Deadline first round of call for papers: 30st August 2010
Send papers proposal to: mayo.fuster(at)eui.eu

Panel abstract: So far, political science research has focused on the use of the Internet by collective political actors that had their main operational base in the offline realm. First studies on the Internet and politics mainly concentrated mostly on well-established and traditional actors such public administration and political parties. Then the cope of research widened to include interest groups, NGOs and social movements looking at the impact of the Internet and the type of Internet use carried out by those groups. In particular, given the growing importance of political campaigns and other forms of collective action that are launched and carried out by networks of political actors, that mainly, if not completely operate and mobilize for their issues online, the debate on the Internet and politics could benefit further from considering actors who mainly operation with an online base. Interestingly, the emergence of collective action in online environments apparently follows new forms of “networked” forms of action and collaboration that are said to be different from political actors with a mainly offline base. The panel “Digital politics” aims to iniciate a discussion on the main organizational and democratic logic of the collective action born in and from the Internet addressing questions such as: What are the main characteristics of participation in online base collective action? How are boundaries drawn between the individual and the collective in such forms? How can we deal with the dialectics of individualization on one hand and the effects of de-personalization on the other hand that are inscribed in online spaces? How is the online space governed and how does its architecture structure online interaction? Finally, which methods are best suited to analyze the practices and dynamics of collective action online adequately?

Co-chairs: Mayo Fuster Morell (European University Institute) and Johanna Niesyto (University of Siegen)
Discussant: Sigrid Baringhorst (University of Siegen)

http://internetnoseraotratv.net

]]> http://www.onlinecreation.info/?feed=rss2&p=274 http://www.onlinecreation.info/?p=265 http://www.onlinecreation.info/?p=265#comments Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:11:24 +0000 Mayo http://www.onlinecreation.info/?p=265 Yesterday I participated at the University of Amsterdam at the Digital Methods Institute (DMI). An informal workshop in order to exchange methodological approaches and to discuss tools to allow analyzing Wikipedia with presentations from Erik Zachte (Wikimedia in figures - Wikimedia Foundation); Victor Grishchenko (Accretion and page growt); Johanna Niesyto (Experiences with tools across the EN and DE language versions); the Digital Methods Iniciative grew (Esther Weltevrede, Borra and others) presenting tools to research Wikipedia; and myself.

It is not common to find research event focus on open collaboration and online collective action; even less a workshop focus on best methods to research digital life. So I enjoyed a lot the discussion.

You can find a synopses of the research designs and references to tools at DMI website.

Here below I include the notes for my presentation on the methodological design and lessons learned from my Phd research on  Digital Commons Governance.

Hope you like it or find it useful. Comments welcome! Mayo

.

Fuster Morell, Mayo (2010) “Note - Research Digital Commons Governance. Methodological design and lessons learne”d. Digital methods iniciative. University of Amsterdam. 25th Match 2010. (http://www.digitalmethods.net/Digitalmethods/WikiAnalyticsWorkshop)

.

I. Introduction

I will present the methodological design and lessons from my Ph.D research on “Governance online creation communities for the building of digital commons” which I am finishing at the European University Institute.

My methodological reflections regard to case comparison; that is research based on comparing Wikipedia to other cases.

My unit of analysis are online creation communities (OCCs); which I define as “a form of collective action performed by individuals that communicate, interact and cooperate; in several forms and degrees of participation; mainly via a platform of participation in the Internet; with the common goal of knowledge-making and sharing; which result in a digital common, that is, an integrated resource of information and knowledge (partly or totally) of collective property and freely accessible to third parts”.

Other concepts to define this type of collective action are Open collaboration, common-base peer production.

Wikipedia is one of the examples. But also others comunities around the building of divers information pools such as s oftware package (I.e: Debian, Plone, Drupal and Facebook Development Team); Guides or Manuals like (I.e. Wikihow or Wikitravels); or Multimedia archives (I.e. video You Tube? or articles (libraries) Plos).

From the OCC I analysed the governance. However, while the literature on the analysis of the governance of OC mainly focus on the intercatio among the participants; I decided to take also into consideration the role of infraestructure provider. For example, Wikimedia Foundation is the provider of Wikipedia or Yahoo the provider of Flickr.

More in concrete I look to answer the question: How the type of provider related to the community generated in terms of commuinity size, type of collaboration and self-governance?.

II. Methodology

Firtly, the empirical research was based on a multi-method approach.I combined a large-N stadistical analysis of 50 cases with an ind-deep case study comparison of four cases.

The combination of these two methodologies was very useful in term of questioning and reinforcing the results of one method with the results of the other method.

II. I Large-N

For the large-N analysis, I adapted a political science research trend called web analysis of democratic quality of political actors’ websites .

Steps for the large - N:

1) Design of a sample of 50 cases

2) Elaborate a codebook.

3) Data collection

4) Calcule descriptive stadistics and correlations between the variables.

1) Sampling:

I developed a snowball search , specifically by exhausting the search through these means:

i) Search in documentation and literature;

ii) Follow the hyper-links between the websites;

iii) Use general search engines (i.e. Google).

After a balanced sample of 50 cases was built, I designed a codebook.

2) Codebook

The codebook consisted of a set of 100 indicators related to the questions/variables I wanted to analyses.

For example, in term of self-governance I looked if the policies are defined by the community or not.

Or in regard of type of provider I looked to the type of legal entity associated to the community, among others.

3) Data collections

I fulfilled the codebook for each case visiting and observing the website of the OCC.

The estimated time was 40 minutes to one hour.

Some main problems I found in the data collection derived from the plurality of the OCCs.

The same indicators were not valid for all the cases, so at some point of the coding process, I had to review the indicators and define the indications “conceptually”, not in specific forms.

The indicators of the participation mechanism were particularly problematic because they vary greatly depending on each OCC and particularly depending on the type of solfware used.

With a sample more homogeneous in terms of using the same technological platform (such as comparing between wikis), the data collection would be easier.

Some eemarks:

I sent an e-mail informing that I was doing the research, but I collected data that was generated in the datly life of the OC, without requering any intervention from the participants. That is, using digital threads.

Using digital threads, the data collection can be developed in two ways: through “human” identification or through a program. Such as the work of Viegas for Wikipedia.

Human identification is when a person checks if an indicator is present or not in the website; program identification is a program that is designed to automatically.

Initially I planned to build a program for the data collection and analysis of the indicators, which it would serveto significantly reduce the time-consuming activity of web analysis. Furthermore, it would facilitate the building of a tool for the actors themselves analyze their websites.

However, programming is costly and I could not develop the program for lack of funding in my Ph.D program to cover the technical programming costs.

Furthermore, it required the creation of groups with coverage of a plurality of skills and resources. In the frame of a Phd research this requirements are not facilitated. In order to make profit of this frontier, it is in the benefit of research center to build alliances and create the conditions for the technological support of the research.

4) Statistical analysis

I used the program SPSS for the stadistics calculation. I wanted to use R program, because I priorise free solfware in my research, however I couldn’t find none in my University that could introduce me to the program.

I looked to descriptive stadistics (such as frecuency or percentage of use of copyleft licences or frequency of type of legal entities asocieted to the community). Then I also look to correlation between variables. Such as, are the bigger communities the ones hosted that commercial providers? Or, do non-profit providers generate larger collaboration between the participants?

Some initial considerations on the large-N:

* Large-N was adequate due to the novelty of the OC phenomenon. It helped me to more preciecly conceptualise and describe the OCCs.

* Apart of the data collection for the stadistical analysis of correlations between my variables, the exercice was very useful in terms of “online ethnography”, that is to increase understanding by observing the OC. A “field notes” was kept during the data collection.

* Large-N analysis was useful in terms of the need to go beyond in the literature to only case studies and consider not only experience of success, but also of failer.

Finally, the large - N helped me to identify cases and hypothesis for the case studies.

II. II Case studies comparison

The case study of OCCs are used in order to extract a more in-depth understanding.

Steps of case studies:

1) Selection of case studies:

From the large-N emerged four main models of provision or infraestructure governance an so I choose one case for each model for the in-deep case study comparison.

My case were: Flickr provided by a big coorporation, Yahoo; Wikihow provided by an enterprise; Wikipedia provided by a non-profit foundation; and, Social forums memory project provided by an open assembly composed by a self-selected group of participants.

2) Case study methods

I combined several methods on the case studies.

Remark: I did not follow the exact same plan for each case. For example, before starting the research I was already familiar with the Social Forum case study, but not with the other cases. In this regard, I developed fewer interviews for the Social Forum.

The methods used were:

1) Virtual ethnography of the online platforms

2) Digital threads analysis of participation data: Only for the Social forums case; for the other cases, such as Wikipedia, I used data on participation already availeble.

3) Observation of participation in physical encounters and headquarters

4) Review documentation of the cases

5) (Structured and unstructured) i nterviews to participants and consultation to experts >>> In total, I conduced 80 interviews.

To secure interviews with OCC participants, the more effective procedure was on the one hand to go to face to face meeting and on the other hand, to ask the people I interviewed to put me in contact with other people I wanted to interview. // To me the major response of the informants in physical encounters is mainly related to gaining trust and attracting the attention of the informants. With other forms of gaining trust with the informants and attracting their attention, the developing of the case study only using online methods might also work.

For the Wikimedia and Flickr data collection, I did a fieldwork internship in the San Francisco Bay Area and a trip to the east cost. In terms of collection of interviews was also importantly developed at Wikimania or meet-up of the communities.

Another tip concerning the interviews: do not start the interviews with the people more difficult to get; as you also madurate the interview as far as you develop more and more interviews.

During the interviews a visualization technique was used based on asking the person to “draft” the relationship between the providers and the community according to how he/she conceive it and the asking him/her to comment different drafts representing the mentioned relationship.

+ Finally, the transcripts of the interviews were time-consuming but were also essential. The level of understanding grows exponentially with the transcription.

6) Organization of group discussions with participants and specialist

As part of the research, I contributed to the building of a collaborative space, the project Networked Politics, on the research of a large area of topics (new forms of political organising), but which is related to my research question.

This collaboration has been of great value for the research development in terms of providing feedback on the emerging research and getting to know relevant literature.

Furthermore, with the support of Networked Politics, I organized collective discussions (seminars) with participants and informants of my case studies and with experts in the area.

To design and guide these group discussions, a methodology of focus groups was adapted.

I consider facilitate reflexivity among actors and contributing to building relationship among them a resulting impact of the research. It was also useful in this regard.

Main problem of case studies comparison:

* Case comparison was not a problem for the case studies, as I commented previosly on the limitations of equal indicators on the large-N.

* The process of data collection has been characterized, more than for a “lack”of data, for an overloading of data available.

]]> http://www.onlinecreation.info/?feed=rss2&p=265 http://www.onlinecreation.info/?p=261 http://www.onlinecreation.info/?p=261#comments Tue, 23 Mar 2010 22:00:00 +0000 Mayo http://www.onlinecreation.info/?p=261

http://d-evolution.fcforum.net/

http://d-evolution.fcforum.net/

Just a short notice to say that I uploaded an updated version of the short outline of my doctoral research on “Online creation communities for the building of digital commons”.

Also availeble here:  mayofustermorell_doctoralresearch_outline

Have a happy day! Mayo

I am presenting a talk at the Wikipedia - Critical point of view event, organised by the Institute for the network culture and The Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India.To be held at Amsterdam, 26 & 27 March 2010. I thank the organisers of the CPOV events for their effort on putting together a great set of Wikipedia researchers and practiciouners. It it is important to create channels and spaces to meet, exchange, discuss among the several and multiple critical perspectives in the research of Wikipedia and in general in thinking about the implications of open collaboration forms.

Plus I would like to share with you a recent post I did for the Wikipedia - CPOV webiste. The post provides an overview of the evolution of the Wikimedia governance and the role of the Foundation across time. Furthermore, I hope it could also help to contextualise my presentation at the CPOV which will address the role of the Wikimedia Foundation for the Wikimedia eco-system and its international-global expansion.

Here it is the post at the Wikipedia - CPOV website: http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/cpov/resources/resources_in_english/wikimedia-evolution-in-terms-of-governance-and-the-creation-of-a-foundation/

Comments, critiques and suggestions are very welcome! Mayo

I would like to share with you the happiness on seeing initiatives based on transform the way knowledge is produced and access. Interface “A Journal For and About Social Movements” is one of the ones I love the most. The Journal is open access and peer-reviewed, plus combine action and research oriented perspectives. After three great issues of Interface: 1. Movement knowledge; 2.Civil society vs social movements; and, 3. Crisis, social movements and revolutionary transformations; a new issue is in preparation.

My friend Alice Mattoni, together with other colleges, is under the next issue of Interface which is dedicated to “Voices of dissent: activists’ engagements in the creation of alternative, autonomous, radical and independent media”. The call for contributions is open. Send a paper, a reflection, a book review, report on a particular experience. The deadline for submissions is May 1. The issue address important questions for movement strategy which will benefit for major discussion. Addressing questions such as:

· What are the places and sites in the media environment where alternative media develop today?
· Does it still make sense to speak about ‘media activists’ in a technology-saturated environment? Who are today’s media activists and, more broadly speaking, who are the alternative media practitioners and how are they connected to different social movements?
· How are traditional media (radio, magazines, television, print) used as alternative means of communication nowadays? Are there instances of media convergence in this respect? What effects does this have on the communication practices of existing social movements?
· What are the challenges, problems and issues that alternative media have raised and still raise within the social movement milieu?
· Do alternative media present a gender-neutral context? Or are alternative media practices embedded in the same patriarchal discourse that envelops mainstream media?
· Do technical criteria and the logics of media production necessarily win out in the long run over questions of alternative production processes and attempts to treat media as the voice of people in struggle?

Finally, to me the commitment to transform the research on social movement of Alice Mattoni by supporting an issue of Interface Journal is an example to follow. After finishing a Phd on Media practices in precarious movement, Alice Mattoni finds the time and the sense to priories the taking care of this issue. Unfortunately it is not very common (and an unrecognized effort by the University systems) to priories contributing to create debate among activist and to facilitate spaces to spread the results of social movements research. So, an applause to Alice Mattoni!

More info on the call for contributions to the issue at: http://www.interfacejournal.net/2010/02/call-for-papers-issue-4-voices-of.html

Interface is a prove that research can be done in another way and that spaces of dialogue of action and research are very fruitful.

Viva Interface!!! Mayo

]]> http://www.onlinecreation.info/?feed=rss2&p=237 http://www.onlinecreation.info/?p=234 http://www.onlinecreation.info/?p=234#comments Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:55:33 +0000 admin http://www.onlinecreation.info/?p=234 Hello!

Last Monday (30/01/09) the Spanish Government sent the parliament the latest draft for the Ley de Economia Sostenible (Sustainable Economy Act), which contained riders modifying the current laws on copyright and interactive services. These amendments give the Spanish Ministy of Culture the administrative power to take down websites (or order ISPs to block those hosted overseas), all without a court order and in the name of ’safeguarding Intellectual Property Laws against Internet Piracy’ ( More on blog Javier “Barrapunto” Candeira)

A huge protest reaction took place on the Internet with a massive suport of a common “Manifesto in defence of fundamental rights of the Internet” which build upon the Charter from the Free Culture Forum. Help to spread the word and express your support!!! Mayo

PD:  Zapatero are you a progressist? Who undersand conventional politics!

“Manifesto in defence of fundamental rights of the Internet”

A group of journalists, bloggers, professionals and creators want to express their firm opposition to the inclusion in a Draft Law of some changes to Spanish laws restricting the freedoms of expression, information and access to culture on the Internet. They also declare that:

1 .- Copyright should not be placed above citizens’ fundamental rights to privacy, security, presumption of innocence, effective judicial protection and freedom of expression.

2 .- Suspension of fundamental rights is and must remain an exclusive competence of judges. This blueprint, contrary to the provisions of Article 20.5 of the Spanish Constitution, places in the hands of the executive the power to keep Spanish citizens from accessing certain websites.

3 .- The proposed laws would create legal uncertainty across Spanish IT companies, damaging one of the few areas of development and future of our economy, hindering the creation of startups, introducing barriers to competition and slowing down its international projection.

4 .- The proposed laws threaten creativity and hinder cultural development. The Internet and new technologies have democratized the creation and publication of all types of content, which no longer depends on an old small industry but on multiple and different sources.

5 .- Authors, like all workers, are entitled to live out of their creative ideas, business models and activities linked to their creations. Trying to hold an obsolete industry with legislative changes is neither fair nor realistic. If their business model was based on controlling copies of any creation and this is not possible any more on the Internet, they should look for a new business model.

6 .- We believe that cultural industries need modern, effective, credible and affordable alternatives to survive. They also need to adapt to new social practices.

7 .- The Internet should be free and not have any interference from groups that seek to perpetuate obsolete business models and stop the free flow of human knowledge.

8 .- We ask the Government to guarantee net neutrality in Spain, as it will act as a framework in which a sustainable economy may develop.

9 .- We propose a real reform of intellectual property rights in order to ensure a society of knowledge, promote the public domain and limit abuses from copyright organizations.

10 .- In a democracy, laws and their amendments should only be adopted after a timely public debate and consultation with all involved parties. Legislative changes affecting fundamental rights can only be made in a Constitutional law.

Hoy aparece publicada en Rebelion.org una entrevista que me hicieron Josep Bel y Salvador López Arnal sobre organización política y nuevas tecnologías y otras temáticas vinculadas al Foro de la cultura libre y acceso al conocimiento.

Hacer la entrevista fue una experiencia en si misma de la que aprendi. Algunas de las preguntas me resultaban muy chocantes. Pero el ejercicio me ayudo a enterder como se perciven las lógicas organizativas emergentes (mediadas por las nuevas tecnologias) y las propuestas de la cultura libre desde ambitos políticos sindicalistas y de “clásica” izquierda radical.

Si leeis la entrevista me interesaria mucho saber que opinais al respecto. Gracias, Mayo

(Synthesis of the posts for English speakers: the IV Congres of Cybersociety is the greaters online congress I know off. It is great in its content and in its original “virtual” format. Not need to travel to enjoy it!!! Visit the congress

You could also check out my plenary on the “Context, experiences and conclusions of the Free culture forum”: Plenary)

Si no conoceis ya el Congreso de la Ciber sociedad lo recomiendo vivamente!!!! El programa es estupendo y no tendras que coger un avion para participar, ni siquiera avandonar tu sofa. Es un congreso interactivo “online”. Esta muy bien por su contenido y enfoque; y por la originalidad de un formato “innovador”, que siendo ya el IV que se celebra, esta muy perfeccionado. Es internacional, cuenta con una amplia participacion desde Latino-America. Es todo un placer.

Visitar el congreso

Por otra parte, estoy muy contenta de contaros que me invitaros a que hiziera una de las plenarias del congreso donde en la que presento ” “Contexto, experiencias y conclusiones del Free Culture Forum” . El video de mi plenaria, junto con una presentacion en texto y los comentarios de participantes esta disponible aqui: Resumen intervencion y video.

Viva el Congres de la Cybersocietat!!!!!!!!!!!!!