ‘strength’ of an interpersonal tie should be satisfied by

the following definition: the strength of a tie is a (probably linear) combination of the amount

of time, the emotional intensity, the intimacy (mutual confiding), and the reciprocal services

which characterize the tie.” (Granovetter, 1973: 1361) Granovetter brings the concept to our

Page 44

everyday lives by saying that “most of us can agree, on a rough intuitive basis, whether a

given tie is strong, weak or absent.” (Granovetter, 1973: 1361)

The importance of a tie is not necessarily whether it is strong or weak, but if it exists

at all. Weak ties bring together those who have common interest or values. The initial act of

connecting—the establishment of a relationship between two people or two groups—may be

the only action that is ever taken. For some, connection is the beginning of a new

relationship. While for others, there may never be an evolution of that relationship. When

there is an overwhelming common interest, such as a crisis event, weak ties can spring into

action. They create initial communication gateways through which action may be eventually

organized.

Latency to Sensory Systems

Weak ties can transform relationships from a latent observation role towards a high

energy active role supporting a living new sensory network. People who are within a weak tie

relationship may observe and learn by merely being connected through a common space.

Similar to watching a town square full of people, weak ties are able to watch and learn from

the behavior of others.

Today, it is possible to have your own personal town square, in a digital sense, filled

with individuals and groups who have weak and strong ties. By establishing weak ties,

permission is given to those who may not have similar interests or values, to access their

personal town squares. Within these spaces, weak ties play an observer role. They watch

what is shared, listen to conversations and learn from the exchange. This may be

Page 45

characterized as latency (e.g., an absence of action) but is valuable to increasing diversity

within a personal town square.

Gladwell’s assertion that weak ties may never spring into high-risk activism may be

because he perceived weak ties as a permanent latent state. In fact, weak ties display action

during novel events such as natural disasters or when an individual is threatened. Weak ties

are just the beginning of a relationship. They are the starting point. Communications between

two people or two communities begins with a single connection. The shape and scale of weak

tie relationships can evolve and strengthen over time. We can compare weak ties to a dirt

road. While the path along a direct road may be rocky, unrefined and informal, it provides a

connection point between two paths. With regard to weak ties, this connection transforms the

unknown towards a known relationship.

Diversity

Weak ties create diversity within individuals and groups. “From the individual’s point

of view, then weak ties are an important resource in making possible mobility opportunity.

Seen from a more macroscopic vantage, weak ties play a role in effecting social

cohesion.” (Granovetter, 1973: 1372) Weak ties can play a supporting role within informal

cooperatives to create diversity among individuals within the group. Granovetter supports

this approach. “Unlike most models of interpersonal networks, the one presented here is not

meant primarily for application to small, face-to-face groups or to groups in confined

institutional or organizational settings. Rather, it is meant for linkage of such small-scale

levels with one another and with larger, more amorphous ones. This is why emphasis here

has been placed more on weak ties than on strong. Weak ties are more likely to link members

Page 46

of different small groups than are strong ones, which tend to be concentrated within

particular groups.” (Granovetter, 1973: 1376)

Informal cooperatives can benefit from the diversity which weak ties present to the

group to mitigate against the negative impact of polarization. The greater the number of weak

ties, the more potential that the informal cooperative may have to being more inclusive and

diverse environment. Acting in an observer role, weak tie relationships may potentially have

significant amount of impact in guiding norms and behaviors of the informal cooperative.

Facebook and Weak Ties

Eytan Bakshy, a member of the Facebook Data Science team, examined Granovetter’s

work and aligned it with Facebook data to suggest that weak ties are still the most valuable

relationships one can have in their social system. This demonstrates further evidence to

support Granovetter’s claim that weak ties have more benefits to individuals than strong ties.

Bakshy refers to Granovetter’s in his argument on the value of weak ties: “...[O]our close

friends strongly sway which information we share, but overall their impact is dwarfed by the

collective influence of numerous more distant contacts—what sociologists call "weak ties." It

is our diverse collection of weak ties that most powerfully determines what information we're

exposed to.” (Bakshy, 2012) Bakshy furthered his position by stating that “Granovetter

found that surprisingly, people are more likely to acquire jobs that they learned about through

individuals they interact with infrequently rather than their close personal contacts.” (Bakshy,

2012)

Page 47

Bakshy argues that weak ties are unlikely to be as active or aligned with common

interest. This characteristic of weak ties is key because it draws importance to the diversity

which weak ties can bring to individual relationships and groups.

When a person interacts with two individuals frequently, those individuals are

also likely to interact with one another. It follows that people tend to form

dense clusters of strong ties who are all connected. Since people in these

clusters all know each other, any information that is available to one

individual spreads quickly to others within the cluster. These tight-knit social

circles tend to be small relative to people's entire social network, and when it

comes to information about future job opportunities, it can be hard to find new

leads. (Bakshy, 2012)

The more focused the similar interest is within the informal cooperative, the more strong ties

which exist in the group, the more homogenous the informal cooperative will become.

Homogenous groups can be challenging to the ecosystem as they are self-referencing bodies

instead of environments who welcome collaboration beyond their interests and values.

Weak ties create sources of information and action, especially during crisis events.

These events can transform weak ties from latency to supporting a living sensory network.

While strong ties may be perceived to be more durable during everyday exchanges, weak ties

can catalyze spaces of collaboration to address unmet needs of the ecosystem. Bakshy

outlines this difference: “Granovetter used the relationship between interaction frequency and

social structure to explain why information about jobs is instead found through weak ties that

we interact with infrequently. Weak ties help spread novel information by bridging the gap

Page 48

between clusters of strong tie contacts. The strength of weak ties informs much of the

popular understanding of information spread in social networks.” (Bakshy, 2012) Crisis

events have demonstrated Bakshy’s position where it is not the strong ties, but the weak ties

which ignite action. The Haiti earthquake (e.g., natural disaster), Arab Spring and Occupy

Wall Street (e.g., political uprising) all received significant support from weak ties.

Sense-making and Proxy Services

Ties of all strengths support sense making, especially weak ties. These relationships act as a

sense-making and proxy services for other individuals and groups of whom they are

connected, especially during times of crisis. Weak ties curate content within the personal

public square to develop a sense of situational awareness. Dennis Mileti, a social scientist,

observed that people often seek more than one source of information in a crisis. Mileti called

this behavior the milling effect. People may not trust just one piece of information, but they

may place more weight to it if there are others who say or share the same news. Wood and

Mileti discussed the wealth of evidence which supports this theory: “The literature clearly

documents that preparedness is the consequence of information that first motivates people to

engage in searching behavior or “milling” in their environment and interacting with others to

affirm the appropriateness of taking preparatory behavior.” Mileti connects this idea with

individual agency. “Perhaps this is because information seeking allows people to have a

sense of control of their own response to risk communications and to perceive their actions as

self-driven.” (Wood and Mileti, 2011: 5)

Weak ties may be used as proxy agents during times of crisis. This behavior is the

ability to complete a task for another person. Rebuffing Gladwell’s assertion that weak ties

play latent observer roles, we know know there is evident to the contrary. Today, people

Page 49

expect response from their personal town squares. In 2010, the American Red Cross

conducted a public survey where they asked if people would expect a response if they asked

for help on Facebook (or any other social technology). (American Red Cross, 2010) The data

revealed a very high expectation that not only would people expect others within their social

networks to respond, but they believed that the help they are looking for would arrive

quickly. (American Red Cross, 2010) More than two-thirds of the respondents expected help

to arrive within three hours. More than a third of the respondents expected help to arrive

within an hour of the request. (American Red Cross, 2010)

During a crisis event or if someone is under duress, relationships come to their aid by

acting as proxy agents to provide information or resources which are out of reach of the tie

who is requesting assistance. For example, in Australia two teenage girls were trapped in a

storm drain and used Facebook status update to ask for help. Firefighter Glenn Benham told

Online Mail that “These girls were able to access Facebook on their mobile phones so they

could have called the emergency services.” Benham went on to question their behavior to

first reach out for help through Facebook: “It seems absolutely crazy but they updated their

status rather than call us directly.” (Online Mail, 2009) This debunks Gladwell’s assertion

that weak ties are not prone to action.

Relationship Storage Units

Facebook is an example of digital relationship storage unit. Conceivably children

born today will be able to keep connections with almost every person that they meet during

their lifetime. Never before have we been able to store so many latent connections (e.g.,

weak ties) which can be used in the future. Granovetter explains: “When a man changes jobs,

he is not only moving from one network of ties to another, but also establishing a link

Page 50

between these. Such a link is often of the same kind which facilitated his own

movement.” (Granovetter, 1973: 1372)

Granovetter points the value that movement can bring. This can be seen as circulation

which can, over time, develop new weak ties. “Information and ideas thus flow more easily

through the speciality, giving it some “sense of community,” activated at meetings and

conventions. Maintenance of weak ties may well be the most important consequence of such

meetings.” (Granovetter, 1973: 1373) By the ability to have long-term storage of

relationships (e.g. weak or strong ties) we can maintain connection indefinitely.

While circulation between groups creates connection. The derivative product of

meeting someone is the potential to capture and store that connection. You may never talk to

them again after a conference, but have access to them through the storage of the

relationship. Weak ties begin the establishment of dialogue and action which might not have

been possible if it wasn’t accessible.

Gladwell challenges the ability of individuals to develop and maintain the volume of

relationships which are now possible due to the new capacity to store relationships for an

indefinite amount of time.

The platforms of social media are built around weak ties. Twitter is a way of

following (or being followed by) people you may never have met. Facebook is

a tool for efficiently managing your acquaintances, for keeping up with the

people you would not otherwise be able to stay in touch with. That’s why you

can have a thousand ‘friends’ on Facebook, as you never could in real life.

(Gladwell, 2010)

Page 51

Storage units such as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn foster an environment where ties of all

strengths can participate (i.e., some latent, some active). The personal town square provides a

mechanism where weak ties can learn about others without direct engagement. The personal

town square is a space where ties can listen and mingle with each other. Through social

technologies these platforms have the ability to store relationships with the promise of future

use and the potential to strengthen the relationship into a closer connection.

We have technology that is easily accessible and capable of storing all of our

relationships that we make over our lifetime. This storage allows for relationships of all

strengths to be managed. Today, we may not fully understand the implications of long-term

connection to weak ties. While not a focus of this chapter, scholars suggest there is an

opportunity to invest in research to understand the impacts of permanent connectivity.

“Information processing technologies, while providing virtual infinite numbers of

connections, also emphasize the efficient use of these connections. Building random

networks of connections becomes less efficient as the number of possible connections

increases. Thus the strategic use of both strong and weak ties becomes more important as we

move into the twenty-first century.” (Brass and Krackhardt, 1999: 191)

Cost and Value

The use of relationship storage units creates efficiency in managing ties for the long

term, the establishment and leverage of ties has a cost. Brass and Krackhardt argue that while

one may conclude that the larger the network, the more valuable it is, the cost of ties, either

weak or strong should be factored in: “Thus, it would seem that bigger networks are better.

However, one important qualifying assumption to it is in terms of time and energy. And,

Page 52

some links are more costly (in terms of time and energy) than other links.” As such, Brass

and Krackhardt, point to two strategies, one using weak ties and one using strong ties: “Weak

tie bridges act as conduits for the flow of information between other densely connected,

cohesive units.” (Brass and Krackhardt, 1999: 185)

While Gladwell’s challenge has been critiqued in this chapter, there remain questions

related to how ties can be more useful to individuals and groups. While there is evidence that

weak ties may be more useful during novel situations, today we may not completely

understand or have the ability to harness these relationships. Brass and Krackhardt are

concerned and call for additional research in these areas:

Rapid changes may make strong tie strategies less useful than the past. Strong

ties are resistant to change and provide redundant information that may be

self-confirming within highly cohesive units. In facing challenges of

uncertain, changing technologies and environments, strong tie networks may

offer few alternative perspectives and solutions to novel problems. Thus, weak

tie strategies may provide necessary information and the ability to link diverse

groups together in a cooperative, successful manner. Weak ties across groups

can become trusted strong ties as useful interactions are repeated, and builds

among actors. Under such circumstances, strong ties can link diverse groups

and provide the mutual benefits to each. These are patterns of social capital

that must be encouraged, and researched, in order to face the next century.

(Brass and Krackhardt, 1999: 191-192)

Page 53

Chapter Four: The New Curator

Page 54

New curators create value beyond being connectors in the information economy. New

curators are harbingers of knowledge (e.g., business intelligence, emerging trends) and

facilitate its diffusion to others. As a broker who operates between two groups, new curators

are well positioned to identify talent and risks. This chapter issues a call to action for

increased investment to support new curators as independent brokers who bridge today’s

networks to foster understanding, cooperation and collaboration.

Curators do not just exist in museums alone. Today, curators bridge the divide

between institutions and informal cooperatives. The word curator is most recognized in

relation to art exhibits and museums. Curators act as ambassadors for creators and preserve

their works. Beverly Serrell describes a curator in a traditional sense as someone who

“...knows art, collects it, cares for it, and delights in sharing it with others, helping them see it

in ways they may not have discovered if left on their own.” (Serrell, 1997: 108) What we

know as curation is happening well beyond the art world.

There is a new kind of curator who catalyzes participation between groups with

dissimilar interests and values. The new curator actively seeks engagement to support

dialogue and co-creation. The new curator is a professional role who brokers between groups

to bridge structural holes within networks, catalyze collaboration (e.g., circulation) and act as

a archivist and preservationist within the collaboration sphere to ensure future accessibility

and knowledge transfer. Daniel Brass argues that the role of the broker (e.g. new curator) is

the most valuable position between two groups. “Research in organizations has shown that it

is wise to be the broker – the third who is connected to two disconnected actors (e.g., Brass,

Galaskiewicz, Greve, & Tsui; Burt, 2005, Fernandez-Mateo, 2007).” (Bass, 2009: 1)

Page 55

Curation is an opportunity to address the external structural holes (e.g., gaps between

disconnected actors) (Burt, 2007: 119) dividing informal cooperatives and institutions.

Internal curation can bridge the distance within a group or their own organizational

boundaries. The ability to create connectivity across groups, is just as important as to bridge

individuals within a group.

Characteristics

New curators act as brokers to bridge gaps (e.g., structural holes) within today’s

network of networks. Ronald Burt defines these gaps as “...missing relationships that inhibit

information flow between people”. (Burt, 2007: 119) While Burt discusses this concept in

terms of individuals, we will expand his definition to include brokering between groups.

Brokering is a unique position between two groups. Burt offers that “Numerous studies have

shown that managers whose social networks bridge structural holes have a competitive

advantage over peers confined to a single group of interconnected people.” (Burt, 2007: 119)

In this context, the new curator takes on the broker role between two groups to create

conditions conducive to support the development of a collaboration sphere. These conditions

may not have been able to be created by either group. Brass moves Burt’s brokerage theory

towards a practice where he states “It is the broker strategy – connecting to diverse,

disconnected others – that can integrate society and lead to a small world and six degrees of

separation (Granovetter, 1973; Watts, 2003). The essence of the broker strategy is simple –

build networks with people who are not themselves connected.” (Brass, 2009: 3) While this

seems accessible and open to anyone, there may be challenges to the ability to bridge groups,

especially those with dissimilar interests and values.

Page 56

While brokering is a key action of the new curator, the ability to be independent

between the two disconnected actors is essential. Independence is a primary difference

between the role of a kernel and that of a new curator. New curators are independent agents

who belong to neither group which they connect. New curators are supported by resources

which allow them to be sustainable over the long term. While kernels advocate for

participation within their group, new curators navigate the ecosystem to advocate and

connect disparate groups. New curators facilitate environmental conditions where an

independent open collaboration space (e.g., collaboration sphere) between two groups

develops. Independence allows new curators the freedom and flexibility to work with others

who may have dissimilar interests and values. New curators cultivate new relationships to

ensure diversity within the collaboration sphere.

New curators, similar to kernels, are diplomats and leverage their agency to catalyze

the conditions to support the collaboration sphere. While kernels can ignite the spark to

attract participation, the new curator’s role is to connect kernels within institutions and

informal cooperatives who may never seek to connect with one another. The collaboration

sphere is an open independent space not an owned by any one person and may be temporary

in nature. The collaboration sphere supports dialogue and co-creation.

New curators, similar to traditional curators, support public display, learning, record

keeping and preservation of works developed within the collaboration sphere so that others

can learn and share from their efforts. New curators document projects and share lessons

learned. Sharing guides individuals within the collaboration sphere to get up to speed

quickly. Participants are able search and be informed on what has happened previously and

Page 57

how they can contribute to the project or to the group in general. New curators manage open

collaboration spaces where information is share publicly so that a wider audience can learn

from activities and provide suggestions. Preservation of these activities is a key role for new

curators. The ability to archive information where it can easily be found by others supports

accessibility of knowledge and resources created within the collaboration sphere. While

participants may contribute to this effort, the new curator manages the flow of information

towards an information architecture to allow greater access to the group.

While not a characteristic, new curators require resources to be sustainable and

independent. Sustainability is required to transcend competition within the marketplace to

broker between groups, especially untraditional actors. Sustainability allows for the new

curator to be an independent voice in a highly competitive or polarized ecosystem.

Sustainability also may provide greater probably for transparency and sharing. Sustainability

removes failure as an obstacle. In an ideal state, sustainability allows for new curators to

weather austere conditions without impacting the independent nature of engagement.

At an individual level, being a new curator may be a good role to play in your career.

The ability to bridge structural holes has value within the marketplace according Brass. “At

the individual level of analysis, the advantages of structural holes translate into power (Brass,

1984), better performance (Mehra, Kilduff, & Brass, 2001), promotions (Brass, 1984; Burt,

1992), career success (Seibert, Kraimer, & Liden, 2001) and creativity (Brass, 1995; Burt,

2004).” (Brass, 2009: 260)

Page 58

Vantage Point

New curators have the potential to create new knowledge within the information

economy. Participation between networks give new curators a perch to enjoy a meta view of

the ecosystem. Burt discusses this advantage “Information, opinion, and practice are more

homogeneous within than between groups, so a manager whose network spans structure

holes (call him a network broker, connector, or entrepreneur) has a vision advantage in early

exposure to diverse information and a general political advantage as a hub in the information

flow.” (Burt, 2007: 119)

From this unique vantage point, new curators can create insights which can be

developed into business intelligence such as current market conditions and environmental

risks. New curators often are participating where emerging trends are occurring. They have

their finger on the pulse of what is new and hold relationships with those who are on the front

lines of innovation. This position gives new curators value in their ability to provide strategy

and insights.

New curators cultivate for a collaboration space where risks can be taken without

impact to either group participating. This open space of collaboration cultivates co-creation

and experimentation. The vision which Burt describes allows for new curators to identify

risks within the ecosystem as well as new talent. In particular to digital communities,

participation can increase reputation not just of the new curator (as an individual), but of the

groups involved.

Page 59

The Missing Link

While an ideal state, the act of brokering often may not always be able to be

independent. Sometimes kernels and intra-preneurs may take on the role of the new curator

within their institution. This is a practical challenge for the ecosystem as neither group can

act without interest. As such, the new curator role goes unfulfilled. This leaves brokering

actions up to the kernels within groups to work beyond their self-interest and immediate

social systems to reached for those who are unlike themselves. This is why the new curator

role is needed. While kernels have an ability to attract participation of those who have similar

interest, connections need to be made to diversify engagement and work beyond those within

a similar social or cultural landscape. Today, the reality is that kernels often play the new

curator role as well as their own.

A challenge related to kernels becoming curators is the ability to avoid pressure of

institutionalization. Within informal cooperatives new curators who are also their kernels do

not have the ability to be sustainable over the long term and the pressure to transform into a

institution to create sustainability. Not all informal cooperatives are meant to be institutions

nor are all informal cooperatives live beyond their initial interest. The very movement

towards institutionalization forks the informal cooperative. The motivational factors shift and

muddy the waters for participation. Conversely, institutions who act as new curators aren’t

seen as legitimate within informal cooperatives, especially those whose business aligns with

the interests of the informal cooperative. Institutions can bring resources to support informal

cooperatives ability to create an open collaboration space. As we heard from the entrepreneur

at La Cantine and Eichenwald, institutions are challenged to create an open collaboration

Page 60

space for new activities and ideas within their own organization. (Wessel, 2012) The lack of

this capability forces those within the institution to loose elsewhere and even create informal

cooperatives themselves.

The challenge with the new curator is that they have to be supported outside of either

group for which they are brokering. Today, most new curators exist within an institution. This

position does not provide an independence between groups. Organizations such as

associations, trade groups and multi-stakeholder institutions may have more ability to be

more independent than others. These groups also bring their own kind of special interests.

New curators operate under different titles such as Chief Innovation Offices, Social Media

Strategist, Public Liaison and Chief Culture Officer. While many positions have elements

related to the new curator, rarely is this a role resourced and strategically located to nurture

collaboration spheres between groups of dissimilar interests and values.

A detractor of brokering is self-interest of a new curator to manipulate actors

involved towards ends serving their own interest. “With the charge of researching, acquiring,

documenting, and publicly displaying art, the curator becomes the propagator of taste and

knowledge for the public “good.” It stands to reason, then, that during this process one must

also have the opportunity to further refine oneself. This is the give and take of generosity. In

this respect care takes on a reciprocal value, rather than just being an act of dubious kindness

or concern. The curator becomes a connoisseur as much as an administrator. His or her role is

expanded beyond “overseeing” to encompass what Foucault calls the cultivation of the

self.” (Fowle, 2007: 13)

Page 61

The new curator may find that the actors involved are polarized due to extreme strong

ties and lack of diversity within their network. Fowle saw the increasing divide within the art

community, where even traditional curators are challenged to broker between the gaps which

exist in their ecosystem. “Within contemporary curating the contradictions are evident to all.

There is a widening divide between two camps—the independent and the institutional—that

supposedly signifies where curatorial allegiances lie in relation to the “historically bound”

aspects of the profession.” (Fowle, 2007:18)

Call For Investment

New curators are emerging but are not professionalized. Currently a viable business

model does not exist to to support independent new curators. We know that people are

attracted to interests and values of those who are like themselves, or for whom they have

self-interest. New curators perform a critical role to broker between informal cooperatives

and institutions to help them reach to others beyond their immediate interests and social

system. People, information and resources which are self-confirming are in danger of

becoming polarized. New curators are mitigation tools which can infuse diversity and create

culture exchanges across domains.

We do not know the complete value of new curators because for the most part they do

not exist. Henry Jenkins, author of Convergence Culture, describes this void as a challenge.

While Jenkins discusses this role within the institution, it can be applied to the entire

ecosystem.

These are roles that we don’t have and companies vitally need to have. Grant

McCracken’s book Chief Cultural Officer coins that as a term to describe this

Page 62

kind of position inside the company whose job is to monitor and respond to

the culture around the company. To be a listener. Not to just absorb data which

a lot of companies do but to actually interpret, analyze, engage with and listen

to what’s at stake for participants and break out of the preconceived ideas

about it. (Jenkins, 2011)

While we have an idea of what kind of characteristics, values and challenges which

confront independent new curators. There is a realization that institutions will use new

curators as brokers within their ecosystems to drive competitive and vision advantage.

Ronald Burt described the sensibility of a broker (e.g., new curator) and the vision advantage

that this role can bring to an institution:

He is reading and thinking very widely. He is totally unafraid of any new

technology in any area of human creativity. He has wonderful contacts with

people in many different areas, so he sees bridges between otherwise disparate

fields. (Burt, 2004: 350)

New curators will likely grow within institutions, but its placement may be very different

from organization to organization. Even governments will have liaison roles which work

outside of the institution to create engagement and understanding with those who have

dissimilar interests and values. Jenkins is optimistic about the ability to include brokerage

roles such as the new curator, especially within institutions. Speaking about the entertainment

industry, Jenkins describes that we are at the very beginning of this new era.

I think that we are seeing some of these Chief Cultural Officers in media and

entertainment companies. I’ve watched a number of careers develop over the

Page 63

next ten or fifteen years that are moving up through the ranks of companies

who have taken on social and cultural knowledge about participatory culture

and are beginning to incorporate it into the c-suite of companies. They are

beginning to apply what they know to shift the relations between producers

and consumers.” (Jenkins, 2011)

Informal cooperatives and institutions can benefit from new curators as they can

catalyze competitive advantage within the marketplace. Brass underscores this concept by

describing the value that groups who support brokering roles (e.g., new curators) can gain.

“Studies at the interorganizational level of analysis also suggest that social capital accrues to

the broker organization. Brokerage has been related to firm survival (Koput & Powell, 2003;

Oh, Kilduff, & Brass, 2006), innovation (Stuart & Podolny, 1999; McEvily & Zaheer, 1999),

market share (Rowley & Baum, 2004), and performance (Provan & Milward,

1995).” (Brass, 2009: 206)

Page 64

Conclusion

Page 65

The Value Between Us defined the landscape and distance between informal

cooperatives and institutions within today’s information economy. While there can be many

opportunities to build open collaboration spaces and attract those who have similar interest

and values, there are risks involved. This challenge within these groups is one of diversity.

When there are similar interests and values within a group, there can be polarization

especially if the relationships are strong ties. These groups need more weak ties to add

diversify the composition of the group. These groups also need someone to help them reach

others beyond their immediate social systems. This is when the role of the new curator can

open doors to informal cooperatives and institutions to help bridge the gaps between and

infuse diversity within the ecosystem. There are three investments which could be made to

support added diversity and engagement between today’s network of networks to mitigate

against the potential effects of polarization.

First, there must be an investment in new curators. While it is recognized that new

curators may likely be supported through institutions, the ideal the role of new curator is to

be independent of either group which they seek to connect. This role can begin to address the

gaps (e.g., external structural holes) which exist today. If unaddressed, these gaps have the

potention to create polarization within not only the group, but of the entire ecosystem.

Second, there must be an investment in understanding the value of and utlity of

weak ties. While value may be placed within those who have strong relations, weak ties

infuse diversity within groups and act as a mitigation tool to ward against polarization and

isolation. Scholars agree that there is much work to be done to examine the value and

behavior of weak ties. What we know today, is that weak ties are valuable relationships who

Page 66

have demonstrated that they can spring into action as a collective to build a new sensory

network for sense-making and proxy agency. If weak ties can jump into action when called

upon (especially during a crisis), this debunks Gladwell’s assertation that weak ties do not

spring into action to engage in high risk activism. The more we can begin to undersand how

weak ties engage, as well as the effects of permanent storage of relationships, we may be

better able to manage communications to those relationships.

Third, there must be an investment faciliating, supporting and protecting

independent open collaboration spaces. In a sense, informal cooperatives hold a

competitive advantange because their genesis was from within an open collaboration space.

Meanwhile, institutions are driven by market forces and reinforced by organizational culture

to champion optimization over innovation. This thesis has illustrated that even the most

innovative companies are challenged to overcome bureaucracy, fear of failure and their own

internal culture to foster a space for collaboration within or external to their organizational

boundaries. Investment in the collaboration sphere is paramount, not just to bridge structural

holes, but to create an environment conducive for creationism which can spur innovation to

propel the ecosystem forward.

Are We Listening Yet?

In 2007, Jan Chipchase, who was then Nokia’s behavior science researcher, delivered

a TED talk originally entitled, Mobile Phones, Ourselves. In this talk Chipchase delivered a

his view of the future of mobile technology. Chipchase didn’t talk about the technical aspects

of a mobile phone, rather he forecasted what mobility will mean when all 7 billion people in

the world are connected.

Page 67

For me, this kind of personifies this connected world, where everything is

intertwined, and the dots are -- it's all about the dots joining together. Okay,

the title of this presentation is "Connections and Consequences," and it's really

a kind of summary of five years of trying to figure out what it's going to be

like when everyone on the planet has the ability to transcend space and time in

a personal and convenient manner, right? When everyone's connected.

(Chipchase, 2007)

Today, mobile phones have become ubiquitous in society. We are just beginning to

understand what it means to be technically connected to so many people all at once. It is

about conversations between people.

And the last thing is that -- actually, the direction of the conversation. With

another three billion people connected, they want to be part of the

conversation. And I think our relevance and TED's relevance is really about

embracing that and learning how to listen, essentially. And we need to learn

how to listen. (Chipchase, 2007)

This thesis ultimately raises the question that while we may be working with many people

who have similar interests and values, that means we are only engaging those who are like

ourselves. We are filling our personal town squares not with people who are different than we

are, but those who are the same. We spend our free time participating in groups (e.g.,

informal cooperatives) of whose who have similar values and interests as we do. Institutions

shy away from open collaboration with others due to culture and fear of endorsement or

legitimacy that their participation may give to external partners. The big business is using

Page 68

actions and those whom we are connected to serve up recommendations and search results

tailored to your interests. Consumerism is reinforcing a world where we are homogenious

with little self-imposed diversity. We act more like islands in the stream rather than a

connected world of networks.

It has been five years since Chipchase’s TED talk and we are moving towards what

we like and may be fostering an inability to listen and engage with others who are unlike

ourselves. Connectivity between groups especially requires a proactive and strategic

investment. It also involves cultural translation and tolerance. This investment will give us

an ability to listen and connect in a meaningful way within our information economy. With

the speed of today’s globalized society, investment will need to be made not just to better

understand what actually exists within today’s network of networks (e.g., informal

cooperatives), but rather how these groups engage each other (or not).

It could be summized that we may be marching down a road towards polarization if

the call to action to invest in connectivity between networks is not heeded. While this be a

more extreme view, there is also good news.The space between us is where we do our best

work. It is where we take risks and innovate. It is where we build personal relationships with

others. These relationships begin the pathway to communications. It is where two groups

who have dissimilar interests and value can come together. The space between us is perhaps

the most valuable space that we have, but yet today we find that difference and lack of

diversity drive distance between our network of networks.

Page 69

References

“2012 Web Server Survey.” Netcraft Ltd. Netcraft.com. 27 Nov. 2012

About Apache. 2012. Apache HTTP Server Project. 27 Nov. 2012

About Occupy Wall Street. Occupy Wall Street. 27 Nov. 2012

Arvidsson, Adam. Brands: Meaning and value in postmodern media culture. Routledge, 2006.

Bakshy, Eytan. “Rethinking Information Diversity in Networks.” Facebook.com. 17 Jan. 2012 Web. 27 Nov. 2012

Benkler, Yochai. The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven, Conn.: Yale UP, 2006. Print.

Blanchard, Heather. “The Space to Exploit Ideas.” iamheatherblanchard.com. 18 Apr. 2012 Blog. 27 Nov. 2012

Brass, Daniel J. "Chapter 10. Connecting to brokers: strategies for acquiring social capital." Social capital: Reaching out, reaching in (2009): 260.

Brass, Daniel J., and David Krackhardt. "The social capital of twenty-first century leaders." Out-of-the-box leadership: Transforming the twenty-first-century army and other top-performing organizations (1999): 179-194.

Burt, Ronald S. "Secondhand brokerage: Evidence on the importance of local structure for managers, bankers, and analysts." Academy of Management Journal 50.1 (2007): 119-148.

Burt, Ronald S. "Structural holes versus network closure as social capital." Social capital: Theory and research (2001): 31-56.

Burt, Ronald S. Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University Press, 1995.

Burt, Ronald S. "Structural holes and good ideas." American Journal of Sociology 110.2 (2004): 349-399.

Caulfield, Jane. "Saskatoon Tech Community Unconferences with BarCamp Comments." Metro News, 27 Oct. 2012. Web. 26 Nov. 2012.

Page 70

Chen, Charlie C., Jiinpo Wu, and Samuel C. Yang. "The efficacy of online cooperative learning systems: The perspective of task-technology fit." Campus-Wide Information Systems 23.3 (2006): 112-127.

Clay, Alexa. "The Rise of the Entrepreneurs." Co.Exist. Fast Company, 31 Oct. 2012. Web. 10 Dec. 2012.

CrisisCamp Haiti. Eventbrite.com. 15 Jan. 2010 Web. 27 Nov. 2012

CrisisCamp Ignite. Eventbrite.com. n.d. Web. 27 Nov. 2012.

Davis, James H., F. David Schoorman, and Lex Donaldson. "Toward a stewardship theory of management." Academy of Management review 22.1 (1997): 20-47.

Dees, Karen. The Role of the Parisian Café in the Emergence of Modern Art: An Analysis of the Nineteenth Century Café as a Social Institution and Symbol of Modern Life. Thesis. Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, 2002. Lafayette: Louisiana State University, 2002. Print.

Eichenwald, Kurt. "How Microsoft Lost Its Mojo: Steve Ballmer and Corporate America's Most Spectacular Decline." Vanity Fair. Conde Nast Digital, Aug. 2012. Web. 10 Dec. 2012.

Fikes, Richard E. "A commitment-based framework for describing informal cooperative work." Cognitive Science 6.4 (1982): 331-347.

Frequently Asked Questions - DEFCON 20. DEFCON. 27 Nov. 2012

Fowle, Kate. "Who Cares? Understanding the Role of the Curator Today." Cautionary tales: Critical curating (2007): 26-35.

Gladwell, Malcolm. "Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted." The New Yorker. 04 Oct. 2010. Web. 17 July 2012.

“Girls trapped in storm drain use Facebook for help instead of phoning emergency services.” Mail Online. 8 September 2009. Web. 29 Nov. 2012.

Graham, James. "What I Learned at #BarcampNFP." Quaequam Blog! The Liberati, 19 Feb. 2012. Web. 26 Nov. 2012.

Granovetter, Mark S. "The Strength of Weak Ties." American Journal of Sociology 78.6 (1973):1360-1378. Print.

Page 71

Habermas, Jürgen. The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. MIT Press, 1991.

Horgen, Turid, Michael L. Joroff, William L. Porter, and Donald A. Schon. Excellence by Design: Transforming Workplace and Work Practice. New York: Wiley, 1999. Print.

Howe, Jeff. Crowdsourcing: How the power of the crowd is driving the future of business. Century, 2008.

Hutchins, Brett, et al. "" It's fantasy football made real": networked media sport, the internet, and the hybrid reality of MyFootballClub." Sociology of Sport Journal 26.1 (2009): 89-106.

Imbimbo, Anthony. Steve Jobs: The Brilliant Mind Behind Apple. Gareth Stevens Publishing, 2009.

Jenkins, Henry. Personal Interview. 22 August 2011.

Kleemann, Frank, G. Günter Voß, and Kerstin Rieder. "Un(der) paid Innovators: The Commercial Utilization of Consumer Work through Crowdsourcing." Science, Technology & Innovation Studies 4.1 (2008): PP-5.

Krueger, Alyson. "Hackathons Aren't Just for Hacking." Wired.com. Conde Nast Digital, 04 June 2012. Web. 26 Nov. 2012.

Kolb, David A. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1984. Print

Kollock, Peter. "The economies of online cooperation." Communities in cyberspace (1999): 220.

Levy, Steven. "Larry Page’s First Year as Google CEO: Impatience Is a Virtue." Wired.com. Conde Nast Digital, 02 Apr. 2012. Web. 28 Nov. 2012.

(Linux Project, 2004)

Lipnack, Jessica, and Jeffrey Stamps. Virtual teams: Reaching across space, time, and organizations with technology. Wiley, 1997.

Lury, Celia. Consumer Culture, Second Edition. Polity Press, 2011.

Meetup.com Website. 2012. Meetup.com. 27 Nov. 2012

Page 72

Mileti, Dennis S., and Joanne Derouen Darlington. "The Role of Searching in Shaping Reactions to Earthquake Risk Information." Social Problems 44.1 (1997): 89-103. Print.

Mills, Elinor. "Hackers Create Tools for Disaster Relief." CNET News. CBS Interactive, 15 Nov. 2009. Web. 10 Dec. 2012.

Mills, Elinor. “NSA director finally greets Defcon hackers.” CNET. 27 July 2012. Web 27 Nov. 2012.

Milton, Nick. “Knoco stories: Working out loud on the online open-plan environment.” NickMilton.com. 25 Sept. 2012 Web. 27 Nov. 2012

"News & Views." Over One Thousand "Hackers" Find 181 New Apps to Improve Access to Safe Sanitation for Poor People. The World Bank, 5 Dec. 2012. Web. 10 Dec. 2012.

Ridings, Catherine M., and David Gefen. "Virtual community attraction: Why people hang out online." Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 10.1. Nov. 2004 Web. 10 Dec. 2012

Ruby User Groups. N.p. n.d. Nov. 2012

Santa Clara Corvettes. N.p. n.d. 27 Nov. 2012

Sinclair, Catherine. "Mentoring online about mentoring: Possibilities and practice." Mentoring and Tutoring 11.1 (2003): 79-94.

Singel, Ryan. "Barring None, Geek Camp Rocks." Wired.com. Conde Nast Digital, 22 Aug. 2008. Web. 26 Nov. 2012.

Stanford University. “Randy Komisar: The Biggest Successes Are Often Bred from Failures” YouTube 28 Apr. 04 Web. 27 Nov. 2012.

Surowiecki, James. The Wisdom of Crowds. Anchor, 2005.

Tice, Carol. "Crowdsourcing Is Great -- Except When It Fails." Entrepreneur.com. Entrepreneur Magazine, 20 Dec. 2009. Web. 26 Nov. 2012.

Turner, Andrew. “(public) notes about skype call yesterday.” CrisisCommons Google Group. 21 Feb 2012. Web. 14 Dec. 2012.

Pearce, Terry. Leading Out Loud: Inspiring Change Through Authentic Communications. Vol. 199. Jossey-Bass, 2003.

Page 73

Pescosolido, Anthony T. "Emergent leaders as managers of group emotion." The Leadership Quarterly 13.5 (2002): 583-599.

Preece, Jennifer, and Kambiz Ghozati. "Experiencing empathy online." The Internet and health communication (2001): 237-260.

Pinchot, Gifford, and Ron Pellman. Intra-Preneuring in action: A handbook for business innovation. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2000.

Portes, Alejandro. "Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology." LESSER, Eric L. Knowledge and Social Capital. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann (2000): 43-67.

Serrell, Beverly. "Paying attention: The duration and allocation of visitors' time in museum exhibitions." Curator 40 (1997): 108-125.

Social Media in Disasters and Emergencies. Rep. American Red Cross, 01 Aug. 2011. Web. 17 July 2011

VirtuallyRush. “Rush Tom Sawyer - Multi-National Virtual Band Cover / Collaboration.” YouTube. Web 27 Nov. 2012.

VirtuallyRush. “Dedicated to the Holy Trinity of Rock Music.” YouTube. Web. 27 Nov. 2012.

We Are No Longer Strangers: Four Experiments in Arts & Entrepreneurship. Rep. The Field, 2010. Web. 27 Nov. 2012.

Wessel, Maxwell. "Why Big Companies Can't Innovate." Harvard Business Review. Harvard University, 27 Sept. 2012. Web. 26 Nov. 2012.

Whittington, Colin. "A model of collaboration." Collaboration in social work practice (2003): 39-62.

Wood, Michele M., et al. "Communicating Actionable Risk for Terrorism and Other Hazards⋆." Risk Analysis 32.4 (2011): 601-615.

Page 74

Biography

Albrechtslund, Anders. "Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance." First Monday. Vol. 13 Number 3 2 Mar. 2008 Web. 27 Nov. 2012

Alvin Toffler on Prosumption. Perf. Alvin Toffler, Katy Couric. You Tube, 2010. Online Video.

Alex Pentland. Honest Signals: How They Shape Our World (Kindle Locations 515-519). Kindle Edition.

Andersen, Erika. "Why Top Talent Leaves: Top 10 Reasons Boiled Down to 1." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 18 Jan. 2012. Web. 26 Nov. 2012.

Apollo 13. Dir. Ron Howard. Prod. Brian Grazer. Perf. Tom Hanks and Kevin Bacon. Universal City Studios, Inc., 1995. YouTube.

Barak, Azy, Meyran Boniel-Nissim, and John Suler. "Fostering empowerment in online support groups." Computers in Human Behavior 24.5 (2008): 1867-1883.

Bandura, Albert. "Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy." Current directions in psychological science 9.3 (2000): 75-78.

Basic Field Guide to the Positive Deviance Approach. Rep. Tufts University, 01 Sept. 2010. Web.

Bass, Bernard M., and Paul Steidlmeier. "Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior." The leadership quarterly 10.2 (1999): 181-217.

Bertot, John C., Paul T. Jaeger, and Justin M. Grimes. "Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies." Government Information Quarterly 27.3 (2010): 264-271.

Bilton, Chris. "The New Adhocracy: Strategy, Risk and the Small Business Creative Firm." Centre for Cultural Policy Studies 1st ser. 5 (1999): 1-29. Print.

Brennan, Michael, Stacy Wrazien, and Rachel Greenstadt. "Learning to extract quality discourse in online communities." Workshops at the Twenty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2010.

Brunsting, Suzanne, and Tom Postmes. "Social movement participation in the digital age predicting offline and online collective action." Small Group Research 33.5 (2002): 525-554.

Page 75

Butler, Brian, et al. "Community effort in online groups: Who does the work and why?." Human-Computer Interaction Institute (2007): 90.

Butler, Keira. Practical Values: Works Well With Others. What if a day at the office is actually good for you? Mother Jones. 18 Jan. 2008. Web. 29 Apr. 2012.

Bughin, Jacques, Michael Chui, and Brad Johnson. "The next step in open innovation." The McKinsey Quarterly 4.6 (2008): 1-8.

Brennan, Michael, Stacy Wrazien, and Rachel Greenstadt. "Learning to extract quality discourse in online communities." Workshops at the Twenty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2010.

Cape, Geoff. Growth, Change and Organizational Structure: The Evolving Relationship between Form and Function. McGill University. McGill-McConnell Program, Aug. 2002. Web. 29 Mar. 2012.

Carte, Traci A., Laku Chidambaram, and Aaron Becker. "Emergent leadership in self-managed virtual teams." Group Decision and Negotiation 15.4 (2006): 323-343.

Chipchase, Jan. The anthropology of mobile phones. TED.com. March 2007 Web. 14 Dec. 2012.

Chung, Seungwha Andy, Harbir Singh, and Kyungmook Lee. "Complementarity, status similarity and social capital as drivers of alliance formation." Strategic management journal 21.1 (1999): 1-22.

Chui, Michael. Manyika, James. Bughin, Jacques. Dobbs, Richard. Roxburgh, Charles. Sarrazin, Hugo. Sands, Geoffrey. Westergren, Magdalena.“The social economy: Unlocking value and productivity through social technologies.” McKinsey Global Institute. McKinsey and Company. July 2012 Report. 27 Nov. 2012.

Ciffolilli, Andrea. "Phantom authority, self-selective recruitment and retention of members in virtual communities." first monday 8.12-1 (2003).

Crockett, Walter H. "Emergent leadership in small, decision-making groups." The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 51.3 (1955): 378.

Coffin, Jill. "An analysis of open source principles in diverse collaborative communities." First Monday 11.6-5 (2006).

Page 76

Cohen, D. and Prusak, L. (2001) In Good Company: How Social Capital Makes Organizations Work. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Cummings, Jonathon N., Lee Sproull, and Sara B. Kiesler. "Beyond hearing: Where the real-world and online support meet." Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 6.1 (2002): 78.

Cox Jr, Taylor. "The multicultural organization." The Executive (1991): 34-47.

Davenport, Thomas H., and John C. Beck. The attention economy: Understanding the new currency of business. Harvard Business Press, 2001.

de Certeau, Michel. The practice of everyday life.. London: University of California, 1984. Book.

"Definition of Ad-hoc." Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Merriam-Webster .com Web. 10 May 2012.

Dolan, Timothy E. "Revisiting Adhocracy: From Rhetorical Revisionism to Smart Mobs." Journal of Future Studies 15.2 (2010): 33-50. Journal of Future Studies. Web. 29 Mar. 2012.

Dutton, William H., The Fifth Estate Emerging Through the Network of Networks (June 10, 2008). Prometheus, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 1-15, 2009. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/ abstract=1167502

Estellés-Arolas, Enrique; González-Ladrón-de-Guevara, Fernando. “Towards an integrated crowdsourcing definition.” Draft. Journal of Information Science. (2012) Print.

Ellison, Nicole B., Charles Steinfield, and Cliff Lampe. "The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites." Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12.4 (2007): 1143-1168.

Etzioni, Amitai, and Oren Etzioni. "Face-to-face and computer-mediated communities, a comparative analysis." The information society 15.4 (1999): 241-248.

Fehr, Ernst and Gächter, Simon, Fairness and Retaliation: The Economics of Reciprocity (March 2000). IEER Working Paper No. 40.

Faraj, Samer, Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa, and Ann Majchrzak. "Knowledge collaboration in online communities." Organization science 22.5 (2011): 1224-1239.

Faraj, Samer, and Lee Sproull. "Coordinating expertise in software development teams." Management science 46.12 (2000): 1554-1568.

Page 77

Ferris, Gerald R., et al. "Personal reputation in organizations." (2003).

Fisher, Patton and Ury. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. New York, NY: Penguin Books, 1983.

Fost, Dan. They’re Working on Their Own, Just Side By Side. New York Times. 20 Feb. 2008. Web. 29. Apr. 2012.

Garcia, Cristobal H. Spacing innovation and knowledge creation on design organizations and the study of working spaces. Diss. MIT, 2006. Cambridge: Unpublished.

Glass, John F. "Comment on Review of Beyond Economics and The Temporary Society." American Journal of Sociology 76.1 (1970): 158. Print

Glasser, Charlotte. Governing the knowing and innovation space. Diss. Stockholm School of Economics, 2005. Stockholm: Unpublished.

Garrison, William A. "The social psychology of collective action." Frontiers in social movement theory (1992): 53-76.

Gray, Brian. "Don’t Fear the Dragons: Why the Social Web Should Be Part of Your Work Day." Web log post. Buridans Blog. Wordpress, 20 Mar. 2012. Web. 10 Dec. 2012.

Guastello, Stephen J. "Facilitative style, individual innovation, and emergent leadership in problem solving groups." The journal of creative behavior 29.4 (1995): 225-239.

Guattari, Félix. The Three Ecologies. London: Athlone, 2000. Print.

Handy, Charles B. Understanding Organizations. New York: Oxford UP, 1993. Print.

Harvey, O. J. "An experimental approach to the study of status relations in informal groups." American Sociological Review (1953): 357-367.

Helmberger, Peter, and Sidney Hoos. "Cooperative enterprise and organization theory." Journal of Farm Economics 44.2 (1962): 275-290.

Horgen, Turid, Michael L. Joroff, William L. Porter, and Donald A. Schon. Excellence by Design: Transforming Workplace and Work Practice. New York: Wiley, 1999. Print.

Howe, Jeff. "The rise of crowdsourcing." Wired magazine 14.6 (2006): 1-4.

Page 78

Irtaimeh, Hani J. "Transformational Leadership and Adhocracy in ZAIN Cellular Communications Company Culture." European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences 37 (2011): 1-16. Print.

Isaacson, Walter. "The Real Leadership Lessons from Steve Jobs." The Magazine. Harvard Business Review, Apr. 2012. Web. 20 Apr. 2012.

Jackson, Eric. "Ten Reasons Why Large Companies Fail to Keep Their Best Talent." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 14 Dec. 2011. Web. 26 Nov. 2012.

Janssen, Onne, Evert Van de Vliert, and Michael West. "The bright and dark sides of individual and group innovation: A special issue introduction." Journal of Organizational Behavior 25.2 (2004): 129-145.

"Jean-Paul Sartre." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. Web. 10 May 2012.

Jenkins, Henry. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York UP, 2006. Print.

Jenkins, Henry. "Interactive Audiences: The 'Collective Intelligence' of Media Fans." Henry Jenkins Blog. MIT Publications, n.d. Web. 27 Nov. 2012.

Kapczynski, Amy. "The Access To Knowledge Mobilization And The New Politics Of Intellectual Property." The Yale Law Journal 117.5 (n.d.): JSTOR SRU gateway. Web. 1 Apr. 2012.

Kenyon, Susan, Glenn Lyons, and Jackie Rafferty. "Transport and social exclusion: investigating the possibility of promoting inclusion through virtual mobility." Journal of Transport Geography 10.3 (2002): 207-219.

Kraut, Robert E., et al. "Understanding effects of proximity on collaboration: Implications for technologies to support remote collaborative work." Distributed work (2002): 137-162.

Kuipers, Shelly. "Participation & Patience: Making Crowdsourcing Communities Sustainable." Web log post. The Crowdflower Blog. Crowdflower, 19 Oct. 2010. Web. 27 Nov. 2012

Lahart, Justin. "Tinkering Makes Comeback Amid Crisis." WSJ.com. Wall Street Journal, 13 Nov. 2009. Web. 10 Dec. 2012.

Lang, R.D. The Politics of Everyday Experience. New York: Pantheon Books, 1967. Book.Lehrer, Jonah. "Imagine: 'How Creativity Works': It's All In Your Imagination." NPR. NPR.com, 19 Mar. 2012. Web. 29 Apr. 2012.

Page 79

Lehrer, Jonah. "The New Yorker." Steve Jobs: "Technology Alone Is Not Enough" The New Yorker. Web. 29 Apr. 2012.

Lesser, Eric L., Michael A. Fontaine, and Jason A. Slusher. Knowledge and Communities. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2000. Print.

Lury, Celia. Brands: The logos of global economy. Routledge, 2004.

McKenna, Christopher D. "Agents of adhocracy: Management consultants and the reorganization of the executive branch." Business in Economic History 25.1 (1996): 101-111.

McKenna, Katelyn YA, and Amie S. Green. "Virtual group dynamics." Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 6.1 (2002): 116.

McLure Wasko, Molly, and Samer Faraj. "“It is what one does”: why people participate and help others in electronic communities of practice." The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 9.2 (2000): 155-173.

Mendoca, David, Theresa Jefferson, and John Harrald. Emergent Interoperability: Collaborative Adhocracies and Mix and Match Technologies in Emergency Management. Publication. Print.

Mergel, Ines. Social Media in the Public Sector: A Guide to Participation, Collaboration and Transparency in The Networked World. Jossey-Bass, 2012.

Mintzberg, Henry. "Managing Exceptionally." Organization Science 12.6 (2001): 759-71. Print. Page 25

Mintzberg, H. "Structure in 5's: A Synthesis of the Research on Organization Design." Management Science 26.3 (1980): 322-41. Print.

Mintzberg, Henry, and Alexandra McHugh. "Strategy formation in an adhocracy." Administrative Science Quarterly (1985): 160-197.

Morrow Jr, J. L., Mark H. Hansen, and Allison W. Pearson. "The cognitive and affective antecedents of general trust within cooperative organizations." Journal of Managerial Issues (2004): 48-64.

Moynihan, D. P. "The Network Governance of Crisis Response: Case Studies of Incident Command Systems." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19.4 (2009): 895-915. Print.

Page 80

Neuberg, Brad. "About Brad Neuberg." Resume for Brad Neuberg. Web. 29 Apr. 2012.

"Origin of -cracy." Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Merriam-Webster .com Web. 10 May 2012. Porter, Roger B. Presidential Decision Making. Cambridge: Cambridge UK, 1980. Print.

Ostrom, Elinor. "Collective action and the evolution of social norms." The Journal of Economic Perspectives (2000): 137-158.

Paul, and Peter T. Berg. "Social Factors of Work-Environment Creativity." Journal ofBusiness and Psychology 21.3 (2007): 407-28. Print.

Panitz, Ted. "Collaborative versus cooperative learning: A comparison of the two concepts which will help us understand the underlying nature of interactive learning." Cooperative Learning and College Teaching 8.2 (1997): 5-7.

Parks, Malcolm R., and Kory Floyd. "Making friends in cyberspace." Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 1.4 (1996): 0-0.

Postmes, Tom, and Suzanne Brunsting. "Collective Action in the Age of the Internet Mass Communication and Online Mobilization." Social Science Computer Review 20.3 (2002): 290-301.

Richerson, Peter J., Robert T. Boyd, and Joseph Henricr P. "Human Cooperation." Genetic and cultural evolution of cooperation (2003): 357.

S. Vieweg, L. Palen, S. Liu, A. Hughes, J. Sutton (2008). Collective Intelligence in Disaster: An Examination of the Phenomenon in the Aftermath of the 2007 Virginia Tech Shooting. Proceedings of the 5th International ISCRAM Conference, Washington DC, USA, May 2008.

Schepers, Paul, and Peter T. Berg. "Social Factors of Work-Environment Creativity." Journal of Business and Psychology 21.3 (2007): 407-28. Print

Schneider, Marguerite. "A stakeholder model of organizational leadership." Organization Science 13.2 (2002): 209-220.

Simonite, Tom. "What Facebook Knows." Technology Review. MIT, 01 July 2012. Web. 17 July 2012.

Sims Jr, Henry P., Samer Faraj, and Seokhwa Yun. "When should a leader be directive or empowering? How to develop your own situational theory of leadership." Business Horizons 52.2 (2009): 149-158.

Page 81

Stewart, Thomas A. Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations. New York: Doubleday / Currency, 1997. Print.

"Still Shocking After All These Years." Interview. New Scientist 19 Mar. 1994: 22-25. Print. Toffler, Alvin. Future Shock. New York: Random House, 1970. Print.

Stillman, Larry, and Henry Linger. "Community Informatics And Information Systems: Can They Be Better Connected?." Information Society 25.4 (2009): 255-264. Academic Search Complete. Web. 1 Apr. 2012.

Sunje, Aziz, Mugdim Pasic, and Ensad Karle. Operational Adhocracy as Basic Organizational Configuration - Case "Sumaprojekt" Sarajevo. Working paper. Sarajevo: Sarajevo Graduate School of Business. Print.

Sutton, Jeannette N. Twittering Tennessee: Distributed networks and collaboration following a technological disaster. ISCRAM, 2010.

The Pixar Story. Dir. Leslie Lwerks. Perf. Steve Jobs, Ed Catmull, John Lasseter. Leslie Iwerks Productions, 2007. DVD.

Uphoff, Norman. "Understanding social capital: learning from the analysis and experience of participation." Social capital: A multifaceted perspective (2000): 215-249.

United States. Cong. Senate. Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Ad hoc Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery and Intergovernmental Affairs. Hearing. 19 May 2011. 111 Cong., 2st sess. Washington: Slideshare. 2012.

Von Hippel, Eric. "“Sticky information” and the locus of problem solving: implications for innovation." Management science 40.4 (1994): 429-439.

Walker, Rob. Buying In: The Secret Dialogue between What We Buy and Who We Are. New York: Random House, 2008. Print.

Waterman, Robert H. “Adhocracy”, W.W. Norton & Company, 1993. Print.

Wasko, Molly McLure, and Samer Faraj. "Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice." Mis Quarterly (2005): 35-57.

Weinberg, Nancy, et al. "Online help: cancer patients participate in a computer-mediated support group." Health & Social Work 21.1 (1996): 24-29.

Wellman, Barry, et al. "Does the Internet increase, decrease, or supplement social capital? Social networks, participation, and community commitment." American behavioral scientist 45.3 (2001): 436-455.

Page 82

Whittington, Richard. "Putting Giddens Into Action: Social Systems And Managerial Agency." Journal of Management Studies 29.6 (1992): 693-712. Print.

World Internet Users Statistics. “Internet Users in the World. Distributed by World Regions 2012 Q. 2” Miniwatts Marketing Group. 30 Jun. 2010. Web. 27 Nov. 2012.

Yee, Nick, et al. "The unbearable likeness of being digital: The persistence of nonverbal social norms in online virtual environments." CyberPsychology & Behavior 10.1 (2007): 115-121.

Yoo, Youngjin, and Maryam Alavi. "Emergent leadership in virtual teams: what do emergent leaders do?." Information and Organization 14.1 (2004): 27-58.

Zammuto, Raymond F., et al. "Information technology and the changing fabric of organization." Organization Science 18.5 (2007): 749-762.

Page 83

[This page is intentionally left blank]

Page 84