The Open Source Movement: Implications for Education

Comprehensive Essays

By Alec Couros
Spring/Summer 2004

Foreword:
re: Content
To have written comprehensively on any subject is difficult with or without limits.
Similarly, to write comprehensive papers regarding such complex and diverse
topics as I have before me, and to limit myself to 20 pages per topic, is certainly
a formidable task. Obviously, I have had to make choices on what content I
should include, and what I should not. And these choices were never easy.
However, I am hoping that these essays will serve as a launching point into
describing what I know now, and what I hope to learn in the future.
The state of the open source movement and the activities that arise from it have
shifted and continue to shift before me as I write these essays. While these ideas
seem to be constantly reshaping, they are no less interesting to me than they
were at the beginning of this journey. The open source movement has become
more than just a better way of writing software. The open source movement can
be seen as a culture, an ideology and a better way for humans to work together
on shared pursuits.

re: Format
This entire paper was written using open source and free software. Open Office
Write (part of the Open Office Suite) was used as an alternative word processor
to Microsoft Word. LaTex was used as the typesetting tool for the purpose of
transforming the raw, unformatted document into a consistent format and in
converting the finished text into PDF form. Additionally, open source tools are
being used to serve this document to an online audience at
http://www.educationaltechnology.ca/couros. The operating system of the host
server is Linux-based, the web server is Apache and the content management
system is driven by Moveable Type. Again, all of these tools are either open
source or available for free.
However, I dont believe that these facts alone should be utterly remarkable. In
the past several years, open source tools have become more widely accepted by
business groups, educational organizations and consumers, and open source
thought is slowly emerging into mainstream culture. Yet, what I do believe to be
remarkable is the process in which such tools came to be. Through often informal
and spontaneous cooperation, viable alternatives to the products of proprietary
giants (e.g., Microsoft, Novell, Oracle) have brought forth a revolution of choice,
quality and customizability. And, what is perhaps more important here is the
understanding and acknowledgment of the collaborative and creative processes,
and spirit, that brought about these changes. It is my hope that in better
understanding the complexities of the open source movement, insight can be
drawn for the purpose of developing collaborative, innovative communities within
the educational context.

Question #1:
1) What is the open source movement?
a) Discuss the attributes and implications for educational practice and
preparation.
b) Describe the sources and nature of the data that might be collected regarding
this movement that might be found on publicly accessible listservs, discussion
groups and other Internet-based communities.

Starting at the Source

Before the term open source can be understood as the foundational idea
behind a socio-political movement, it should be first described at the fundamental
technical level. It is my assumption that before one can begin to understand
open source in the larger context, it is important to have a basic comprehension
of the term source and to understand other essential terms such as hardware,
software and programming languages. While one may argue that such
information is best left for an appendix, I believe that a basic understanding of the
technical aspects of open source will allow readers to better understand the
context and history of the open source movement.
In acknowledging the technical characteristics of a movement which
originates from early computing, there is an important distinction to be made
between the terms hardware and software. Hardware is typically described as
including the physical components of a computer (e.g., keyboards, monitors,
hard drives, etc.). These items are usually fixed and less modifiable (by end
users) than software. Software, in contrast, includes programs, codes and
routines that control the overall operation of the hardware components. Software
programs, which include subsets of codes and routines, are most easily written
through the assistance of programming languages. A programming language is
an artificial language that assists in enabling programmers (human software
developers) to write instructions or codes that, once compiled, will be executed
by the hardware. Examples of todays popular programming languages include
C++, Java and PERL.

The relationship between hardware and software is also important.

Programming languages allow a bridge between the human developer and the
control of the hardware, but written code from any programming language must
be compiled or translated to binary machine code (0s and 1s) for the hardware
to understand and execute the commands. In other words, code written by
human programmers must be converted to binary code, and once this conversion
is complete, the code is only readable by computers.
Source or source code includes the actual text written by programmers in
any number of programming languages. To other programmers, this code is
readable and understandable. When code is in the source form, programmers
are best able to understand how code works, how code may be improved or as
often the case, how errors in code can be addressed. However, once the source
code is compiled to machine language, it is very difficult or impossible to work
with the code to make alterations or improvements to software (see Figure 1
below).

Figure 1: Steps in the conversion of human thought to machine

code. Unless developers make source code available, the code is almost
always impossible to retrieve, modify or improve.

Today, most software is either developed as proprietary (closed source) or

as open source. For instance, Microsoft Windows XP (and all other previous
versions of Windows) is completely closed source. Only developers at Microsoft
(or Microsoft designated third parties) are able to make any modifications to this
operating system (software). Alternately, many distributions of the increasingly
popular Linux operating system are available free of charge by download from
various Internet sources. Due to the potentially drastic reduction in cost of
systems running open source operating systems (e.g., Linux) versus proprietary
operating systems (e.g., Microsoft XP), the open source economic model has
begun to find favour with educators in both small and large-scale initiatives (see

examples of School Division initiatives, notably the State of Maine and Kamloops
School Division #73 at http://www.canopener.ca)

Origins of the Free/Open Source Movement

Although the term Open Source Software has only recently claimed
widespread use, this phrasing originates in the American hacker culture of the
1960s and 70s. More specifically, the practices behind the term are attributed to
key individuals working in the computer science laboratories of Stanford,
Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon and MIT. Such individuals include Eric Allman, the
inventor of sendmail, the open source program that is in part responsible for
email to move from sender to receiver (you may not have heard of Allman, but if
youve used email, youve used his invention). Ken Thompson, who moved from
Berkeley to work with Bell Labs in 1969, is also another key individual and the
inventor of Unix.1 Dennis Ritchie, who worked with Ken Thompson on the Unix
project, is attributed to developing C, one of the most widely used programming
languages. While these individuals may not be household names, their work in
computer science paved the way for the modern day connectivity we experience
in our personal, academic and business class computing.
These individuals represent a few major developments of the era which
hold continuing effects on modern computing. Yet, such advancements may not
have been possible had it not been for the collaborative nature of the developing
community. This pioneering community of programmers was small and close-

Unix is still the most common multi-user operating system in the world and the basis for Linux and other
popular open source (e.g., BSD-based Unix varieties) and proprietary (e.g., SCO Unix) operating systems.

knit. Throughout the software development process, code (source) passed freely
between members on various projects. If an improvement was made to code,
there was an expectation that this information was to be passed along to other
members of the entire programming community. To withhold code was
considered gauche, as it was to everyones benefit in the collaborative culture
that the code was improved (Stallman 2000). However, the nature of this
collaborative protocol was to take a turn by the end of the 1970s as many
developers were enticed to join commercial firms producing proprietary software.
Certainly the most profound and outspoken member of the Open Source
Movement is Richard Stallman who began his computer science career as a
Graduate student at MIT in 1971. While Stallmans career began in an
environment of collaboration, sharing and collegiality (as described above), his
surroundings began to change in the early 1980s as many of his former
colleagues began to work for commercial companies, which sold primarily
proprietary systems. In an interview with David Bennahum, Richard Stallman
spoke about the origins of this practice as he recalled the actions of student
programmer Brian Reed from Carnegie Mellon University in 1980. Reed, a
computer science student who wrote a text-formatting program named Scribe,
surprised everyone by selling it to a company, instead of sharing it with the
community. The company was very proprietary about it, and very obnoxiously put
time bombs into it (Bennahum, 1996, online). The problem was that nobody
censured or punished this student for what he did. He got away with it. The result
was other people got tempted to follow his example (King, 1999, online).

As ranks of programmers moved toward commercial pursuits, Stallman

struggled to maintain a community of collaboration. Stallman disclosed, I was
faced with a choice. One: join the proprietary software world, sign the
nondisclosure agreements and promise not to help my fellow hackers. Two:
leave the computer field altogether. Or three: look for a way that a programmer
could do something for the good. I asked myself, was there a program or
programs I could write, so as to make a community possible again? (King, 1999,
online). It seems that Stallman chose to follow his third choice as he left MIT in
1985.
Shortly after leaving MIT, Stallman pursued his lost community and
formed the Free Software Foundation (FSF). The foundations website
(http://www.gnu.org) hosts community-developed, freely available software. In
1985, Stallman authored the GNU manifesto2, which called for other
programmers/hackers to join a new project, which could potentially champion the
benefits of sharing source code. GNU, perhaps Stallmans most famous
initiative3, is the most revered/used software package available from the
foundation. GNU, a recursive acronym, stands for GNUs not Unix. GNU is not
one program but a collection of many complementary programs (e.g., compilers,
editors, text formatters, mail applications, etc.) created through the GNU project.
GNU is the combined work of many programmers and developers, and was
developed to be upwardly compatible with Unix. However, GNU was missing one
key component to make it a complete operating system; the kernel. In other

2
3

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html
http://www.gnu.org/

words, GNU had all the separate components of a complete operating system,
but was missing the central component that would mesh these parts together.
Enter Linus Torvalds and Linux.

The Rise of Linux and Other Open Source Giants

In 1991, Linus Torvalds, a 21-year-old computer science student at the
University of Helsinki posted the following message to the Internet newsgroup
comp.os.minix.
> From: torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds)
> Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
> Subject: What would you like to see most in minix?
> Summary: small poll for my new operating system
> Message-ID: <1991Aug25.205708.9541@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
> Date: 25 Aug 91 20:57:08 GMT
> Organization: University of Helsinki
>
>
> Hello everybody out there using minix >
> I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and
> professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones. This has been brewing
> since april, and is starting to get ready. I'd like any feedback on
> things people like/dislike in minix, as my OS resembles it somewhat
> (same physical layout of the file-system (due to practical reasons)
> among other things).

Although seemingly an insignificant request, Torvalds posting, and others like it

that followed, spurred the collaborative creation of what was to become the Linux
kernel, the central component of the Linux/GNU operating system.4 Although
Linux, as software, has been revered as a viable (and free) alternative to
Windows, what I believe to be more significant lies in the collaborative manner in
which Linux was developed. Raymond (1999) writes, The most important feature
4

Note: Technically, Linux is not a complete operating system in itself, but refers to the kernel. The kernel
is an essential part of the operating system, however, and is the core that provides basic services for all
other parts of the operating system. Without the Linux Kernel, GNU was an incomplete operating system.
For an excellent technical description of how Linux and GNU coexist, see Fink, 2003, Chapter Two.

10

of Linux, however, was not technical but sociological. Until the Linux
development, everyone believed that any software as complex as an operating
system had to be developed in a carefully coordinated way by a relatively small,
tight-knit group of people. This model is typical of both commercial software and
the great freeware cathedrals built by the Free Software Movement in the 1980s
(p. 16). Additionally, even those individuals closest to the hacker culture could
not themselves predict the great influence that Linux, and as an extension the
open source movement, would have on the computing world. To the latter point,
Raymond (1999) continues, Linux is subversive. Who would have thought that
even five years ago (1991) that a world-class operating system could coalesce
as if by magic out of part-time hacking by several thousand developers scattered
all over the planet, connected only by tenuous strands of the Internet? (p. 17).
Only two years after the release of Linux, groups such as Red Hat,
Debian and SuSE emerged to modify and improve, to give away, and in some
cases, sell their own distributions of Linux. Features continue to be added to
Linux, including SAMBA5, which allows Linux to transparently share files and
printers over even Microsoft-based networks. On the desktop (consumer level), it
is reported that Linux has reached almost a two-percent market penetration. This
may seem an insignificant proportion until it is compared to veteran Apple
Computers penetration which has been estimated to be anywhere between two
and eleven percent (Fink, 2003, p. 31). Today, Linux runs on at least 15 different
computer platforms including IBM mainframes, Macintosh, PCs, Sun Systems

http://www.samba.org/

11

and Palm Pilots. Linux boasts over 10 million users and the number continues to
grow (Wheeler, 2002).
Linux is certainly not the only great success story of the open source
movement. In January 1998, Netscape, in a shocking move6, announced that it
would release its popular web browser suite, Netscape Communicator, as an
open source product. While there were various opinions on what seemed an
insane move by a corporate giant, the action introduced the idea of free software
as a legitimate idea to the business community. Netscape felt that it could tap
into a community of developers to improve its own product. By 2002, Mozilla7
was released as the first open source, production version of Netscapes code.
Also, Apache8 web server, another open source application, is currently
the most widely used web server on the World Wide Web. Other applications
like Perl9 and PHP10 have become increasingly popular and essential tools for
many web programmers. IBM, Dell and Compaq now all provide servers that run
Linux. Apple Computers has based its newest Operating System on BSD, an
open source Unix-like operating system developed at the University of Berkeley.
There are literally thousands of applications that are available as open source,
and many are designed for business, personal computing or education. A
comprehensive list of open source projects can be found at SourceForge.net.11

This is sometimes referred to as the shot heard round the world (Raymond,1999, p.203)
http://www.mozilla.org
8
http://www.apache.org
9
http://www.perl.org/
10
http://www.php.net/
11
http://sourceforge.net/
7

12

Open Source Licensing Structures

The magic which helped to establish Linux and, by now, countless
other open source and free software projects would have likely not occurred
without Stallmans unique twist on copyright and software licensing. In the motion
picture documentary, Revolution OS, Torvalds described his relationship with
Stallman stating, Think of Richard Stallman as the great philosopher and me as
the engineer. To give more breadth to this statement, its important to
understand the General Public License (GPL), the idea of copyleft and Stallmans
understanding of free software.
The General Public License is the legal software agreement, which
enabled various developers to work on the GNU project. The detailed GPL and
its legalese can be found at the Open Source Initiative (OSI)12 website
(http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php). However, to summarize,
the GPL is based on Stallmans following principles. When forming the Free
Software Foundation, Stallman stated that for any software to be truly free,
every user must have the right to:
1) run the program for any purpose.
2) modify the program to suit their needs (i.e., in most cases, this
means that potential developers must have access to the
source code).
3) redistribute copies, either gratis or free.
4) distribute modified versions of the program, so that the
community can benefit from your improvements.
(Free Software Foundation, Online)
From the previous set of principles, it may seem contradictory to say that
one can charge a fee for free software. To clarify, Stallman defines the meaning
12

Open Source Initiative (OSI) is a non-profit corporation dedicated to managing and promoting the
ideals of open source software definition.

13

of the term free software by explaining that it refers to software that is free as in
speech, not as in beer (Dibona, Ockman, Stone, 1999, p.3). In other words,
Stallman is making a distinction between liberty and gratis. Software developers
of programs falling under the GPL have the liberty to make changes, share code,
use and redistribute, however, they are not bound to give away any derived
works. However, the notion of copyleft becomes very important here. Copyleft,
an essential part of the GPL is the mechanism that keeps software free.
Copyleft uses copyright law, but flips it over to serve the opposite
of its usual purpose: instead of a means of privatizing software, it
becomes a means of keeping software free. The central idea of
copyleft is that we give everyone permission to run the program,
copy the program, modify the program, and distribute modified
versions but not permission to add restrictions of their own.
Thus, crucial freedoms that define free software are guaranteed
to everyone who has a copy; they become inalienable rights.
(Stallman, 2000, p. 53)
The GPL is not the only licensing agreement that applies to open source
software. In fact, GPL is only one of many open source-type licenses. However,
GPL is probably the most popularly referred to licensing structure due to
Torvalds decision to apply the GPL to Linux. Other popular open source
licenses include Apache Software license (the licensing structure of the worlds
most distributed web server software), Artistic License (applies to the Perl
programming language), BSD (Berkeley Systems Distribution)13, IBM public
license (IBMs commercial copyleft license) and the Mozilla Public License
(applies to the open source version of the colossal Netscape Navigator) (Fink
2003). While most of these licensing structures are similar, each handles
intellectual property and the rights of the developers slightly differently.
13

Derived from a version of Unix developed at the University of Berkeley, California.

14

Developers have the ability to choose which licensing structure (in some cases,
more than one can be chosen) is most suitable to their work and to future
modifications done by the open source community or by commercial enterprise.
While there are certainly many variables in regards to the licensing of open
source, both initial developers of open source projects and those who adopt open
source software (e.g., schools) must be aware of the specific legalities in respect
to open source and free software. (see McGowan, 2001)

The Open Movement Today

When I first began thinking about the open source movement, I knew
only of the movement as it pertained to software. However, as I did more
research, I realized that software, while perhaps the impetus, was merely the
context. With closer scrutiny, what I found to be more important is that the open
source movement nurtures a philosophy that values certain freedoms pertaining
to knowledge dissemination, and leverages unique collaborative processes for
the creation of new knowledge. This basic philosophy has taken new shape
today as the open source movement has emerged, most notably, in the forms of
open content and open publishing.
Open content is an evolving term, but in a strict sense refers to
traditional and non-traditional content (e.g., books, articles, images, websites,
music, etc.) that is freely available for modification, use, and redistribution under
a license similar to those used by the open source / free software community
(Wiley, 1998, online). There has been the development of large open content

15

initiatives over the past several years. Notably, the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) is currently developing the Open Courseware Initiative (OCW)
at http://ocw.mit.edu. The OCW is an open publication of MIT course materials
which currently features over 500 separate courses. The courses are licensed
under a Creative Commons14 license.
The Creative Commons (CC) is an organization that was developed to
help authors release content in a manner that protects the rights of the creator,
but also encourages accessibility toward certain public uses of material. The
developments of the Creative Commons are inspired by the open source
software movement and the organization has begun to redefine how authored
content is to be released. An excerpt from the CC philosophy reads:
We use private rights to create public goods: creative works set
free for certain uses. Like the free software and open-source
movements, our ends are cooperative and community-minded, but
our means are voluntary and libertarian. We work to offer creators a
best-of-both-worlds way to protect their works while encouraging
certain uses of them to declare "some rights reserved. (Creative
Commons, 2002, online)
Hundreds of works including books, essays, photographs, songs and
short videos have been released under Creative Commons licenses in the past
several years. The CC has become an attractive alternative apart from traditional
approaches of releasing content. And as the GPL licensing structure was
significant in fostering the collaborative development of Linux, certain CC
licenses can act to encourage and enable others to collaborate on joint projects,
while protecting attribution rights of the initial author(s). (To better understand the

14

http://creativecommons.org

16

CC licensing process, its helpful to view their Choose License page at:
http://creativecommons.org/license/)
Open publishing is also a relatively new phenomenon which has grown
under the influence of the open source movement, and has been encouraged by
the interactive structure of the Internet. Arnison (2001) writes, open publishing
means that the process of creating news is transparent to the readers. They can
contribute to a story and see it instantly appear in the pool of stories publicly
available,,,, Readers can see editorial decisions being made by others. They can
see how to get involved and make editorial decisions (Online). Transparency is
a key concept here, as the creation of news becomes open to the eyes of the
interested and involved, much like source code is accessible through open
source software projects. In the open publishing model, the relationship between
news producer and news consumer has merged.
In some instances, open publishing networks (often referred to as
Indymedias) seem to have risen as an intentional departure from the news
construction process at traditional media outlets. Many view the rise of open
publishing as a reaction against special interest, government influenced,
advertising-funded media empires (Hyde, 2000). In contrast, Indymedias are
restructuring the traditional news hierarchy of publishers, advertisers, sources,
journalists and readers. In the world of Indymedia news, the relationship between
the sources, journalists, and readers is all that matters. In the Indymedia
community, publishers advertisers, and corporate interests are left out of the
picture (Hyde, 2000).

17

There are dozens of examples of large open publishing ventures. Some

of the more popular examples include:
-

The Independent Media Centre (IMC) - http://www.indymedia.org/. IMC

is a collective of independent media organizations started in late
1999. There has been criticism of IMC, especially in regards to the
anti-corporate and leftist slant to many of its stories.15

TearItAllDown.com - http://www.tearitalldown.com/. An open publishing

community for varied types of activists.

Kuro5hin - http://www.kuro5hin.org/. A community focusing on

technology and culture, where daily users are able to vote for the
days top stories, and comment on each.

Slash Dot - http://slashdot.org/. Slash Dots motto is news for nerds,

stuff that matters. Daily news, especially related to technology, is
posted daily and commentaries are written by users.

Another equally important development in the open publishing spectrum

includes the recent emergence of web logs (blogs). Blogs are usually personal
websites that provide updated journal entries, commentaries, headlines, news
articles or hyperlinks of interest to the user or to a somewhat specific audience.
While blogs have been around since early 1999, their rapid growth was fostered
more recently in part by the development of easy-to-use interfaces created by
Pitas 16 (the first web log specific software) and by Pyra Labs17 (known as
Blogger). Since then, dozens of content management systems18 have emerged
(e.g., Moveable Type, TypePad, Live Journal, Radio Userland, etc.) and there
are likely several million active bloggers.19 Blogging and content management

15

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Media_Center
http://www.pitas.com
17
http://www.blogger.com
18
A content management system (CMS) is software that enables simple addition/editing/manipulation of
HTML (website) content.
19
Blogspot alone has over 1.5 million active bloggers as of May 2004 (http://www.dijest.com/bc/).
16

18

systems are likely to have significant effects on the personalization and

practicality of publishing to and with others on the World Wide Web.

Rationale for Open Source Adoption

In the last several years, open source and free software development
has gained much popularity with educators (see Linux Case Studies20). Reasons
for open source advocacy vary, and dozens of informal articles by educators and
techies alike mark the World Wide Web eliciting varying rationales for open
source adoption (see Canopener21). Many argue economic reasons such as a
lower total cost of ownership (TCO) in schools22 and other, mostly economic
rationales (Lerner & Tirole, 2000). Others focus their arguments on social
democratic ideals of intellectual property (Newmarch, 2001, May, 2000, Moglen,
1999, Sodenberg, 2002). To use the colloquial term, it seems that everyone and
their dog has an opinion on open source software and Linux. However, the
difficulty I have encountered thus far is in finding peer-reviewed publications on
the topic, particularly related to how schools and educators are using open
source in the educational setting. Inquiries in this area could lead to identifying
what factors compel educators to use and or develop open source applications,
and simply, what is being done with open source and free software in schools?
A few theorists have compared the Internet economy, and particularly
open source communities, to that of the Gift Economy which was practiced
traditionally by North American First Nation tribes and ancient Chinese societies
20

http://casestudy.seul.org
http://www.canopener.ca
22
A list of articles regarding TCO is available at http://luminance.sourceforge.net/resources_archive.php
21

19

(Cheal, 1988, Mauss, 1990). Partial gift economies also seem to exist, in
contemporary forms, within academic cultures. Barbrook (1998) writes,
Within small tribal societies, the circulation of gifts established close
personal bonds between people. In contrast, the academic gift
economy is used by intellectuals who are spread across the world.
Despite the anonymity of the modern version of the gift economy,
academics acquire intellectual respect from each other through
citations in articles and other forms of public acknowledgement.
Scientists therefore can only obtain personal recognition for their
individual efforts by openly collaborating with each other through
the academic gift economy. Although research is being increasingly
commercialised, the giving away of findings remains the most
efficient method of solving common problems within a particular
scientific discipline. (Online)
Here, Barbrook both acknowledges and advocates for the collaborative
benefits of a gift culture.
Raymond (1998) also describes hacker culture as a true semblance of
gift economy. In Homesteading the Noosphere, he argues that our contemporary
society holds ties to a classical exchange society, which is strongly interlinked to
a command hierarchy. Added on to this, within our own contemporary society,
humans continue to hold an innate drive for social status. Using these
presumptions, Raymond (1998) proposes that gift cultures are adaptations not
to scarcity but to abundance (online). He continues, Abundance makes
command relationships difficult to sustain and exchange relationships an almost
pointless game. In gift cultures, social status is determined not by what you
control but by what you give away. Although Raymond may present an all too
simplistic analysis of the open source culture through this lens, there may be
aspects of the gift culture analogy that are worth examining. In particular, the gift

20

economy theories may in part help to explain motivations underlying the

increased popularity of open source software.
While there is much written on open source communities, especially
from an economic and technical (development) viewpoint, there is little written on
open source communities that involve educators. For this, I feel it necessary to
first identify educators that have or are beginning to adopt open source/free
software into their institutions, to examine their personal motivations for adopting
open source/free software into their personal life or practice and to begin to
examine how these educators are informed of issues with open source/free
software (technical, political, social) and learn to become competent users of
these tools. It is the assumption that these educators are members, at varying
levels, of open source communities, and therefore, it is important to the research
that their membership and participation in these (often virtual) communities is
identified and analyzed through an appropriate lens.

Informants and Sources of Data

As the context of this research is based on a relatively technical area,
traditional and non-traditional forms of data collection will be explored. The
following is a rough summary (pre-proposal) of how data collection methods may
be devised.
1) Selection of informants for face-to-face interviews, email conversations,
video conferencing, and other electronic communications. The desired
participants for this study are distributed over relatively large distances. While
some face-to-face interviews are possible, these will be limited because of

21

distance and time. Instead, electronic communication software is likely to be

used, that could include basic email, two-way audio or video conferencing,
listservs or web forums, blogging and possibly the use of wikis. Due to the
perceived technical abilities of the target group, I feel that communication over
distances using electronic tools will result in thoughtful, and rich data.

2) Tapping into existing open source-related listservs, forums, newsgroup,

blogs and other electronic communications There are many local, national
and international organizations (both formal and informal) that use electronic
communications that are either archived, or can be tracked for the duration of the
study. For instance, LOSURS (Linux Open Source Users of Regina) carries
active listserv conversations which often feature relevant information and/or
advocacy activities regarding open source thought and implementation in the
local context. In studying such electronic communications, two things may be
accomplished. First, communicators can be identified (by relevance and
experience) from the listservs and asked to participate in one-to-one interviews
or participate in face-to-face or electronic focus-groups. Second, the threads
themselves can be mined for rich data. Of course, either of these activities would
have to be approved by ethics, and in the case of the latter, by the
administrators/users of the listserv.

22

3) Publicly accessible open-source oriented organizations websites can be

mined for relevant content and activities. There are many open source related
websites that can be mined for rich data. Some of these websites include:
- CanOpener (http://www.canopener.ca) Canopener is a national advocacy group
which intends to educate Canadians on all aspects of free software, the open
source movement and the use of GNU/Linux.
- Free Software Foundation (http://www.fsf.org) - The website of Richard
Stallmans organization which presents a philosophy for free software, and
fosters free software projects.
- SchoolForge (http://www.schoolforge.net) Schoolforge is a support website for
schools hoping to implement open source initiatives into schools and districts.
Additionally, many open source projects are developed through Schoolforge, and
its sister organization, Sourceforge.
- SEUL/EDU (http://www.seul.org/edu) Simple End User Linux in Education is an
organization dedicated to supporting the use of Linux in the educational context.
- Open Source Initiative (http://www.opensource.org) A non-profit corporation
founded by Eric Raymond to promote Open Source initiatives through the
development of standardized open source definitions.
These are just a few of the important organizations that will act as contact
platforms, and potentially relevant sources of data. Together, these organizations
provide a wider perspective of the open source movement, in its many shapes
and forms, in Canada.
There are many potential sources of information for a study such as this.
However, due to the nature of the content, much of the research may rely on
information sources which are emergent and possibly non-refereed. While this
may cause issues to arise, as a researcher, I must consider the most relevant
and rich material, in whatever form. Then, through balancing and coalescing
these information sources with peer-reviewed literature and thoughtful

23

methodologies, I will be able to better understand the implications for the open
source movement in the educational context.

24

Question #2:
2) What is grounded theory and how will it support the work that you are
considering in your doctoral research?

a) What are two other qualitative approaches you considered, and rejected, and
why were they inferior to grounded theory in this instance?

25

Introduction to Grounded Theory

Grounded theory (GT) is an interpretive qualitative research method
which was originally conceived by Glaser and Strauss (1967). Like many
qualitative methodologies, GT is used in the collection and analyses of data.
However, while traditional research designs usually rely on a literature review,
leading to the formation of a hypothesis, followed by hypothesis testing, GT
attempts to investigate the phenomena of the real world through data analyses
without a preconceived hypothesis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). In other words,
rather than beginning with a hypothesis or theory, grounded theory is a useful
methodology that fosters the development of theory through research activities
(e.g., observation, conversation, interviewing). Due to this inductive tenet, MT is
often described as being an emergent methodology (Glaser, 1992).
To better understand what grounded theory is, and what it is not, it is
useful to begin with some basic points. The following key characteristics of GT
are paraphrased from Creswells (1998) Qualitative Inquiry and Research
Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. In this work, Creswell proposes that:
- the basic aim of grounded theory is to discover theory or theories.
- grounded theory relies on the premise that theoretical assumptions are
set aside by the researcher(s) prior to a study.
- the development of theory focuses on participant interaction in relation to
the phenomena under study.

26

- theory is derived from the analyses of data which are gathered through
field observations, interviews/conversations and documents (the literature
itself is treated as data).
- data analysis consists of systematic processes which begin as soon as
data is available.
- initial data analysis begins with the identification of categories, and the
connecting and comparison to other existing and emerging categories
(constant comparative method).
- the collection of subsequent data (also known as sampling) is based on
the emerging concepts generated by the constant comparison with newer
data.
- the standard format for data analyses includes three stages: open coding
(identifying categories, properties and dimensions), axial coding
(examining causal conditions, strategies, context and consequences) and
selective coding (development of propositions that usually follow a specific
story line).
- the resulting theory can be reported in either a narrative framework,
and/or as a set of theoretical propositions.
While this list can be extended and given greater detail, it provides a sketch of
the grounded theory methodology from initialization to completion. More detail
regarding grounded theory will be developed in the following sections.

27

Doing Grounded Theory

In the previous section, I have summarized some of the basic tenets of
grounded theory. However, since the seminal work, The Discovery of Grounded
Theory (1967), was written, there have been many interpretations of grounded
theory in both theory and practice. In fact, even the originators, Glaser and
Strauss, independently developed significantly different versions of GT
throughout their academic careers. While the variations in the perception of GT
are important23, there are two points that will help me push past these
differences, for now. First, as Dey (1999) puts bluntly, If Glaser and Strauss
cannot agree on a definitive version, if would be impertinent (and indeed,
impossible) for an outsider to arbitrate (vx). A dissertation could be written on
the incommensurability of grounded theory variations since the time of its
discovery, and yet there is still strong support for the use of GT in academic
writing, including GT in dissertation research.24 My goal, in this case, is to tool
my use of GT from both a widely accepted form, and one that will enable the
discovery of new theory. Additionally, researchers must see methodologies as
enabling, and being a qualitative researcher, I understand that no amount of
methodology tinkering will produce research free of error. In other words, there is
as likely a chance to develop a perfect form of grounded theory, as there is the
likelihood for this perfect form to be accepted by all GT theorists. Yet, research,
mistakes and all, must go on. And I am comforted by Lincoln and Denzin (1994),
as they state These criticisms and exchanges can operate at a level of

23
24

These will be discussed later in this paper.

The Grounded Theory Institute - http://www.groundedtheory.com/

28

abstraction that does little to help people who just go out and do research. (p.
577)
In my construction of grounded theory in practice, I have broken down
the process of doing grounded theory research into three analytic phases.25
These phases include research design, data collection and analysis and
literature comparison. Within each phase, a series of plausible steps are
included. To better understand the applicability of grounded theory to my
intended study, I have used the context of studying the open source movement.
Yet, as this is a pre-proposal work, I have not yet gone into great detail.
As GT is both systematic and emergent, these steps are not intended to
be interpreted as strictly sequential. The linear focus, however, does help to build
a framework for my understanding of GT in practice, and will help in framing my
research proposal. Additionally, what is not made explicit within these steps is
the actual writing process. As GT uses constant comparison, writing is important
throughout the data analyses and comparison process. Writing happens from the
moment you begin data collection, through theory development and into later
literature comparative stages. Writing is at the heart of grounded theory.
The brief framework for doing grounded theory follows.
Phase 1: Research Design Phase
1) Review of technical literature
The open source movement is complex and bridges several disciplines
(e.g., philosophy, economics, sociology, social computing). While GT literature

25

These analytic phases are derived from the works of Glaser & Strauss (1967) and Strauss & Corbin
(1997).

29

advises against an exhaustive approach to literature review (Glaser, 1992;

Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1997), in the case of open source
(and certainly in the case of other complex multi-disciplinary topics), a strong
understanding of the basic technical literature is important, especially for aid in
the discovery of relevant categories26, relationships between categories and the
formulation of research questions. More specifically, Dey (1999) advises that
technical literature in grounded theory can be helpful in several ways:
a) for the development of knowledge of philosophical writings and
existing theories
b) as a useful bridge to secondary sources of data
c) to stimulate research questions
d) to foster the direction of theoretical sampling
e) as a supplementary validation (an activity to occur after theory
has been generated from GT analysis). (pp. 51-52)

2) Definition of Research Questions

As it is important in GT for theory to emerge from the data, the design of
the research questions is an important consideration. Generally, research
questions must be open and non-specific rather than formed as a specific
hypothesis. GT is not based on hypothesis testing. Questions formulated through
GT methods must enable theory generation, and not be restricted by
assumptions within the questions themselves. For instance, a possible question
for my study reads,
Are there common values and beliefs held by members of open
source communities, and if so, what are they?
rather than
26

A category is considered to stand by itself as a conceptual element of a theory. (Glaser & Strauss,
1967)

30

What common values and beliefs do members of open source

communities share?
The second question assumes that there are in fact shared beliefs to be found.
While this is a simplistic example, its important to develop questions that reflect
a basic understanding of the context of study, but will not make assumptions that
can hinder the emergence of theory from that data.

3) Sampling
Sampling, in the case of this potential study, can be described as process
of selecting a number of informants/participants from a defined study population.
The most common types of sampling in GT are known as purposeful (purposive,
selective) sampling and theoretical sampling. While in the literature, these terms
are often used interchangeably (i.e., selective sampling is the same as
purposeful sampling), some theorists make an important distinction.
Selective sampling may be seen to mean purposeful sampling .
Theoretical sampling may be seen as a variation of purposeful
sampling, but purposeful sampling is not all necessarily theoretical
sampling. (Coyne, 1997)
The distinction in the terminology of these sampling methods may seem
unimportant. However, in my interpretation of sampling as it applies to grounded
research, I see two distinct phases. When beginning the research, I plan to use
purposeful sampling to initially target specific members of the open source
community. In understanding the goal of selective sampling, I look to Patton
(1990; 2002).

31

The logic and power of purposeful sampling lies in selecting

information-rich cases for study in depth. Information rich cases are
those from which one can learn a great deal about issues of central
importance to the purpose of the research.
As the sample begins to inform the development of propositions and theory,
further sampling should take on a responsive approach. This is where theoretical
sampling becomes important, as it is guided by the on-going analysis.
Theoretical sampling involves purposeful selection of samples to
inform the emerging theory in the study. (Coyne, 1997)
conceptual elaborations . . . become the hypotheses which guide
the researcher back to locations and comparative groups in the
field to discover more ideas and connections from the data.
(Glaser, 1978)
Where selective sampling leaves off, theoretical sampling can help to better
focus the efforts of the data collection on theoretically useful cases where the
researcher can test and/or extend theory.

Phase 2: Data Collection and Analysis Phase

4) Develop Varied Data Collection Sources
In regards to data collection, grounded theory studies share some
characteristics with other qualitative approaches to research. In particular,
sources of data are typically the same and can include interviews, field
observations and documents of all kinds (diaries, letters, autobiographies,
biographies, historical accounts, newspapers, and other media materials)
(Denzin & Lincoln, 1998). And in the case of a study related to the open source
movement, data sources would likely include electronic media, especially

32

listservs/majordomos, mailing lists, web logs, email transcripts and possibly

audio/video conference data.
While single sources of data are possibly appropriate with some
methodologies, the GT approach advocates the use of multiple data sources
which converge on the same phenomenon. Glaser and Strauss (1967) define
these as slices of data and write,
no one kind of data on a category, nor technique for data
collection is necessarily appropriate. Different kinds of data give the
analyst different views or vantage points from which to understand
a category and to develop its properties; these different views we
have called slices of data. While the [researcher] may use one
technique of data collection primarily, theoretical sampling for
saturation27 of a category allows a multifaceted investigation, in
which there are no limits to the techniques of data collection, the
way they are used, or the types of data acquired. (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967, p. 65)
What Glaser and Strauss (1967) are basically referring to in the use of multiple
sources of data is the concept of data triangulation. While there are various types
of triangulation28, data triangulation is where data are collected at multiple times
and/or from multiple sources to overcome problems of construct validity29 and
bias.

5) Data Collection
Constant comparison is at the heart of the GT process. Therefore the
process of data collection must involve constant analysis of data as collected. In

27

Saturation, also known as theoretical saturation, is the point where existing and new data no longer bring
about new theory or speculation, but continue to confirm theories already derived from data.
28
Some other common types of triangulation include investigator triangulation, methodological
triangulation and interdisciplinary triangulation.
29
Construct validity refers the degree to which the testing/measurement tool used in a study accurately
reflects the conceptual question of interest.

33

a grounded theory study, data collection and analysis works through the
following, mostly-overlapping phases.
Data Collection: As stated earlier, data collection sources vary. However,
interviewing is one of the most common collection methods. There are various
books related to good interviewing techniques and qualitative methods. Excellent
choices include Kvale (1996), Rubin & Rubin (1995), Seidman (1998) and
Wengraf (2001). As other sources of data are discovered, and subsequently
mined, relevant guidebooks will be consulted in considering appropriate methods
for data handling.
Note-taking: In GT, note taking is an important consideration in data
collection. In qualitative research, there are various approaches to the process of
note-taking, however Glaser & Strauss (1967) suggest a very specific approach.
The authors advise against audio recording or the production of word-by-word
transcripts. It is suggested that time is better spent focusing on additional
interviews than in producing transcripts or re-listening to recordings of interviews.
In GT, I understand that note-taking is meant to record basic concepts, rather
than full literal readings. However, I think a compromise can be argued here
where interviews can be recorded in order to check for understanding of the
basic derived concepts against the audio taped sessions. This slightly alternative
approach is supported by Dick (2002, Online).
Coding: There are three specific types of coding methods described in
typical ground theory literature. These distinct but similar methods of coding
include open coding, axial coding and selective coding. Open coding involves the

34

process of developing categories, concepts or themes which emerge from the

data. It is open in the sense that the researcher engages in exploration of the
data without making prior assumptions about what might be discovered.30 Axial
coding is a coding method which serves to facilitate the building of connections
within categories and subcategories. Thus, this coding technique serves to
deepen the theoretical framework underpinning your analysis (Kerlin, 2002). In
selective coding, the researcher uses the categories identified through axial
coding to develop a story line. In this phase, conditional propositions (or
hypotheses) are typically presented (Creswell, 1998, p. 57).
Memoing: An important activity of the GT methodology is the writing of
memos (memoing). Memos occur as a parallel process to data collection, notetaking and coding. In effect, a memo is a note to oneself related to a possible
hypothesis or relationship between derived categories. Glaser (1978) developed
a set of theoretical memoing rules (pp. 89-91) which are useful in the
understanding the practical definition and boundaries of a memo. Additionally,
Corbin and Strauss (1990) emphasize the importance and place of memoing, as
stated in the following passage:
Writing theoretical memos is an integral part of the doing grounded
theory. Since the analyst cannot readily keep track of all the
categories, properties, hypotheses, and generative questions that
evolve from the analytical process, there must be a system for
doing so. The use of memos constitutes such a system. Memos are
not simply ideas. They are involved in the formulation and revision
of theory during the research process. (p.10)

30

Although the tabula rasa approach is an important principle of GT, it is one met with critique. This topic
will be specifically discussed later in this paper.

35

Memoing is indeed an important component of data analysis in the GT

methodology. However, as you will see in the next section, the data analysis
process can now be assisted through the use of specialized computing software.

6) Using Qualitative Data Analysis Software

There are several qualitative data analysis software packages available
today (e.g., Atlas.ti, Nud*ist, Nvivo, etc). For this study, I will be using Atlas.ti
with my data analysis for three very practical reasons. First, the design of Atlas.ti
is based on grounded theory. The software is specifically helpful in the coding
and memoing process, and ultimately in helping to draw relationships between
categories and the developing theory. Second, Atlas.ti has a strong user
community.31 The community has helped to shape the functionality of Atlas.ti
over several versions, and is supportive of users of the software. And third, and
perhaps most important, I have access to local users of Atlas.ti who are willing to
help me through the process of data analysis.
In the past, the most common tools used in the data analysis process of
grounded theory included piles of divided blank paper, 5X7 memo cards, scissors
and possibly a photocopier. However, qualitative analysis software programs
have emerged to simplify and quicken the mechanical aspects of data analysis.
For some researchers, the greatest advantage of these programs is that it can
give the researcher more time to concentrate on the more creative aspects of
theory building. Tesch (1991) writes,

31

You can enter and join the Atlas.ti user community here - http://www.atlasti.com/maillist.shtml

36

The thinking, judging, deciding, interpreting, etc., are still done by

the researcher. The computer does not make conceptual decisions,
such as which words or themes are important to focus on, or which
analytical step to take next. These analytical tasks are still left
entirely to the researcher. (pp. 25-26)
And Lee and Fielding (1991) also support my original idea with,
It is likely that computers will bring real benefits to qualitative
researchers, making their work easier, more productive and
potentially more thorough. (p. 6)
There are two principal levels (modes) available when working through
Atlas.ti: the textual level and the conceptual level. With the textual level, the
researcher focuses on breaking down or segmenting the primary documents (i.e.,
data files) and as well, focuses on the writing of memos. In essence, the
different types of GT coding (i.e., open, axial, selective) are directed by the types
of memoing which are done in Atlas.ti. For instance, code memos relate to
open coding and focus on conceptual labelling. Additionally, theoretical memos
in Atlas.ti relate to axial and selective coding. Then, in Atlas.tis conceptual level,
the researcher is able to visually connect selected portions of the data, memos
and codes into diagrams which graphically outline complex relations (Atlas.ti,
1997, p. 7). The conceptual level allows the researcher to examine and explore
relationships between data that may not have been as obvious as in the textual
view.
I can go on with a description of the step-by-step process of using Atlas.ti.,
however, that information is likely more appropriate in a technical manual. My
purpose in this short explanation was to put forth how qualitative analysis
software packages can be appropriate in grounded theory, and valuable to the

37

researcher and the research. Further information regarding Atlas.ti can be found
at http://www.atlasti.com.

Phase 3: Literature Comparison Phase

7) Comparison With Extant and Emerging32 Literature
In using a software package such as Atlas.ti, the goal of the data analysis
(in a grounded theory study) is to reach a point of theoretical saturation.
Theoretical saturation refers to the (non)emergence of new properties,
categories, or relationships. Once the data no longer offer any new distinctions of
conceptual import, categories can be described as saturated and no further
evidence need to be collected (Dey, 1999, p. 8). In GT, at this point, the results
of the emerging theory are often written up in the form of a narrative, presented
and the research could be regarded as complete. (Glaser & Strauss, 1967)
However, to strengthen both the level of analysis and the theoretical findings, it is
wise to continue the constant comparative process and once again, explore and
examine the derived theories with relevant literature. Eisenhardt (1989) writes,
Overall, tying the emergent theory to existing literature enhances
the internal validity, generalisability, and theoretical level of the
theory building from case study research because the findings
often rest on a very limited number of cases. (p. 545)
When I first started contemplating this research in the open source
movement, the literature of the movement was very much at the fringe. While
there was much written about the open source movement as a general

32

I use the term emerging in a fairly specific sense. Much of the literature found regarding open source is
either unpublished (in the traditional sense), or is constantly being modified (through collaborative licenses
such as found through the Creative Commons).

38

philosophy (Stallman, Raymond), there was little written on how we could learn
about the open source movement as a structure for collaborative practice in
fields outside of computing science (e.g., programming). However, recent works
have begun to extend the idea of the concept of open source collaborative
methods in other disciplines. A few examples, with brief descriptions, include:
The Business and Economics of Linux and Open Source (Fink,
2003) With open source software being given away,
corporations are trying to better understand the emerging business
model that has made companies such as RedHat, Suse Linux and
Novell recently more successful. Finks book is useful as a
managers guide to understanding and embracing the open source
movement in the corporate setting. It focuses on understanding the
open source models usefulness in cost-cutting, rediscovering
corporate value and implementing collaborative techniques across
and beyond the corporate enterprise.
The Success of Open Source (Weber, 2004) Her, Weber traces
the philosophical and technical foundations of the open source
movement and comes to the conclusion that societys foundational
assumption of knowledge as property has irrevocably shifted. As
professionals and citizens of the knowledge economy, we are left to
reinvent and arrange our world of information on this newly
accepted foundation.
Free Culture: How Big Media Uses the Technology and the Law to
Lock Down Culture And Control Creativity (Lessig, 2004) While
this book is not entirely related to the open source movement, it
addresses an important common theme: knowledge as property.
Lessigs position on the topic is fairly evident (look no further than
the ad hominem title), and the book is significant not only in the
content it describes, but through the way in which it was released
(i.e., free through a Creative Commons license AND for retail sale
through Amazon.com) as well as the movement it provoked (e.g.,
freeculture.org developed by the students of Swarthmore College).
While much of the literature seems to present certain general assumptions
(e.g., collaboration amongst individuals is constructive, the open source model
represents an important model for understanding collaboration), it is important for

39

this stage in GT to seek and examine conflicting literature. Eisenhardt (1989)

writes,
By examining conflicting literature and seeking explanations for why
there are contradictions one can preempt criticisms and enhance
confidence in the findings, but looking at conflicting theory also
represent an opportunity for deeper insights. By looking at literature
with similar findings, one connects the current study to previous
work, corroborate the findings and strengthen confidence. (p. 544)
Through thorough data analysis and the examination of a wide range of related
literature, theoretical constructions are perceived to be strengthened and better
grounded.

8) Producing a Final33 Narrative

The concluding phase of a grounded theory study may not look
significantly different than the final chapter of a study done using ethnography,
action research or an other qualitative methodologies. However, what may be
distinct in some cases is that the focus for grounded theory, throughout the
process, remains focused on the development of theory. While theory can be
expressed in various ways (e.g., organizational charts, conceptual diagrams, flow
charts, etc.), many GT researchers find the use of a narrative helpful in
summarizing and describing theoretical propositions.
Grounded theory has been described as a mixed marriage and a
reconciliation of naturalistic inquiry with the rigorous canons of variable analysis
(Dey, 1999, p. 45). Glaser & Strauss (1967) envisioned GT in this way in order

33

Finality is a concept that can suggest a rigid epistemological approach to a narrative being the truth or
the final word. From my stance, I refer to the term final to suggest that this work, as in the case of
academic for credit work, must face the reality of having a final condition as to which it is assessed.

40

to provide a confidence in the data (p. 68) as which to base theory. While much
of the described processes in the previous section (note-taking, coding,
memoing, etc.) seem quite prescriptive, there is little in the originating literature to
describe the specific actualization of processes (e.g., memoing), and therefore,
the method is open to sufficient interpretation.
A straight-forward and prescriptive outline for the findings section of a
GT study is described by Creswell (1998):
The findings section presents the theoretical scheme. The writer
includes references from the literature to show outside support for
the theoretical models. Also, segments of actual data in the form of
vignettes and quotes provide useful explanatory material. This
material helps the reader form a judgement about how well the
theory is grounded in the data. (p. 179)
This format is common, and for most readers, what Creswell describes is not
specific to grounded theory studies only. However, although being somewhat
generic, this format does suit grounded theory research well, especially in its
positioning of the data and literature (as data) throughout the body of the
narrative.
A point of contention with grounded theory emanates from the guiding
principle which can be summarized as theories are revealed rather than
contrived (Dey, 1999, p. 35). While this is an important principle and useful in
describing the inductive foundation of GT, it seems to give greater relevance to
the act of discovery over that of creativity. In thinking of how I will conclude my
study with reverent heed to my understanding of GT, I have realized that my
current thinking will involve both creativity and discovery especially in the latter

41

descriptive parts of my research. Lets consider these two terms with appropriate
synonyms.
Discover: produce insight, expose to view, become aware,
disclosure, manifest, to make known (for the first time)
Construct: compose, draw, frame, build, combine, fit together,
delineate, assemble
It should be fairly obvious that while discovery is often seen as a preferred
mindset in GT research, a thoughtful balance of both discovery and creativity will
be essential in producing a document that moves beyond a strict summary of
findings, implications and recommendations.

Considering Other Qualitative Methods

Qualitative inquiry or qualitative research is used to describe various
orientations to interpretivist research. There are many accepted forms of
qualitative inquiry. Some of the most commonly used include ethnography,
narrative inquiry, phenomenology, action research, case study34 and of course,
grounded theory (Creswell, 1998; Denzin & Lincoln, 1994; Glesne, 1999; Patton,
1990). While choosing a specific methodology may seem a bit daunting,
understanding the appropriateness35 of a particular approach in relation to what
you want to understand is a helpful place to begin.

34

There is some contention whether case study is a true methodology or simply a method to be used
within other frameworks.
35
I use the term appropriateness instead of inferior (as posed in the original comprehensive question) as I
believe that important question to be asked by a researcher is what methodology is most appropriate for
understanding and answering the research questions I have asked. In being an qualitative researcher, the
term inferior is subject to interpretation and debate. That is another paper altogether.

42

Tesch (1990) developed a useful framework for the categorization of

several categories of qualitative data. Using this framework, Tesch (1990)
describes the qualitative methodologies that are likely most appropriate for
working with the identified data category. The four categories of data with the
appropriate methodological approaches include: a) characteristics of language
(discourse analysis, ethnoscience, symbolic interactionism); b) discovery of
regularities (grounded theory, critical research, ethnography); c) discerning
meaning (phenomenology, case study, hermeneutics); and d) reflection (action
research, educational connoisseurship, reflective phenomenology, reflective
autobiography, heuristic research).
In thinking about the research questions that guide my study36, it is simple
to reject three categories immediately. For instance, I am not specifically
interested in language or the characteristics of language, and therefore will not
pursue methodological approaches such as discourse analysis Although in
saying this, I would be hard-pressed to discount my critical bias toward
acknowledging the power and meaning of and within discourse. I have no doubts
that indeed it would be interesting to analyze the discourse of the open source
community. This is a community, in my perception, which has emerged (in part)
in reaction to an imbalance of power in the world of information technology and
knowledge. It would be interesting to analyze the discourse of the community
from its foundational moments as a fringe movement, up unto its new reality as a
proximal mainstream alternative to proprietary software giants. With no doubt,
taking this route would lead to an important and revealing study. However, such
36

These questions were made available to my committee in the pre-comprehensive paper.

43

questions require a different methodology, and these are not the questions I
seek. For now, I am happy to put Norman Fairclough and Michel Foucault back
on the shelf.
I can also disregard the category reflection for the moment. One of
methodologies that did appeal to me when considering this research was that of
action research. I have had some experience with action research, and I know
that there is strong support in the Faculty of Education in this area. However, the
question of appropriateness arises again when I ask myself what I want to learn.
To explain the inappropriateness of action research in this study, I will be begin
with a few representative definitions for action research.
systematic enquiry designed to yield practical results capable of
improving a specific aspect of practice and made public to
enable scrutiny and testing.
http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/research/glossary
Inquiry-based research conducted by teachers that follows a
process of examining existing practices, implementing new
practices, and evaluating the results, leading to an improvement
cycle that benefits both students and teachers.
http://cs3.wnmu.edu/elearning/a404/support/a404b0_50100.html
A (usually cyclic) process by which change and understanding
can be pursued at the one time, with action and critical reflection
taking place in turn. The reflection is used to review the previous
action and plan the next one.
http://www.uq.net.au/action_research/arp/actlearn.html
In looking at the various definitions of action research37, it was quite
obvious that the reasons for action research were not compatible with my
intended research. In studying open source, I am not looking to improve practice

37

Many more definitions of action research provided by Google at:

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF8&q=define%3A+action+research

44

or produce action in the world of my research participants. Yet, in saying this, I

do see the potential for action research in the area of open source. For instance,
one could study a local open source advocacy group such as LOSURS
(Linux/Open Source Users of Regina Saskatchewan) and study their practice.
This particular group focuses on bringing awareness of open source software to
schools, government, business and individuals through volunteer-organized
conferences, installfests and other events. It would be interesting to study the
activities of this group, and focus on their reasoning and the improvement of their
practice. This is just one example of many possibilities, however, such research
activities do not fall into the frame of my intended study.
Lastly, looking again at Teschs (1990) framework, I have also made the
decision that my study will not focus on discerning meaning. Phenomenology is
a major approach in helping researchers recognize and comprehend meaning of
the lived experiences of individuals in relation to particular phenomena (Creswell,
1998). Phenomenology is based on the works of Edmund Husserl and Alfred
Schutz (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998), and is both a philosophical and psychological
approach to research. Bowling (1997) describes phenomenology as The
philosophical belief that, unlike matter, humans have a consciousness. They
interpret and experience the world in terms of meanings and actively construct an
individual social reality (p. 31). Of course, a phenomenological study could
easily be structured in an open source community, focusing specifically in how
members of the community make meaning with their world, and with each other.

45

However, looking back at my intended questions, it should be easy to see that

this is not the intent of my study.

So Why Grounded Theory?

There are several reasons that I have chosen grounded theory over the
many other possibilities and choices in methodological approaches. Here is a
brief overview of the advantages of grounded theory in regards to this proposed
study.

1) Focus on theory development

When Tesch (1990) categorizes grounded theory as a methodology that
assists in the discovery of regularities, she is referring partially to the
methodologys focus on theory development. Theory has always been an
important part of human contemplation. From Aristotelian epistemology, to
modern scientific and social research, the attempt to develop explanations has
proven extremely useful. In the pragmatic tradition, I see theory especially useful
in the following ways.
Integration and Explanation of Knowledge: There is much known and
unknown about the open source movement. However, it has undeniably become
an important model for contemplation (Fink, 2003; Lessig, 2004; Weber, 2004).
As one of the very few educational researchers studying the open source
movement in relation to teachers, it would be useful to integrate as much existing
knowledge in this area with the emerging knowledge to be gained from this
study. The grounded theory methodology provides a systematic approach to the

46

building of relationships and theory, and possibly explaining the open source
movement through a particular lens.
Predicting What Is Not Yet Known/Learned: Theory developed through
grounded theory can help us understand things as they exist, and as well, help
us project how things may someday be. Hargreaves (2003), in touting the open
source philosophy, writes, A key to the transformation is for the teaching
profession to establish networks the capture the spirit and culture of hackers
the passion, the can-do, the collective sharing (Online). While I really like this
speculative comment from Hargreaves, and in some ways, agree with it (or more
so, want to agree with it), there is little in his report that supports his statement.
However, grounded theory helps to establish a systematic, yet emergent
methodology which can allow researchers to produce supported theory.
Improving the Human Condition: I would not partake in social research
unless I felt that the results of the research are beneficial to individuals and
society. I feel that better in understanding the open source movement, we may
improve our educational system, develop a better understanding of human
collaboration, provide people with greater access to information and technology
and ultimately improve our lives. In my opinion, theory is most valuable when we
attempt to apply and advance existing knowledge in order to solve our basic
human problems.

47

2) GT provides guidelines and rules of thumb

Grounded theory should not be viewed as a strictly prescriptive and rigid
approach to research. In reality, GT is simply a set of guidelines or rules of
thumb which can facilitate data collection and analysis. Grounded theory
researchers are encouraged to develop their own research style which refers
both to the researchers personal abilities, as well as the context/content of the
research in question (Strauss, 1987).
While the procedures are designed to give the analytic process
precision and rigor, creativity is also an important element. For it is
the latter that enables the researcher to ask pertinent questions of
the data and to make the kind of comparisons that elicit from the
data new insights into phenomenon and novel theoretical
formulations. (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 31)
While there are other methodologies that support a less rigid process for
data analysis, this methodological approach is appealing (to me) as it
provides both structure and flexibility.

3) Interest in Using Qualitative Analysis Software

A simple, yet honest reason for the use of grounded theory is that this
methodology is best suited for a qualitative analysis package such as Atlas.ti.
Alone, this would not be enough of a reason to choose this specific methodology,
but as computing is a large part of my life, and an avid interest, I look forward to
better understanding how software can be helpful in specific types of research.
My comfort zone often exists behind the keyboard, and computing certainly plays
a large part in my way of knowing the world. Thinking about the long journey
ahead of me, I need to be comfortable with the way I will conduct this research

48

and in how I will handle the tremendous amount of potential data. For now, its
jacket and shoes off, and let the glowing screen be my companion.

Conclusion
In the preceding paper, I have discussed the nature of grounded theory,
practical reasons for to using this approach and motivations for choosing this
methodology. As a fairly novice researcher, I am looking forward to learning and
applying this approach to my research questions. I am not convinced that I will
stay in this zone for the rest of my research career, but at the very least, I hope
to learn valuable things with this particular approach to research. Although there
are so many choices of research methodology, I am comfortable with this
position for my the duration of my dissertation. I believe that grounded theory will
allow me to explore and develop the inquiries that I pursue.

49

Question #3:
3) Explain change theory, innovation theory, communities of practice
theory and social capital theory. Build/create/describe a conceptual
framework that will guide your investigation of the open source
movement in education.

50

Introduction
For this final paper, I will discuss three major areas of study. The topics
include change theory (CT), communities of practice and social capital theory.
To be direct, these are very large and complex areas of study, and I have limited
space to put forth my consideration of this content. Even in studying just one of
these topics, the twenty-page space could be seen as inadequate to present a
comprehensive understanding. Therefore, in this section, I will attempt only to
present a thumbnail sketch of some of the basic, relevant information pertaining
to each field. If this seems inadequate, I point your attention to three more
comprehensive papers that I have written previously in these areas. The papers,
titled below, can be found at the following URLs:
- Innovation, Change Theory and the Acceptance of New Technologies:
A Literature Review
http://educationaltechnology.ca/couros/publications/unpublishedpapers/change_theory.pdf

- Communities of Practice: Literature Review

http://educationaltechnology.ca/couros/publications/unpublishedpapers/communities_practice.pdf

- Open Source Communities of Practice and the Introduction of

Technological Innovation
http://educationaltechnology.ca/couros/publications/unpublishedpapers/opensource.pdf

Following the discussion of these areas of study, I will attempt to build a

conceptual framework in relation to my prospective study (the open source
movement). However, in considering this, I will bring one possible concern to the
attention of my supervising committee. In understanding one of the key guiding
principles of grounded theory (as highlighted earlier), it is important to consider
the place of literature in the process of induction-based research. As explained
earlier, Glaser (1967) strongly warned against preconceived theories as working
against and contradicting the induction process. If I work with a particular theory

51

in mind, and try to place the data within that theory, this has now become
deduction, and it is no longer, in the strictest sense, grounded theory. Therefore,
the framework I build here should only be viewed as a referential one which can
be consulted as data and theory emerge. The framework itself, should not be a
key guiding force of my study, but rather a frame of reference which can either be
regarded as appropriate and applicable, modified as to fit the emerging theory, or
simply discarded.

Introduction to Change Theory

Change theory is really an umbrella term which envelops numerous subtheories that describe change within various contexts. In education, CT is
perhaps most frequently used in the areas of leadership, administration and
educational technology. Change theorists, in general, attempt to understand the
change process and provide and build strategies to effect change (Ellsworth,
2000; Fullan, 2001). I believe that change literature will prove to be important in
understanding the open source movement. However, in qualifying this belief, it is
important to understand and describe the various assumptions underlying much
of the popular change literature. These fundamental assumptions should be
acknowledged when one considers applying CT to a particular context (e.g., the
open source movement).

52

Educational change theory can be seen to be influenced by the following

key assumptions:
1) Change can be understood and managed. The change literature that I
have studied and will describe in this paper is built on the idea that change
can be planned, initiated and developed through leadership or
administrative strategies. In this sense, the focus of much change theory
is often pragmatic; change is studied so that it can be managed.
(Ellsworth, 2000; Rogers, 1995)
2) Planned change is focused upon introducing innovation or
innovations to individuals or within a system. Planned change may be
limited to implementing a particular technology into an instructors
classroom (e.g., use of PowerPoint or a data projector as an instructional
tool), or planned change can be focused toward more encompassing
wide-scale school reform projects. (Bates, 2000; Ellsworth, 2000; Fullan,
2001; Fullan & Miles, 1992; Rogers, 1995)
3) Planned change is value-laden. When introducing change to an
individual, group or system, at some point leadership38 has made a
decision as to a particular innovation being valuable, or more valuable
than items or processes which currently exist. And within the change
process, value is also negotiated as the individuals closely affected by the
change process may be accepting, neutral or resistant to the innovation
for reasons related to perceived value. Thus, leadership of change often
involves the engagement of different sets of interests, interpretations and
identities, which may allow the mutual adaptation and success of a
proposed change project. (Fullan, 2001; Gordon, 2002; Knight & Trowler,
2001; Ramsden, 1998; Zaltman & Duncan, 1977)
4) Planned change requires people. There is little debate that people are
at the heart of the change process. And, in much of the classic literature
the term change agent is used to describe the person (or persons) who is
the initiator of the change effort. Change agents may be identified as
officials hired by an institution to be responsible for particular changes
(e.g., a school divisions technology consultant), or more informally, a
change agent may simply be an influential person who causes change at
a micro-level (e.g., the tech-savvy teacher next-door). (Fullan, 2001;
Gladwell, 2000; Hall & Hord, 1987; Rogers, 1995)
5) Planned change is complex and often requires multiple approaches
and tools. Theorists have gone to great lengths to develop models and
checklists for change. While some attention has been given to the
38

Leadership is meant as a general term that can mean anything from an individual leader, to an entire
administration.

53

individual or potential adopters (Hall & Hord, 1987), other theorists have
developed broad strategies for promoting change within larger
environments. (Bates, 2000; Fullan, 2001; Havelock & Zlotolow, 1995)
Change is complex and even with the combination of such strategies,
planned change is not always achieved.
Diffusion of Innovations Theory
In trying to comprehend change theory, it is useful to trace CT research
back to its modern historical roots. Change theory, as it exists today, has been
strongly influenced by diffusion of innovation theory (DIT) which first appeared at
the beginning of the 20th century. Understanding the philosophical foundations of
change theory is an important step in understanding current change theory.
Ralph Waldo Emerson is reported to have once said, Make a better
mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to our door. This principle that may
have held merit in the early 1800s, might easily be dismissed in the postindustrial world. Theoretically superior technologies such as Betamax recorders,
the Dvorak keyboard and the early Apple operating system have succumbed to
the VHS standard, QWERTY and the Wintel39 monopoly, respectively. It is in
general agreement that the adoption of technology is a more complex process
than the technical superiority of a product (Abrahamson & Rosenkopf, 1997;
Reigeluth & Garfinkle, 1994; Rogers, 1995; Ryan & Gross, 1943).
Diffusion of innovations theory provides a useful (albeit incomplete) lens
for assisting researchers in understanding the complexity related to the
acceptance or rejection of innovation. In its basic form, diffusion is defined as the
process by which an innovation is adopted and gains acceptance by individuals
39

Wintel is the common trade term used to describe personal computers based on the Intel architecture and
the Windows Operating system. This has by far become the prevalent configuration for standard personal
computers.

54

or members of a community. DIT comprises several sub-theories that

collectively study the processes of adoption. The first famous account of DIT
research was done in 1903 by French sociologist Gabriel Tarde (1903). Tarde
plotted the original S-shaped innovation curve (see Appendix A) as he believed
that most innovations have an S-shaped rate of adoption. Through the slope of
the S-curve, Tarde could identify those innovations with a relatively fast rate of
adoption (steep slope) versus those with a slower rate (gradual slope). Since
Tarde, the S-slope has become important for those studying the adoption of
ideas, especially those found in business.
Several decades later, Ryan and Gross (1943) published their seminal
study which described the diffusion of hybrid seed among a group of Iowa
farmers. At the time of the study, U.S. farms were slowly becoming business
enterprises rather than family subsistence units. As corporations entered into the
business of agriculture, so did the concerns of higher productivity, efficiency,
competitiveness and agricultural innovations. Ryan & Gross wanted to study the
process in which innovations in agriculture were adopted. They discovered that
diffusion was a social process through which subjective evaluations of an
innovation spread from earlier to later adopters rather than one of rational,
economic decision making (Valente, 1995). At the time, this was a novel
perspective on the diffusion process and emphasized the effect of social factors
on adoption.
Ryan & Gross (1943) also noted that the rate of adoption among those
studied followed an S-curve when plotted on a cumulative basis over time. This

55

supported the work of Tarde reported 40 years previously, and renewed interest
in Diffusion Theory. Additionally, Ryan and Gross (1943) classified their study
participants (Iowa farmers) into five adopter categories. These categories
included: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards.
Theorists since (Abrahamson & Rosenkopf, 1997; Gladwell, 1996; Midgley &
Dowling, 1978; Rogers & Kincaid, 1981) have used and modified these basic
categories to build upon this early work. What is also important from these
studies is the distinctive characteristics of each adopter level. For instance, Ryan
& Gross (1943) identified that those farmers most likely to adopt (innovator
category) were more cosmopolite and belonged to a higher socioeconomic
status than members of the other categories (later adopters). While the work of
Ryan & Gross (1943) began the next wave of Diffusion research, the next
seminal work in the area would not appear until almost two decades later.
Everett Rogers and the Diffusion of Innovations
Everett Rogers claims that his 1995 text, Diffusion of Innovations, is a
synthesis of over 3800 DIT publications. While much of his theory originates in
rural sociology, his established framework has been used in diverse areas such
as business and marketing, anthropology, public health, and of course,
education. Rogers defines diffusion as the process by which an innovation is
communicated through certain channels over time among members of a social
system (1995, p. 5). Diffusion theory, in this light, is very much a
communications-theory based model. The process Rogers (1995) refers to is
mediated through the two-process of communication convergence (Rogers &

56

Kincaid, 1981), rather than a one-way linear act. Additionally, diffusion is a

special type of communication in which the messages pertain to a new idea.
This is important in that the diffusion process is inherently uncertain due to the
newness of the idea and as to how the message (diffusion) will be accepted.
Key to Rogers (1995) definition of diffusion is the presence of four
elements in the diffusion of innovation process. These elements include the
following:
1) The Innovation: an idea, practice(s) or objects that is perceived as new
by individuals or a group of adopters.
2) Communication Channels: the means by which innovations move from
individual to individual, or group to group.
3) Time: the non-spatial interval through which the diffusion events occur.
These events include the innovation-decision process, the relative span of
time for the individual or group to adopt the innovation and the
innovations rate of adoption in a system.
4) A Social System: a set of interrelated units that are engaged in joint
problem solving activities to accomplish a goal or goals.
These components are a bit simplistic, however, I find this communications
theory-based model useful in helping to simplify some of the complexity the
diffusion process. As Rogers (1995) work represents a compilation of the
majority of the previous DIT research, this model could be helpful in studying
many types of technological innovation.
Rogers (1995) also goes further to identify important characteristics of
innovations as perceived by individuals. These are important as they are
constructed as to the way in which potential adopters may (sometimes

57

unconsciously) view the innovation. The characteristics, which forms the basis for
what is regarded as perceived attributes theory, include:
1) Relative advantage: the degree in which an advantage is perceived as
better than the idea it supersedes.
2) Compatibility: the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being
consistent with the existing values, past experiences and needs of
potential adopters.
3) Complexity: the degree to which an innovation is perceived as difficult to
understand and use.
4) Trialability: is the degree to which an innovation may be experimented
with on a limited basis.
5) Observability: the degree to which the results of an innovation are viable
to others. The easier it is for individuals to see the results of an innovation,
the more likely they are to adopt it.
(Rogers, 1995, pp. 15-16)
Although, I dont feel that the adoption process is limited to these perceived
attributes, I feel that these elements would be helpful in formulating questions for
potential adopters in better understanding what factors make adoption possible
or desirable. Additionally, although Rogers brings up the idea of reinventing
innovation (e.g., an adopter adapting an innovation to a specific need), these
characteristics do not fully account for this process. The idea of reinvention and
what I would call personalization of innovation, especially in regards to a
teachers use of technology, would be an important feature for consideration. If I
were to consider these characteristics in future research, I would pay special
attention to the idea of reinvention as it seems to be an element missing in
Rogers research.
Rogers (1995) distinctly separates the diffusion process from the adoption
process. While the diffusion process permeates through society and groups, the

58

adoption process is most relevant to the individual. Rogers (1995) defines the
adoption process as the mental process through which an individual passes
from first hearing about an innovation to final adoption (p. 35). The five steps in
this process are regarded as 1) knowledge (awareness), 2) persuasion (interest),
3) decision (evaluation), 4) implementation (trial) and; 5) confirmation (adoption).
Throughout the adoption process, the individual seeks knowledge of and skills
which will ultimately affect the adoption process. For a potential adopter, the
process will proceed through the various steps and lead to adoption, or
alternately, lead to rejection of the innovation. (Rogers, 1995)
Rogers also offers a scientific approach to understanding the rate of
adoption. Rogers (1995) has developed five variables which affect the adoption
rate of any particular innovation. These include 1) perceived attributes of
innovations (discussed earlier), 2) type of innovation-decision, 3) communication
channels, 4) nature of the social system, and; 5) extent of change agents
promotion efforts. Rogers model could help a researcher to consider the basic
forces which affect both adoption rates, and the factors which may lead to the
rejection of an innovation. However, in its own simplicity, which may be ironically
its strength, it is limited when explaining more complex human systems.
However, in qualifying this, a schematic description of this model is shown below
in Figure 2.

59

Figure 2: Variables Determining the Rate of Adoption of Innovations

(Rogers, 1995, p. 207)

Significant Change Theory Literature

While the work of Everett Rogers has been highly influential, there are
many other theorists that should be considered when understanding change
theory literature. Ellsworth (2000) has developed a useful concept map for
acknowledging the key areas in current change literature. The concept map is
meant to epitomize seven major models represented by various CT theorists.
See figure 3 below.

60

Figure 3: 360 View of the Educational Change Process

Model adapted by McGriff (2001, Online)

As you can see, Rogers (1995) work , while important, represents only
one particular model in the wider frame of change theory. The following are
abbreviated descriptions of some of the change theory models identified by
Ellsworth (2000).
1) Fullan & Stiegelbauer (1991): The role of the change agent is
stressed in this work as the authors explore the implications of
educational change for people and organizations promoting change at
various levels. Individuals and organizations influencing change
include teachers, principals, students, district administrators,
consultants, parents (communities), government and teachereducators.
2) Havelock & Zlotolow (1995): In The Change Agents Guide, the
authors focus on developing a checklist approach to prepare
facilitators of change with appropriate tools and a strong understanding
of how and when to use them. This work helps to bring about a
practical understanding of a change process, similar to the one
described by Fullan and Stiegelbauer (1991).

61

3) Hall & Hord (1987): The Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM)

was developed by Hall & Hord as a tool that could be used to facilitate
change in organization. It touts a personalized, bottom-up approach to
change and utilizes what is identified as the seven stages of concern.
These stages include awareness, information, personal, management,
consequence, collaboration and refocusing. The stages are meant to
understand and facilitate an individuals movement through the change
process. (See Appendix B for a visual representation of the stages of
concern).
4) Zaltman & Duncan (1977): In Strategies for Planned Change, the
authors identify some of the most common reasons that individuals
reject or accept change. In better understanding resistance to change,
practitioners may be better able to address the underlying barriers to
change, or perhaps create environments were these barriers are less
frequent.
5) Ely (1990a; 1990b; 1976): While Zaltman & Duncan (1977) focused on
various barriers to change, Ely focuses more specifically on the
environment and the context in which planned changed is
implemented. For instance, Ely (1990a) suggests that dropping
computers into the educational environment with nothing but its
assumed value does not provide a favourable condition for change.

Final Thoughts on Education Change Theory

Educational change theory, within the most popular variations, focuses on
planned change. Change theory is especially helpful in understanding how
change, and more specifically, how the adoption of particular innovations can
best proceed within educational institutions. In the case of open source, in some
contexts wide-scale implementation is wholly planned. One can look to widescale open source (inspired) implementations such as the thin-client installation
in the Northwest Catholic School Division40 or the provision of Star Office in all
Ontario K-12 schools41. However, in many cases, the use (and acceptance) of

40
41

http://www.canopener.ca/article.php?story=156
http://www.itbusiness.ca/index.asp?theaction=61&sid=55732

62

open source is not wholly planned, and rather a result of other factors. At this
point, planned change theory models may be of less value for analysis.
To close this section, I have included a quote from Gabriella Coleman
(1999), a theorist who has spent much time on considering the open source
movement. In describing the open source movement, and in considering the
many intangibles, she writes:
...the meanings, aims, visions, and aspirations of the open source
community are difficult to pin down. Unlike the initial quote, which
posits a unitary vision and goal for Linux hackers, closer inspection
of the movement reveals a cacophony of voices and political
positions: anarchic ideals of freedom, "tribal" gift-economy rhetoric,
revolution, Star Wars imagery, web manifestos, evangelization to
the corporate sector, the downfall of the "Evil Empire" (a.k.a.
Microsoft), grass roots revolution, consumer choice and rights,
community good, true market competition, DIY (Do it Yourself)
culture, science as a public good, hacker cultural acceptance,
functional superiority, and anti-Communist rhetoric are but a
number of the terms, images, and visions promulgated by and
attached to the open source community. (Online)
The open source movement is not merely about the implementation of new
technologies into a system. While change theory may be helpful, I feel there must
be a better understanding of the social systems and social influences
surrounding the communities in which open source philosophies exist.

Introduction to Communities of Practice Literature

While there are many definitions of communities of practice (CoPs), I find
the definition from Hildreth & Kimble (2000) relevant and consistently useful to
my particular interests. The authors define CoPs as a group of professionals
informally bound to one another through exposure to a common class of

63

problems, common pursuit of solutions, and thereby themselves embodying a

store of knowledge (p. 3). Another useful definition comes from Wenger,
McDermott & Snyder (2002) who define CoPs as groups of people who share a
concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their
knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis (p. 7).
While the use of the term communities of practice has become widespread, the
term actually stems from classic theories based on the idea of learning as social
participation (Wenger, 1998a; 1998b). To better understand the concept of
CoPs, its important to have a solid understanding of social learning theory. For
a brief overview of social learning theory, see Appendix C.
Etienne Wenger is one of the most prominent theorist in the areas of both
social learning theory and communities of practice. In Communities of Practice:
Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Wenger (1998a) posits that todays modern
institutions are largely based on the assumption that learning is an individual
process, that it has a beginning and an end, that it is best separated from the rest
of our activities, and that it is the result of teaching (p. 3). Within the context of
social learning theory, the idea of learning in this sense is displaced. Learning
becomes, fundamentally, a social phenomenon and is placed in the context of
our lived experience and participation in the world (p. 3). In bringing forward his
ideas of social learning theory, Wenger starts with four main premises:
1) We are social beings. Far from being trivially true, this fact is a
central aspect of learning.
2) Knowledge is a matter of competence with respect to valued
enterprises such as singing in tune, discovering scientific

64

facts, fixing machines, writing poetry, being convivial, growing

up as a boy or a girl, and so forth.
3) Knowing is a matter of participating in the pursuit of such
enterprises, that is, of active engagement in the world.
4) Meaning our ability to experience the world and our
engagement with it as meaningful is ultimately what learning is
to produce. (Wenger, 1998a, p. 4)
Here Wenger puts forward that learning is part of a more encompassing process
which places individuals as active participants in the practices of social
communities.
Wenger (1998) also presents components which he says are necessary to
characterize social participation as a process of learning. These include the
following:
1) Meaning: a way of talking about our (changing) ability
individually and collectively to experience our life and the
world as meaningful.
2) Practice: a way of talking about the shared historical and social
resources, frameworks, and perspectives that can sustain
mutual engagement in action.
3) Community: a way of talking about the social configurations in
which our enterprises are defined as worth pursuing and our
participation is recognizable as competence.
4) Identity: a way of talking about how learning changes who we
are and creates person histories of becoming in the context of
our communities. (Wenger, 1998a, p.5)
These elements are deeply interconnected and mutually defining. Wenger
(1998) also provides a visual representation of his model, found below in Figure
4. When Wenger describes communities of practices, he intentionally positions
this concept within a larger conceptual framework. The four elements described

65

above (practice, community, identity, meaning) are important as they are

interchangeable with their relationship to learning. For instance, in Figure 4
below, you may switch any of the elements with learning, and the structure still
makes sense. Learning can be central or peripheral to the process, but remains
always an important component.

Figure 4: Components of social theory of learning: an initial inventory

from Wenger, 1998, p. 5

According to Wenger (1998), a community of practice defines itself along

three dimensions which are related to practice itself. The first component is
mutual engagement. Practice does not exist in the abstract, so CoPs reside
around people engaged in certain common actions or ideas. This is an important
factor as it means that CoPs can be formed from members of different social
categories or from different geographic regions. Wengers second component is
joint enterprise. Wenger states the importance the joint enterprise is constantly

66

renegotiated by the individual members. The joint enterprise goes beyond stated
goals (e.g., mission statement, objectives), but creates mutual accountability
among participants. The third component is a shared repertoire. The
repertoire of a community of practice includes routines, words, tools, ways of
doing things, stories, gestures, symbols, genres, actions, or concepts that the
community has produced or adopted in the course of existence (Wenger, 1998a,
p. 83)
The above ideas are very much related to ideas from Brown & Duguid
(1991). In this seminal study, the authors state that the creation of knowledge
within communities of practice is characterized by three key elements. These
include:
1) Narratives: used for diagnosing problems and representing
repositories of existing knowledge.
2) Collaboration: fuelled by participants engaged in and sharing
common practice
3) Social constructivism: participants develop a common
understanding of their practice and of how to solve problems.
Brown & Duguid base their findings here primarily from ethnographic studies
undertaken by Orr (1987a; 1987b; 1990; 1990). These studies are important as,
according to Brown & Duguid, they help to illustrate how organizations depend
upon complex relationships between groups. Such relationships (as far as
organizations are concerned) do not formally exist, but may be most responsible
for community performance. Through these informal relationships, knowing is
validated and shared, and evolves through processes by individuals who engage
in the negotiation of meaning and through sharing insights and narratives (1991).

67

Another important idea, which relates to the notion of communities of

practice and social learning theory, is what Lave & Wenger (1991) call legitimate
peripheral participation (LPP). LPP is a type of situated learning, and is a
process that reiterates the focus that learning is fundamentally a social process
rather than solely psychological. Lave & Wenger support their theory through
observations of different apprenticeships (i.e., Yucatec midwives, Vai and Gola
tailors, US Navy quartermasters, meat-cutters, non-drinking alcoholics in
Alcoholics Anonymous). In these situations, people initially join communities and
learn from the periphery. As they become more competent they move closer to
the centre of each particular community. Thus, learning is not seen as the
acquisition of knowledge by individuals so much as a process of social
participation. The nature of the situation as the social context impacts
significantly on the process of learning and participation in the community.

Cultivating Communities of Practice

So now that we have identified the general characteristics of communities
of practice, now what? Much of the latest literature regarding CoPs is focused
less on describing these communities, and focused more on enabling these
informal communities to emerge, to flourish and to become productive. While, it
may be difficult to understand how organizations can promote something as
informal and voluntary as CoPs, Wenger, McDermott & Snyder (2000) use
examples as to how community structure can be encouraged. They write,
Communities, unlike teams and other structures, need to invite the interaction to

68

make them alive. For example, a park is more appealing to use if its location
provides a short cut between destinations. It invites people to sit for lunch or chat
if it has benches set slightly off the main path, visible, but just out of earshot, next
to something interesting like a flower bed or a patch of sunlight (p. 7). While of
course, this may seem simplistic, the example is meant to show that building
communities differs from contemporary organizational design which may
traditionally focus on creating structures, systems and roles toward achieving
specific organizational goals.
Wenger, McDermott & Snyder (2002) also set forth seven principles for
cultivating communities of practice, and in helping these communities gain what
they call aliveness. These principles, with paraphrased descriptions, follow:
1) Design for evolution: As CoPs are dynamic in nature, design
should reflect adaptability (or the computer lingo term,
scalability). The key to this point is to combine design elements
that help to catalyze community development. Physical
structures such as roads and parks can precipitate the
development of a town. Similarly, social and organizational
structures, such as a community coordinator or problem-solving
meetings, can precipitate the evolution of a community.
2) Open a dialogue between inside and outside perspectives:
The authors state that good community design requires the
perspective of an insider, one that is familiar with the types of
activities within. However, the perspective of an outsider may
help members see the possibilities within their own
mechanisms, or in adopting other tools or procedures.
3) Invite different levels of participation: In any community,
there exist different levels of participation. While those on the
peripheral may not participate in the same ways as those in the
core, the peripheral members will still gain insights and
knowledge through this type of participation. All members,
regardless of participation levels, should be valued.

69

4) Develop both public and private community spaces:

Members of communities interact with each other in both public
and private functions. Thus, the public and private dimension of
a community are interrelated. The key to designing community
spaces is to orchestrate activities in both public and private
spaces that use the strength of the individual relationships to
enrich events and use events to strengthen individual
relationships.
5) Focus on value: As communities are voluntary, value is key.
For members and prospective members, communities must
offer value or there will may not be the incentive for
participation. While value may not always be explicitly
apparent, value should grow over time as the community
evolves.
6) Combine familiarity and excitement: Familiarity, like the
comforts of a hometown, is important for a CoP. However,
excitement is also as important, but in other ways. As
communities mature, they settle into familiar ways of meeting
and conduct. Yet, communities also need challenge and
spontaneity to provide a break from everyday occurrences.
7) Creating a rhythm for the community: Like individuals lives
having a rhythm, vibrant communities also have a rhythm. At
the heart of a community is a web of enduring relationships
among members, but the tempo of their interactions is greatly
influenced by the rhythm of community events. While all alive
communities have a particular rhythm or tempo, its important to
find the right rhythm at each stage of a communitys
development.
(Wenger et al., 2002)

Stages of Community Development

Another important premise from Wenger, McDermott & Snyder (2002), is
what they refer to as the stages of community development. The authors have
identified three life phases, which include 5 stages. Collectively, these represent
the life cycle of a community. The stages and phases are described below.

70

1) Formation (potential and coalescing): Here, initial networks

are discovered, common ground is formed and relationships are
formed. The initial call (informally) is usually centred around the
generation of value.
2) Integration (maturing and stewardship): At this stage, there
is a focus upon particular topics and the admission of new
members. Tools and methods are developed that are unique to
the community. New ideas are continually welcomed as the
community evolves.
3) Transformation (transformation): At this stage, the
community may fade away or officially close. This may also
mean that the community has become redundant, or that this
stage brings about the beginning of a new community. Other
possibilities include merging with other communities or
becoming institutionalized as a formal unit.
Additionally, the authors have graphed the cycle of the community in
correspondence to the factors of time and energy/visibility. This is meant to be
representative of an average CoP life cycle. The diagram is included below.

Figure 5: Community Life Cycles Related to Time and Level of Energy and
Visibility (Wenger et al., 2002)

71

Communities of Practice in the Online Environment

Much recent literature has focused on the existence of online
communities. In this literature review, I have established some of the current
thought related to temporal communities, however, it is of my interest to also
examine the current thought regarding online community development and
communication. I found that much of the recent literature does not specifically
target CoPs, but also looks at virtual communities (VCs) or virtual learning
communities (VLCs). I believe a brief description of these types of communities
is also important. But first, a noteworthy thought regarding communities comes
from Brown (1999).
Community is quite possibly the most over-used word in the Net
industry. True community the ability to connect with people who
have similar interests may well be the key to the digital world, but
the term has been diluted and debased to described even the most
tenuous connections, the most minimal activity. (Online)
The important idea here is that it is important to understand the distinction
between online communication, and online community. I believe that many of
the characteristics from Wenger (1998) and Wenger et al. (2002) may help
researchers to make these important distinctions.
Two important ideas closely related to virtual communities include the
concepts of virtual learning communities (VLCs) and distributed communities of
practice (DCoPs). A definition of a VLC is a group of people who gather in
cyberspace with the intention of pursuing learning goals (Daniel, Schwier, &
McCalla, 2003). Alternately, a DCoP refers to a group of geographically
distributed individuals who are informally bound together by shared expertise and

72

shared interests or work (Daniel et al., 2003). The table below helps to identify
characteristics of such communities, as well as it helps to distinguish the concept
of a VLC from that of a DCoP.

Table 1: Key Features of Virtual Learning Communities and Distributed

Communities of Practice (Daniel et al., 2003)
Virtual Learning Communities (VLCs)
- Less stable membership
- Low degree of individual
awareness
- More formalized and more
focused learning goals
- More diverse language
- Low shared understanding
- Strong sense of identity
- Strict distribution of
responsibilities
- Easily disbanded
- Low level of trust
- Life span determined by extent
in which goals or requirements
are satisfied
- Pre-planned enterprise and
fixed goals
- Domain specific/interests

Distributed Communities of Practice (DCoP)

- Reasonably stable membership
- High degree of individual awareness
- Informal learning goals
- Common language
- High shared understanding
- Loose sense of identity
- No formal distribution of responsibilities
- Less easily disbanded
- Reasonable level of trust
- Life span determined by the value the
community provides to its members
- A joint enterprise is understood and
continually renegotiated by its
members
- Shared practice/profession

The characteristics constructed above relate closely to Lave & Wengers

(1991) original framework regarding CoPs, but these specified features do much
more to describe shared and contrasting characteristics as they would apply in a
distributed environment. Key features of DCoPs include: shared interests,
common identity, shared information and knowledge, voluntary participation,
autonomy in setting goals, awareness of social protocols and goals, awareness
in membership and effective means of communication (Daniel et al., 2003).
Additionally, the important undertone that drives the entire community is
collaboration. Collaboration allows for the active exchange of ideas, and helps to
promote interest in being a part of the community.
73

Amy Jo Kim is another important figure it terms of designing communities

in online environments. Kim is the founder of Naima, a leading developer of
social architecture/online environments, and she has worked with various large
media companies (e.g., Sony, AOL, Yahoo) in designing online community
interfaces. Community Building on the Web (Kim, 2000) provides a simplistic,
yet comprehensive guide to the construction of online communities. Many of the
principles throughout this literature review, especially related to the
characteristics of CoPs, are reflected here, and Kim has adapted these principles
as they relate to her own practice and experience.
Kim (2000) organizes her thoughts around nine basic design principles
that have, thus far, characterized successful and sustainable online communities.
Together, these principles are developed as social scaffolding and are meant to
support and empower members. The principles are summarized below:
1) Define and articulate your PURPOSE: Its important for
members and prospective members to understand why the
community is being built, and who its being built for. Be explicit
through the design.
2) Build flexible, extensible gather PLACES: You should
develop a small-scale infrastructure of familiar gathering places.
These will co-evolve through active membership.
3) Creating meaningful and evolving member PROFILES:
Profiles are important as they help to invoke communication
between members, and help to give the community a sense of
history and context.
4) Design for a range of ROLES: New members will have
different needs than senior members. Strategies around
welcoming and empowering new members are important for
those in leadership roles.

74

5) Develop a strong LEADERSHIP program: Community leaders

are integral to the process as they greet and orient members to
the community. Its important that leaders are supported in
these vital activities.
6) Encourage appropriate ETIQUETTE: While conflict can be
invigorating, it can also tear communities apart. Communities
need to establish ground rules and conduct for communication
processes.
7) Promote cyclic EVENTS: Events are important in instilling
rhythm to communities, as well as providing venues for
socialization. Community leaders can establish events, or
encourage members to set their own.
8) Integrate the RITUALS of community life: Rituals are
important in temporal communities, and may be as important in
online communities. Rituals should be established around
important occurrences (new members, exiting members, etc.)
9) Facilitate member-run SUBGROUPS: In large scale
communities, subgroups are very important as smaller groups
can help to establish member loyalty and help to distinguish
your community apart from others.
Kim (2000) does provide valuable strategies for designing online communities.
Additionally, these guidelines integrate well with the previous literature in
understanding distinguishing characteristics of communities of practice and
virtual learning communities.
Conclusion To Communities of Practice
The concept of communities of practice is an important one when
attempting to understand the complex relationships found between individuals in
both temporal and online environments. While this is a only a small sample of
the field, it is representative of some of the major thinkers and theories which
underlie this emerging concept. I believe that any study focusing on the

75

individuals, groups and relationships forming open source communities must

consider CoPs literature.

Social Capital Theory

Weve all heard the common saying, its not what you know, its who you
know. In a simplistic sense, this aphorism does well to capture much of the
essence of what theorists explain as social capital theory (SCT). Social capital
(SC), in the loosest sense, is a term used to describe the social networks that
exist between individuals and groups, and is often used to measure the character
and relative strengths of the ties that exist. While the concept of social capital
has existed since the early 1900s (attributed to LJ Hannifin), it seems to have
gained greater relevance to theorists in the last several decades. (Sander &
Lowney, 2003; Woolcock & Narayan, 2000).
There are various descriptions of social capital used throughout the
literature. Here are a few definitions of SC to consider.
those tangible substances [that] count for most in the daily lives
of people.42 (Hannifin, 1916, p. 130)
The aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked
to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized
relationships of mutual acquaintance or recognition. (Bourdieu,
1986, p. 243)
the sum of the actual and potential resources embedded within,
available through, and derived from the network of relationships
possessed by an individual or social unit. (Nahapiet & Ghoshal,
1998, p. 243)

42

At the time, Hannifin was particularly focused upon good will, fellowship, sympathy and social
intercourse among those that make up a social unit. (http://www.infed.org/biblio/social_capital.htm)

76

 refers to the institutions, relationships, and norms that shape the

quality and quantity of societys social interactions. Social capital
is not just the sum of the institutions which underpin a society it is
the glue that holds them together. (The World Bank, 1999)
Whereas physical capital refers to physical objects and human
capital refers to the properties of individuals, social capital refers to
connections among individuals social networks and the norms of
reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them. (Putnam,
2000, p. 19)
refers to the norms and networks that enable people to act
collectively. (Woolcock & Narayan, 2000, p. 226)
consists of the stock of active connections among people: the
trust, mutual understanding, and shared values and behaviors that
bind the members of human networks and communities and make
cooperative action possible. (Cohen & Prusak, 2001, p. 4)
While there are many other definition of social capital,43 the previous
definitions are fairly representative of those that exist in the literature. There are
certainly crossovers and commonalities, but a few slight discrepancies exist as
well. Nahapiet & Ghaoshal (1998) provide a useful framework in describing social
capital. The authors express SC in terms of three primary dimensions. First, they
propose that social capital describes the intricate connections between
individuals and social groups. Individuals may perceive themselves as part of a
network or social structure in which they live, work and learn. In order to perform
daily functions, advantages are often gained through the understanding and
leveraging of relationships. This is what is known as the structural dimension.
Second, trust and reciprocity are important binding ties and may allow individuals
to work more openly with each other. Thus, the corollary, individuals who work in
trusting relationships are likely to work more effectively. Nahapiet & Ghaoshal
43

For an extensive list of definitions, see (Adler & Kwon, 2000)

77

(1998) identify this as the relational dimension. Third, members of the network
may have common interests or shared understandings related to their
organizational structure (formal or informal). And central to this cognitive
dimension, members of the community partake in knowledge building and
sharing. With this framework, each dimension is interdependent of the others,
and the strength of one dimension may positively affect another.
Social capital has been studied from many perspectives and disciplines.
Social capital research has been particularly intense in the areas of management
and organizational behaviour, economic development and in the study of civic
engagement. Studies from these areas provide an excellent basis for social
capital theory, but I am particularly interested in social capital as it exists in
distributed communities of practice such as an open source community. For this,
a definition of social capital as it relates to virtual learning communities is helpful.
Social capital in VLCs are defined as a common social resource that facilitates
information exchange, knowledge sharing, and knowledge construction through
continuous interaction, built on trust and maintained through shared
understanding (Daniel et al., 2003, Online). This definition does well to convey
the three relational dimensions outlined by Nahapiet & Ghaoshal (1998), and
focuses on individual/organizational learning through knowledge activities.
Although offered as a description of social capital in VLCs, in my opinion, this
definition works well to describe social capital as it exists in open source
communities.

78

Types of Social Capital

Like physical capital, social capital is not a monolithic entity and
encompasses a broad range of items that may be described as types of SC.
Sander & Lowney (2003, p. 4) have developed four categories in which social
capital can be divided. These types of social capital include:
1) Public-regarding vs. private regarding: Community members may
form around various issues some public (e.g., Parent Teacher
Association), and some quite personal (e.g., postnatal support groups).
Sander & Lowney (2003) hypothesize that the latter may attract more
community members (but smaller groups), yet the former may be more
action-oriented toward solving particular community issues.
2) Formal vs. Informal: Communities are formed for various reasons, by
various forces. However, some of the most intricate communities may
be those that began as formal communities and slowly evolved into an
informal entity. While formal ties may better ensure longevity of a
community, informal ties may help to deepen relational bonds.
3) Bridging vs. Bonding: Bridging types of social capital may focus on
tying individuals across barriers of race, class or ethnicity. Bonding
types may focus on strengthening existing social relationships. While
these acts may occur simultaneously, Sander & Lowney (2003) believe
that bonding communities may be easier to build, but bridging
communities are important in build a sense of unity across diversity.
4) Strong Ties vs. Weak Ties: Strong ties enable the discussion and
production of different types of knowledge than which is developed by
weaker ties. For instance, Sander & Lowney (2003) hypothesize that
members of a community may be enable to discuss serious and
sometimes personal issues (e.g., serious health problems, marital
problems) with those whom we have strong ties with, while the
discussion of less serious topics (e.g., a one day park cleanup) are a
limitation of weaker ties. The strength of community ties will have an
effect on what a community can do collectively (Wuthnow, 1998).
While it is not made explicit how each type of social capital will affect a
community in every case, it is important to pay attention to what types of capital

79

are paid attention to. This is especially important if one is using the idea of social
capital to measure community ties, or attempting to build communities.

Measuring Social Capital

Much of the drive to understand the concept of social capital is related to
the attempt to improving it, or in other words, to develop greater social capital
within communities. With this assumption, theorists move from understanding
social capital to an attempt to measure it using both quantitative and qualitative
techniques. Yet, there is a risk in classifying aspects of human relationships as
capital. Cohen & Prusak (2001, p. 9) warn, there is a deep danger of skewing
our consideration of social phenomenon and goods toward the economic. The
notion of capital bring with it a whole set of discourses and inevitably links it, in
the current context, to capitalism. In understanding social capital, its value and
how it may or may not be measured, this is an important principle to consider.
There are various voices in the literature offering techniques and tools for
measuring elements of social capital. However, one does not have to wade very
far to see examples that disappoint. The publication Measuring Social Capital: A
Guide for First Nations Communities (Mignone, 2003), features a questionnaire
tool which attempts to gain perspective into the connected or disconnected lives
of First Nations community life. Sample questions, as represented in Figure 6
below, are used to measure degrees of bonding activities in the community.
While the design of the tool attempts to nurture understanding of the types of
social relationships that exist in First Nations communities, the largely

80

quantitative approach may miss the target with its assumptive questions and
focus on activity counting, rather than activity description.

Figure 6: Bonding Targeted Questions for Measuring Social Capital

(Mignone, 2003, p. 8)

There have been many more attempts at designing tools for measuring
social capital. Notable quantitative studies include work by Knack & Kiefer (1997)
who used indicators of trust and civic norms in sampling 29 market economies.
Additionally, Temple & Johnson (1998) examined the influences and indicators
of social capital such as ethnic diversity and social mobility in relation to the
concentration of telephone services in several sub-Saharan African countries.
Select qualitative studies include Portes & Sensenbrenner (1993) who examined
the effects on immigrant communities when certain members of the community
experienced economic success and wished to leave their communities. Also of
note, Fernandez-Kelley (1995) studied young girls in urban ghetto communities
and discovered that normative pressures toward teen child-rearing and the

81

rejection of formal employment were powerful forces in the community. While, I

will not go into the pros and cons of performing qualitative vs. quantitative studies
in this paper, I do see the richness of data gathered through qualitative
techniques and the power of the narrative that develops. In measuring social
capital, researchers must be sensitive that they are attempting to understand
social relationships and measures of trust within communities. While quantitative
approaches do have some merit, qualitative methodologies are likely to give us a
much richer perspective.

How Does This All Fit Together?

For a moment I am going to leave the world of open source and attempt to
use the knowledge I have gained so far (i.e., change theory, communities of
practice, social capital theory) in another context. My thoughts here are inspired
by real live events, and from the experiences of a supportive colleague.

A Baby Story: Expecting Parents

Claudia and Alec are expecting a baby. As first time parents to be, they
are quite nervous about preparing for the arrival of their child, and are looking for
as much information and support as they can find. Searching the Internet, they
have found many excellent resources such as BabyCentre.com which provides
up-to-date relevant information on the expected babys development. Yet still,
resources like this seem to lack the human element that is preferable to a life
changing event such as this. Alec heard about perinatal classes held at the

82

YMCA, and was told excellent things about the instructor, Sally Elliot. With little
hesitation, Alec and Claudia signed up for the classes.
When arriving at the Y, although Alec realized that these were perinatal
classes, he was shocked to see this many pregnant women, and by association,
this many expecting fathers in the same room. Alec and Claudia could see that
they were not alone in this experience, and that there were many others in the
room that (obviously) shared the same reasons for attending classes. This was a
group that came together through similar common goals: to gain knowledge
about the processes involved in childbirth, to learn about health and safety issues
regarding the baby and mother and to gain a better understanding of how to
prepare their child for life beyond the womb.
Sally was an amazing instructor, and the knowledge gained from the
course was incredibly valuable. Sally was also very approachable and took the
time to be supportive to each couple individually. However, as the group was
often nervous, and unfamiliar with each other, Sally had a commanding presence
in the classroom and took a very directed approach to teaching. Much was
learned from the class, yet there was little done to build relationships between
the members. The common tie that built this community was based on the firstbirth experience, and likely the fear and uncertainty that goes with this first
experience. However, beyond this tie, there was little opportunity to explore other
shared commonalities of the group members.

83

A Baby Story: A New Mother (based on a faculty colleague)

Jane is a new mother. Jane and her husband Tom had attended Sallys
classes and had enjoyed and learned much from these experiences. However,
Jane now hoped for new experiences and connections that would help her
understand what it meant to become a good mother. In Sallys class, she had
heard about a group of new mothers called Wise Moms which is a post-partum
support group. Jane was a bit hesitant and nervous, but was soon a member of
the Wise Moms group.
As expected, the structure and protocols of this group were much different
than what was experienced in Sallys formal classes. There was no particular
curriculum or agenda, but the new mothers simply met to share experiences,
voice concerns, ask questions and share answers concerning what it means to
be a new mother. Sally also took a different role in the group. Instead of
determining the direction of the class, the participants now had much more
control of the discussed content. Whereas Sally wore the hat of a registered
nurse and instructor in the classes, Sally developed her role in the Wise Moms
group from the experience of a mother. With this more informal structure, roles
were constantly being negotiated. At times, certain voices were made more
relevant than others. For instance, Jane remembers questioning the credibility of
the mother that let her 3-month old baby drink Slurpies, while Jane gave full
attention to the member who was a second-time mother and practicing registered
nurse.

84

As her babies grew into young children, Jane quit the group as she felt
she no longer had a need to participate in it. She was no longer getting anything
from it. However, the experiences in Wise Moms led to the development of
strong bonding relationships, and excellent lasting friendships. While at one time,
being a new mother was the only commonality shared with the individual
mothers, the group facilitated an exchange that allowed other shared beliefs and
values to be known to each other. Today, Wise Moms continues to seed
relationships that last for years after the group participation.

So What Does This All Mean?

The specific characteristics of open source communities vary. While many
open source communities exist as informal, distributed entities, there have been
attempts at developing more formal, proximal open source communities (e.g.,
local Linux User Groups or LUGs). As well, within many existing open source
communities, there are aspects of more formalized and direct approaches to
educating members (and prospective members) on the virtues and technicalities
of open source related software (e.g., installfests, school staff workshops). In
many ways, open source communities share some of the characteristics of the
baby communities presented above, and can be just as diverse in structure,
purpose and in the facilitation of relationships.
In using the lenses of change theory, communities of practice theory and
social capital theory, I hope to gain insight into the technology adoption practices
of particular members of OS communities. As open source communities are

85

complex, one lens is often not adequate to explain the activities and relationships
within these communities. The weakness of one model can benefit from the
strength of another. For instance, change theory can be very powerful when
describing directed approaches to change. For instance, in the case of Baby
Story: New Parents, change theory such as diffusion theory may be appropriate
in understanding basic components of the class experiences. Yet, diffusion
theory would not likely be appropriate in understanding the experiences and
relationships developed in the second vignette, A Baby Story: A New Mother. In
this case, having a solid understanding of communities of practice and social
capital literature may give a much richer understanding of the context. While
perhaps using too many theories may be unwise, it is my belief that in using the
grounded theory process, the more tools I have access to will only create a richer
analysis of the data.
Visualizing My Framework
Before presenting my framework, I would like to re-present some of the
key ideas that have helped in my understanding. Key words have been bolded in
an effort to assist in the development of my visual model.
Communities of Practice Defined
a group of professionals informally bound to one another
through exposure to a common class of problems, common
pursuits of solutions, and thereby themselves embodying store of
knowledge. (Hildreth & Kimble, 2000, p. 3)
groups of people who share a concern, set of problems, or a
passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and
expertise in the area by interacting on an ongoing basis.
(McDermott & Snyder, 2002, p. 7)

86

Social Capital Defined

a common social resource that facilitates information
exchange, knowledge sharing, and knowledge construction
through continuous interaction, built on trust and maintained
through shared understanding (Daniel, et. al, 2003, Online)
consists of the stock of active connections among people: the
trust, mutual understanding, and shared values and behaviours
that bind the members of human networks and communities and
make cooperative action possible. (Cohen & Prusak, 2001, p. 4)
In understanding the adoption of technological innovation in open source
communities, its important to recognize that planned or institutional adoption
techniques are only one of many forces influencing potential adopters. From my
current knowledge, educators who are pioneers in the open source movement
have not been solely inspired to be so due to institutional initiatives. Rather, their
involvement in various overlapping open source communities have inspired such
activities and given them opportunities to learn difficult technical skills, as well as
to forge strong (often philosophical) beliefs regarding the meaning of open
source in the educational context.
Below (Figure 7) you will see a (very) rudimentary illustration44 of various
thoughts so far. As you can see, I feel that communities of practice and attributes
of social capital are closely related. In fact, I see these attributes of social capital
as an extension and direct result of effective communities of practice.
Additionally, in being realistic towards this research, I must admit that some
elements of rich, active communities (to which I have labelled as nebulous)
cannot be easily described through change related theories such as diffusion of
innovation theory. However, such theories do serve a purpose and may be
44

Forgive my lacking of artistic ability.

87

beneficial in helping us better understand particular aspects of open source

communities.

Figure 7 : Communities of Practice in Relation to Social Capital

Attributes of Social Capital

Knowledge Sharing
Activity / Interaction
Relationships
Connections
Shared Values
Common Context/Goals
Trust

Change Theory helpful in describing predictable/planned change.

Social Capital Theory and Communities of Practice theory helpful in
understanding nebulous activity.

As mentioned previously, the above thoughts are meant only as a

guiding framework for the time being. In keeping with the spirit of grounded
theory, I expect to be immersed in the related and likely tangential literature
throughout the course of my study. I have kept a well rounded approach toward
my literature research, and thus, I am hoping to keep this framework as flexible
as possible. The areas of change theory, communities of practice and social
capital are exciting areas of research, and I believe that my thorough
understanding of these areas can only be beneficial to understanding open
source communities.

88

Bibliography
Abrahamson, E., & Rosenkopf, L. (1997). Social network effects on the extent of
innovation diffusion: A computer simulation. Organization science, 8, 289309.
Adler, P., & Kwon, S. (2000). Social capital: The good, the bad, and the ugly. In
E. P. Lesser, L. (Ed.), Knowledge and social capital. Woborn, MA:
Butterworth Heinemann.
Arnison, M. (2001). Open publishing is the same as free software. Available from:
http://www.cat.org [Accessed 08 June 2003]
Atlas.ti. (1997). Visual qualitative data analysis management model building in
education, research & business. Retrieved May 1, 2004
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Bank, T. W. (1999). What is social capital? Retrieved February 12, 2004, from
http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/scapital/whatsc.htm
Barbrook, R. (1998). The hi-tech gift economy. First Monday. [online] Available
from: http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue3_12/barbrook/
Bates, T. (2000). Managing technological change : strategies for college and
university leaders (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bennahum, D. (1996). Interview with Richard Stallman. Meme 2.04. [online]
Available from: http://hammer.prohosting.com/~runlinux/stallman.shtml
[Accessed 07 June 2003]
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of
theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New
York: Greenwood Press.
Bowling, A. (1997). Research Methods in Health. Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Brown, J. S. (1999). There goes the neighborhood. Retrieved November 5, 2003,
from http://archive.salon.com/21st/feature/1999/01/cov_19feature.html
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-ofpractice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation, from
http://www2.parc.com/ops/members/brown/papers/orglearning.html
Cheal, D. (1988). The gift economy. New York: Routledge.

89

Cohen, D., & Prusak, L. (2001). In good company. How social capital makes
organizations work. Boston, Ma: Harvard Business School Press.
Coleman, G. E. (1999). The poltics of surival and prestige: Hacker indentity and
the global production of an operating system. Retrieved July 14, 2001,
from http://www.healthhacker.com/biella/masterslongversion.html
Coyne, I. (1997). Sampling in qualitative research: Purposeful and theoretical
sampling: merging or clear boundaries. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26,
623-630.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design : choosing among
five traditions. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Daniel, B., Schwier, R. A., & McCalla, G. (2003). Social capital in virtual learning
communities and distributed communities of practice. Canadian Journal of
Learning and Technology, 29(3).
Daniel, B., McCalla, G., & Schwier, R. (2002). A process model for building social
capital in virtual learning communities. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE) (pp., 574-577). Auckland,
New Zealand.
Dent, H. S. (1994). The great boom ahead: Your guide to personal & business
profit in the great age of prosperity. New York: Hyperion Press.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Strategies of qualitative inquiry. Thousand
Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of qualitative research.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Dey, I. (1999). Grounding grounded theory : guidelines for qualitative inquiry. San
Diego: Academic Press.
Dibona, C., Ockman, S. & Stone, M. (Eds.) (1999). Open sources: Voices from
the open source revolution. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly & Associates.
Dick, B. (2002, December 12, 2002). Grounded theory: a thumbnail sketch.
Retrieved February, 2004, from
http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/grounded.html
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy
of management review, 14, 532-550.

90

Ellsworth, J. (2000). Surviving change: A survey of educational change models.

ERIC.
Ely, D. (1990a). Conditions the facilitate the implementation of educational
technology innovations. Journal of Research on Computing in Education,
23(2), 298-305.
Ely, D. (1990b). The diffusion and implementation of educational technology in
developing nations: Cross-cultural comparisons of Indonesia, Chile, and
Peru. Instructional Developments, 1(1), 9-12.
Ely, D. (Ed.). (1976). Creating the conditions for change. Champaign, IL:
University of Illinois Graduate School of Library Science.
Fernandez-Kelley, M. P. (1995). Social and cultural capital in the urban ghetto:
Implications for the economic sociology of immigration. In A. Portes (Ed.),
The economic sociology of immigration. New York: Russel Sage
Foundation.
Fink, M. (2003). The business and economics of linux and open source. New
York: Prentice Hall.
Free Software Foundation (2003). The Free Software Definition. [online]
Available from: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html [Accessed 08
June 2003]
Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M., & Miles, M. B. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what
doesn't. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(10), 745-752.
Fullan, M., & Stiegelbauer, S. M. (1991). The new meaning of educational
change (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education: Teachers College Press Teachers College Columbia
University.
Gladwell, M. (1996, June 3). The Tipping Point. Retrieved July 7, 2003, from
http://www.gladwell.com/1996/1996_06_03_a_tipping.htm
Gladwell, M. (2000). The tipping point : how little things can make a big
difference (1st ed.). Boston: Little Brown.
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

91

Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs. forcing.

Mill Valley, CA.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory :
strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co.
Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers : an introduction (2nd ed.).
New York: Longman.
Gordon, G. (2002). The roles of leadership and ownership in building an effective
quality culture. Quality in Higher Education, 8(1), 97-106.
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools : facilitating the process.
Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.
Hannifin, L. J. (1916). The rural school community centre. Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 67, 130-138.
Hargreaves, D. H. (2003). Working laterally: How innovation networks make an
education epidemic., from http://www.demos.co.uk/workinglaterally
Havelock, R. G., & Zlotolow, S. (1995). The change agent's guide (2nd ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publications.
Hildreth, K. (2000). Communities of Practice in the Distributed International
Environment. (4), 17.
Hildreth, P., Kimble, C., Wright, P. (2000). Communities of practice in a
distributed international environment. Journal of Knowledge Management,
4(1), pp. 27-38.
Hyde, G. (2000). Independent media centers: Cyber-subversion and the
alternative press. First Monday. [online] Available from:
http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issues/issue7_4/hyde
Kerlin, B. (2002). Coding Strategies. Retrieved February 14, 2004, from
http://kerlins.net/bobbi/research/nudist/coding/strategies.html
Kim, A. J. (2000). Community building on the web: Secret strategies for
successful online communities. Berkeley, CA: Peachpit Press.
Kim, E. (2003). An introduction to open source communities. [online]. Available
from: http://www.blueoxen.org/research/00007 [Accessed 07 July 2003]

92

King, J.J. (1999). Free Software is a Political Action: In Conversation With

Richard Stallman. Teleopolis. [online] Available from:
http://www.heise.de/tp/english/special/wos/6469/1.html [Accessed 07 June
2003]
Knack, S., & Kiefer, P. (1997). Does social capital have an economic payoff? A
cross-country investigation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 12511288.
Knight, P., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Departmental leadership in higher education.
Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews : an introduction to qualitative research interviewing.
Thousand Oaks, Ca.: Sage Publications.
Lave. (1988). Cognition in practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral
participation: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, R. M., & Fielding, N. G. (1991). Computing for qualitative research: Options,
problems and potential. In N. G. Fielding (Ed.), Using computers in
qualitative research (pp. 1-13). London: Sage.
Lerner, J. & Tirole, J. (2000). The simple economics of open source. Harvard
Business School working paper #00-059. [online] Available from:
http://www.people.hbs.edu/jlerner/simple.pdf [Accessed 04 August 2003]
Lessig, L. (2004). Free culture: How big media uses technology and the law to
lock down culture and control creativity. New York: Penguin Press.
Mauss, M. (1990). The gift: The form and reason for exchange in archaic
societies. New York: Routledge.
May, C. (2000). Global political economy of intellectual property rights: The new
enclosure? London: Routledge.
McGriff, S. (2001, October 27, 2000). ISD Knowledge Base / Educational
Change Models. Retrieved January 21, 2004, from
http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/s/j/sjm256/portfolio/kbase/Systems&C
hange/EducationalChangeModels.html
McGowan, D. (2001). The legal implications of open source software. Illinois Law
Review. 2001(1). [online]. Available from:
http://www.law.umn.edu/FacultyProfiles/articles/OpenSourceFinal.pdf
[Accessed 08 July 2003]

93

Midgley, D. F., & Dowling, G. R. (1978). Innovativeness: The concept and its
measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 4, 229-242.
Mignone, J. (2003). Measuring social capital: A guide for first nations
communities. Retrieved February 12, 2004, from
http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/en/downloads/MeasuringSocialCapital2003_e
.pdf
Moglen, E. (1999). Anarchism triumphant: Free software and the death of
copyright. First Monday. [online]. Available from:
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/my_pubs/anarchism.html [Accessed 09
June 2003]
Moore, J.T.S. (Producer/Writer/Director). (2002). Revolution OS [Motion Picture].
United States: Wonderview Productions.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital and the
organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242266.
Newmarch, J. (2001). Lessons from open source: Intellectual property and
courseware. First Monday. [online] Available from:
http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue6_6/newmarch/ [Accessed 10 July
2003]
Orr, J. (1987a). Narratives at work: Story telling as cooperative diagnostic
activity. Field Service Manager, 47-60.
Orr, J. (1987b). Talking about machines: Social aspects of expertise. Palo Alto,
CA: Xerox Palo Alto Research Centre.
Orr, J. (1990). Collective remembering: Memory in society. In D. Edwards (Ed.),
Sharing knowledge, celebrating identity: War stories and community
memory in a service culture. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Orr, J. (1990). Talking about machines: An ethnography of a modern job.
Unpublished Ph.D., Cornell University.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.).
Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Petroski, H. (1992). The evolution of useful things. New York: Random House.

94

Portes, A., & Sensenbrenner, J. (1993). Embeddedness and immigration: Notes

on social determinants of economic action. American Journal of Sociology,
98(6), 1320-1350.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone : the collapse and revival of American
community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Ramsden, P. (1998). Learning to lead in higher education. New York: Routledge.
Raymond, E. (1999). The cathedral and the bazaar: Musings of linux and open
source by an accidental revolutionary. Sebastopol, CA: OReilly &
Associates Inc. Raymond, E. (1998). Homesteading the noosphere. First
Monday. [online] Available
http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue3_10/raymond
Reigeluth, C. M., & Garfinkle, R. J. (1994). Systemic change in education.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publications.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Rogers, E. M., & Kincaid, D. L. (1981). Communication networks : toward a new
paradigm for research. New York: Free Press.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. (1995). Qualitative interviewing : the art of hearing data.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Ryan, B., & Gross, N. (1943). The diffusion of hybrid seed corn in two Iowa
communities. Rural Sociology, 8(1), 15-24.
Sander, T. H., & Lowney, K. (2003). Social Capital Building Toolkit (Version 1.0).
Retrieved December 23, 2003, from
www.nelib.org/files/counterpartsSkillbuildingToolkit.pdf
Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research : a guide for researchers
in education and the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers
College Press.
Sodenberg, J. (2002). Copyleft vs. copyright: A Marxist critique. First Monday.
[online] Available from:
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/my_pubs/anarchism.html [Accessed 07
June 2003]

95

Stallman, R. (2000). The GNU operating system and the free software
movement. [online] In C. DiBona, S. Ockman, and M. Stone (Eds.) Open
Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution. Sebastopol, CA:
O'Reilly & Associates. Available from:
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/stallman.html [Accessed
07 June 2003]
Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge
[Cambridgeshire] ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research : grounded
theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage
Publications.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1997). Grounded theory in practice. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.
Tarde, G. d., & Parsons, E. W. C. (1903). The laws of imitation. New York,: H.
Holt and company.
Temple, J., & Johnson, P. (1998). Social Capability and Economic Growth.
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(3), 965-990.
Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. New
York: Falmer Press.
Tesch, R. (1991). Software for qualitative researchers: Analysis needs and
program capabilities. In R. M. Lee (Ed.), Using computers in qualitative
research (pp. 16-37). London: Sage.
Torvalds, L. (1991, August 25). What would you like to see most in minix?
Message posted to comp.os.minix electronic mailing list, archived at
http://groups.google.ca [Accessed 03 June 2003]
Torvalds, L. & Diamond, D. (2001). Just for fun: Story of an accidental
revolutionary. New York: Harper Collins.
Valente, T. W. (1995). Network models of the diffusion of innovations. Cresskill,
NJ: Hampton Press).
Vygotski, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society : the development of higher
psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Weber, S. (2004). The success of open source. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.

96

Wenger, E. (1998a). Communities of practice : learning, meaning, and identity.

Cambridge, U.K. ; New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E. (1998b). Communities of Practice. Learning as a Social System,
2002, from http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/lss.shtml
Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of
practice : a guide to managing knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E., Snyder, M. (2000). Learning within communities. [online] Available
from: http://www.linezine.com/1/features/ewwslc.htm [Access 11 June
2003]
Wheeler, D. (2003). Why open source software / free software (OSS/FS)? Look
at the numbers! [online] Available from:
http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html [Accessed 10 June 2003]
Wiley, D. (1998). Open Content [online] Available from:
http://www.opencontent.org [Access 22 May 2003]
Wengraf, T. (2001). Qualitative research interviewing : biographic narrative and
semi-structured methods. London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
Woolcock, M., & Narayan, D. (2000). Social capital: Implications for development
theory, research, and policy. The World Bank Research Observer, 15(2),
225-249.
Wuthnow, R. (1998). Loose connections : joining together in America's
fragmented communities. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Zaltman, G., & Duncan, R. (1977). Strategies for planned change. New York:
Wiley.

97

Appendix A
S-Curve of the Automobile
An example of an S-Curve is shown below:

At the beginning of the 20th century, only the very rich owned an automobile.
Following this S-Curve, between 1900 and 1914, the automobile went through
the innovation phase. At the end of this phase, Henry Ford introduced the
assembly line which helped the automobile become affordable for the middle
class. From 1914-1928, the automobile went through its growth phase as 90%
of urban families now owned one, up drastically from 10%, only 14 years earlier.
After 1928, the automobile market grew slowly as it reached the maturity stage.
(Paraphrased from Dent, 1994, pp. 106-8)

98

Appendix B

The CBAM Model: Stages of Concern

(Hall and Hord, 1987)

99

Appendix C
Initial ideas of social learning theory are attributed to the work of Bandura
in the late 1970s. Bandura (1977) emphasized the importance of observing and
modelling the behaviours, attitudes and emotional reactions of others. Bandura
(1977) believed that most human behavior is learned observationally through
modeling: from observing others, one forms an idea of how new behaviours are
performed, and on later occasions this coded information serves as a guide for
action (p. 22). Bandura constructed social learning theory as both a
behaviourist and cognitive model as he used it to explain human action in terms
of a continuous reciprocal interaction between behavioural, cognitive and
environmental influences. In many ways, Banduras work complimented ideas
from Vygotskys (1978) theory that social interaction plays a fundamental role in
the development of cognition and Laves (1988) theory of situated learning.

100