1. Running head: LITERATURE REVIEW INSTRUCTIONS 1
PAPER II: METHODS AND RESULTS INSTRUCTIONS3
Instructions for Paper I: Study One Literature Review
Instructions (Worth 25 Points)
Ryan J. Winter
Florida International University
Purpose of Paper I: Study One Literature Review
1). Psychological Purpose
This paper serves several purposes, the first of which is helping
you gain insight into research papers in psychology. As this
may be your first time reading and writing papers in
psychology, one goal of Paper I is to give you insight into what
goes into such papers. This study one-lit review will help you
a). better understand the psychology topic chosen for the course
this semester (Facebook Consensus), b). learn about the various
sections of an empirical research report by reading five peer-
reviewed articles (that is, articles that have a Title Page,
Abstract, Literature Review, Methods Section, Results Section,
and References Page), and c). use information gathered from
research articles in psychology to help support your hypotheses

2. for your first study this semester (Facebook Consensus). Of
course, you’ll be doing a study two literature review later in the
semester, so think of this Paper I as the first part of your
semester long paper. I recommend looking at the example Paper
V, actually, to see what your final paper will look like. It might
give you a better idea about how this current paper (as well as
Papers II, III, and IV) all fit together into your final paper of
the semester.
In this current paper (Paper I), you will read five research
articles, summarize what the authors did and what they found,
and use those summaries to support your Facebook Consensus
study hypothesis. IMPORTANT: Yes you need five references,
but keep in mind that you can spend a lot of time (a page or
two!) summarizing one of them and a sentence or two
summarizing others. Thus spend more time on the more relevant
articles!
For this paper, start your paper broadly and then narrow your
focus (think about the hourglass example provided in the
lecture). My suggestion is to give a brief overview of your
paper topic in your opening paragraph, hinting at the research
variables you plan to look at for study one. Your next
paragraphs will review prior research (those five references
required for this paper). Make sure to draw connections between
these papers, using smooth transitions between paragraphs.
Your final paragraphs should use the research you just
summarized to support your research hypothesis. And yes, that
means you MUST include your study predictions (which we
provided in the researcher instructions and the debriefing
statement. Use them!). In other words, this first paper will look
like the literature reviews for the five research articles you are
summarizing for this assignment. Use the articles you are using
as references as examples! See what they did and mimic their
style! Here, though, you will end the paper after providing your
hypothesis. In Paper II, you will pick the topic up again, but in
that future paper you will talk about your own study methods
and results.

3. 2). APA Formatting Purpose
The second purpose of Paper I: Study One Literature Review is
to teach you proper American Psychological Association (APA)
formatting. In the instructions below, I tell you how to format
your paper using APA style. There are a lot of very specific
requirements in APA papers, so pay attention to the instructions
below as well as Chapter 14 in your textbook!
3). Writing Purpose
Finally, this paper is intended to help you grow as a writer. Few
psychology classes give you the chance to write papers and
receive feedback on your work. This class will! We will give
you extensive feedback on your first few paper in terms of
content, spelling, and grammar. You will even be able to revise
aspects of Paper I and include them in future papers (most
notably Papers III and V). My hope is that you craft a paper that
could be submitted to an empirical journal. Thus readers may be
familiar with APA style but not your specific topic. Your job is
to educate them on the topic and make sure they understand how
your study design advances the field of psychology.
In fact, your final paper in this class (Paper V), might be read
by another professor at FIU and not your instructor / lab
assistant. Write your paper for that reader - the one who may
know NOTHING about your topic and your specific study.
Note: The plagiarism limit for this paper is 30% (though this
excludes any overlap your paper might have with regard to
citations, references, and the hypotheses). Make sure your paper
falls under 30% (or 35% if including predictions).
Note: I am looking for 2.5 pages minimum
Instructions for Paper I: Study One Literature Review (Worth
25 Points)
Students: Below are lengthy instructions on how to write your
study one literature review. There is also a checklist document
in Canvas, which I recommend you print out and “check off”

4. before submitting your paper (we are sticklers for APA format,
so make sure it is correct! We mark off if you have a misplaced
“&”, so carefully review all of your work and use the checklist!
It will help). Also look at the example paper in Canvas. It will
show you what we expect.
1. Title Page: I expect the following format. (5 Points)
a. You must have a header and page numbers on each page.
i. If you don’t know how to insert headers, ask your instructor
or watch this very helpful video!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pbUoNa5tyY.
ii. The header goes at the top of the paper and it is left justified.
1. Use “Insert Headers” or click on the top of the page to open
the header. Make sure to select the “Different first page” option
so that your title page header will differ from subsequent pages
2. The R in Running head is capitalized but the “h” is lower
case, followed by a colon and a short title (in ALL CAPS). This
short running head title can be the same one as the rest of your
paper or it can differ – the choice is yours, but it should be no
more than 50 characters including spaces and punctuation
3. Insert a page number as well. The header is flush left, but the
page number is flush right.
iii. Want an example header? Look at the title page of these
instructions! You can use other titles depending on your own
preferences (e.g. SOCIAL MEDIA AND CONSENSUS;
CONFORMITY; JUDGING OTHERS; etc.).
b. Your Title should be midway up the page. Again, see my
“Title” page above as an example of the placement, but for your
title try to come up with a title that helps describe your study
one. Avoid putting “Paper One”. Rather, consider the titles you
saw in PsycInfo. Create a similar title that lets the reader know
what your paper is about
c. Your name (First Last) and the name of your institution (FIU)
beneath the title. For this class, only your own name will go on
this paper. Double space everything!
i. You can also refer to Chapter 14 in your powerpoints and/or
Smith and Davis textbook

5. d. This Title Page section will be on page 1
2. Abstract?
a. You DO NOT need an abstract for Paper I. In fact, you cannot
write it until you run both study one and two (as the abstract
highlights the results), so omit the abstract for now
3. Literature Review Section (12 points)
a. First page of your literature review (Page 2)
i. Proper header with page numbers. Your running head title
will appear in the header of your page WITHOUT the phrase
“Running head”. To insert this header, use the headers program.
ii. The title of your paper should be on the first line of page
two, centered. It is IDENTICAL to the title on your title page.
Just copy and paste it!
iii. The beginning text for your paper follows on the next line
b. Citations for the literature review
i. Your paper must cite a minimum of five (5) empirical
research articles that are based on studies conducted in
psychology. That is, each of the five citations you use should
have a literature review, a methods section, a results section, a
conclusion/discussion, and references.
1. For Paper I, you MUST use at least three of the five articles
provided in the Canvas folder. You can use four if you like, but
you must use three at minimum – however, you cannot use all
five. For that fifth article, you must find it using PsycInfo.
There are some other conditions for this fifth article that you
must follow:
a. First, remember that the fifth article cannot be any of the five
found in the Canvas folder.
b. Second, for your fifth article, it can be based on a wide
variety of topics, including general priming studies, studies on
consensus or conformity (without a social media angle), studies
on social media (without a consensus or conformity angle),
studies on impression formation, studies on friends, studies on
informational social influence or morality etc. Trust me, there
are TONS of topics that can help you in your paper. Just choose
one that will help you support your experimental hypothesis for

6. your Facebook Consensus study. That is, it has to help you
justify your study one hypothesis (all students are using this
same hypothesis, so make sure to read it. You can find it in the
researcher instructions along with the questionnaires you are
giving to participants. I actually suggest copying and pasting
that hypothesis into this first paper at the end).
c. Finally, you can have more than five references if you want,
but you must have a minimum of five references.
ii. Proper citations must be made in the paper – give credit
where credit is due, and don’t make claims that cannot be
validated.
iii. If you use a direct quote, make sure to provide a page
number for where you found that quote in the citations. Do not
directly quote too often, though. You can have no more than
three direct quotes in the whole paper (though zero quotes
would be even better). Instead, I would like you to paraphrase
when possible.
c. Requirements for the information in your literature review
i. Your study one literature review should use prior research as
a starting point, narrowing down the main theme of your
specific project – think about the hourglass example from
Chapter 14 in Smith and Davis.
ii. The last part of your literature review should narrow down
your focus onto your own study, eventually ending in your
study hypothesis. However, DO NOT go into specific details
about your methods. You will talk about your specific methods
in Paper II in a few weeks.
iii. Again, to make it clear, at the end of your paper you will
give an overview of your research question, providing your
specific predictions/hypotheses.
d. The literature review must have minimum of two (2) full
pages NOT INCLUDING THE HYPOTHESES (2.5 pages with
the hypotheses). It has a maximum of five (5) pages (thus, with
the title page and references page, the paper should be between
4.5 and 7 pages). If it is only four and a half pages (again,
including the hypotheses), it better be really, really good. I

7. don’t think I could do this paper justice in fewer than five
pages, so if yours isn’t at least five pages, I doubt it will get a
good grade.
4. References (6 points)
a. The References section starts on its own page, with the word
References centered. Use proper APA format in this section or
you will lose points.
b. All five references that you cited in the literature review
must be in this section (there should be more than five
references here if you cited more than five articles, which is
fine in this paper). However, at least three must come from the
article folder on Canvas while the remaining two can come from
either the last Canvas paper or two new ones from psychinfo.
Only peer-reviewed articles are allowed here (no books,
journals, websites, or other secondary resources are allowed for
paper one).
c. For references, make sure you:
i. use alphabetical ordering (start with the last name of the first
author)
ii. use the authors’ last names but only the initials of their
first/middle name
iii. give the date in parentheses – e.g. (2007).
iv. italicize the name of the journal article
v. give the volume number, also in italics
vi. give the page numbers (not italicized) for articles
vii. provide the doi (digital object identifier) if present (not
italicized)
5. Writing Quality (2 Points)
a. This includes proper grammar and spelling. I recommend
getting feedback on your paper from the Pearson Writer
program prior uploading it on Canvas.
6. Between the title page, literature review, and reference page,
I expect a minimum of 4 pages and a maximum of 7 pages for
this assignment. But like I said, the shorter the paper, the less
likely it is to get a good grade, so aim for 5 pages minimum.

8. The above information is required for your paper, but I wanted
to provide a few tips about writing your literature review as
well. Students often struggle with the first paper, but hopefully
this will give you some good directions:
· First, remember that you need 5 references, all of which
MUST be peer-reviewed (three coming from the Canvas folder
and one or two that you find on your own using PsycInfo).
· Second, I don't expect a lengthy discussion for each and every
article that you cite. You might spend a page talking about
Article A and a sentence or two on Article B. The amount of
time you spend describing an article you read should be
proportional to how important it is in helping you defend your
hypotheses. See if there is a prior study that looks a lot like
yours (hint – there is at least one, which I based this study on,
but you’ll have to find it on your own!). I would expect you to
spend more time discussing that prior research since it is hugely
relevant to your own study. If an article you read simply
supports a global idea that ties into your study but has very
different methods (like "frustrated people get mad!"), you can
easily mention it in a sentence or two without delving into a lot
of detail. Tell a good story in your literature review, but only go
into detail about plot elements that have a direct bearing on
your study!
· Third, this paper is all about supporting your hypotheses.
Know what your hypotheses are before you write the paper, as it
will help you determine how much time to spend on each article
you are citing. My suggestion is to spend some time describi ng
the nature of consensus and conformity, and then talking about
studies that looked at this area. Use those studies to help defend
your own study hypothesis. That is, “Since they found X in this
prior study, that helps support the hypothesis in the present
study”. Do you remember your hypotheses? Okay, I’ll be really

9. helpful here. BELOW are your hypotheses. In your paper,
support it! Just remember that the rest of your paper needs to be
at least two full pagesNOT INCLUDINGthe hypothesis below.
In other words, including the hypotheses below, your actual text
for your paper should be at least two and a half pages!
In general, we predict that participants who read unanimously
supportive feedback will rate the Facebook user’s conduct as
more acceptable than participants who read unanimously
oppositional feedback, with those who read mixed feedback
falling between these extremes.
More specifically, participants in the unanimously supportive
condition will more strongly agree with supportive survey
statements (“Abigail’s behavior was understandable, “Abigail’s
behavior was reasonable”, “Abigail’s behavior was
appropriate”, “I would advise Abigail to keep silent”, and “I
would try to comfort Abigail”) and more strongly disagree with
oppositional survey statements (“Abigail’s behavior was
wrong”, “Abigail’s behavior was unethical”, “Abigail’s
behavior was immoral”, and “Abigail’s behavior was
unacceptable”) compared to participants in the unanimously
oppositional condition, with participants in the mixed condition
falling between these extremes. However, participants in both
the unanimously supportive and unanimously oppositional
conditions will strongly agree that they would give Abigail the
same advice that her friends gave her.
· Fourth, make sure to proofread, proofread, proofread! Use the
Pearson Writer for help, but note that their suggestions are just
that – suggestions. It is up to you to make sure the flow of the
paper is easy to understand. Good luck!
· Fifth, go look at the supporting documents for this paper.
There is a checklist, a grade rubric, and an example paper. All
will give you more information about what we are specifically

10. looking for as well as a visual example of how to put it all
together. Good luck!
· Finally, note that you have a lot of help available to you. You
can go to the Research Methods Help Center (which is staffed
by research methods instructors and teaching assistants). You
can go to the Writing Center in the Green Library (at MMC) and
get help with writing quality. You can attend workshops from
the Center for Academic success (CfAS) focusing on APA
formatting, paraphrasing, and statistics. Your instructor might
even be willing to give you extra credit for using these
resources, so make sure to ask your instructor about it.
Chapter 3
The Organization of the
Open Source Community
In 1976, when he was 21, in "Open Letter to Hobbyists" Bill
Gates
wrote: "Who can afford to do professional work for nothing?
What
hobbyist can put their three man-years into programming,
finding all
bugs, documenting his product, and distribute for free?"29 In
this letter he
claimed that the ethic of free-of-charge software was wrong and
that
there was a commercial market for software. He was right that
there was
a market for software, but 24 years later a young university
student in
Finland disagreed that the ethic of free software was wrong. In
an on-line

11. message, Linus Torvalds, then 22, publicized his creation
LINUX by
writing an online message in which he stated: "This is a
program for
hackers by a hacker. I've enjoyed doing it, and somebody might
enjoy
looking at it and even modifying it for their own needs."30 The
result was
the creation of an international community of hackers who
voluntarily
dedicate their free time to developing open source software.
Hackers are
people whose hobby and passion is figuring out computer
problems.
They should not be confused with crackers, who are people that
use their
computer skills to commit illegitimate and/or illegal actions,
i.e. break
computer security systems, create viruses, etc. Since Torvald's
first
message the community has grown exponentially and produced
many
high quality, technologically advanced products.
How is this possible? How does this community work? This
chapter
deals with the open source community. First we will identify the
key
players in the community and describe the relationships existing
between
them. Then we will take a look at the demographics of the
software
developers in particular. We will also consider w hat motivates
49

12. Muffatto, Moreno. Open Source : A Multidisciplinary
Approach, Imperial College Press, 2006. ProQuest Ebook
Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/scad-
ebooks/detail.action?docID=1679623.
Created from scad-ebooks on 2020-04-16 19:16:33.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
6
.
Im
p
e
ri
a
l C
o
lle
g
e
P

13. re
ss
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
50 Open Source: A Multidisciplinary Approach
individuals, organizations and society to keep the community
alive and
functioning. After having considered "who" the community is,
we will
focus on "how" the community works. We will do this through
an
analysis of the main characteristics of the organization of the
open source
community, (open participation and bottom-up organization)
and of the
open source software development process (fast development

14. and
parallel development).
3.1 "Who" is the Open Source Community?
Open source products are developed within a community made
up of a
heterogeneous group of independent players who interact but
are driven
by different interests and motivations.31 This community,
though
seemingly chaotic, actually has specific organizational
characteristics.
Some authors refer to the open source community using the
metaphor
of a bazaar since it expresses the idea of the frenzy and chaos
with which
the activities in the community are carried out.32 The open
source
community has also been seen as an immense "magic cauldron"
of ideas
to which volunteers contribute on a continuous basis.33 Anyone
can draw
from this cauldron to suit his/her needs without having to
contribute
money or knowledge.
The community of players meets online and creates a dynamic
virtual
team, i.e. a team characterized by the constant coming and
going of
players who contact each other via virtual meetings such as
forums and
mailing lists. These meeting points make it possible to diffuse
concepts,

15. ideas and strategies to the whole community without dispersing
or
slowing down the flow of information and decisions. What is
interesting
about this community is that this virtual team is made up not
only of
software developers, but of other players as well.
By observing numerous open source projects, it is possible to
identify
five categories of players involved in the community: users,
prosumers,
leader teams, companies and non-commercial/public
institutions. These
five categories and the relationships that exist between them are
shown in
Figure 3.1.
Muffatto, Moreno. Open Source : A Multidisciplinary
Approach, Imperial College Press, 2006. ProQuest Ebook
Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/scad-
ebooks/detail.action?docID=1679623.
Created from scad-ebooks on 2020-04-16 19:16:33.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0

16. 0
6
.
Im
p
e
ri
a
l C
o
lle
g
e
P
re
ss
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e

17. d
.
The Organization of the Open Source Community 51
P r o s ume rs
Autonomously
develop codes and
solve technical
problems.
Instructions
"""1
L e a d e r Teams
Launch projects
and develop initial
code. Keep projects
on track.
Use software and
provide feedback.
V i r t u a l Teams
Meeting point to
exchange:
• ideas
• information
• codes
I n s t i t u t i o n s

18. Stimulate research,
innovation and
competition. Check
standards.
Package
and
C o m p a n i e s
Share their own
code, collaborate
and provide support
and consulting.
.4- f *°£ an^ niformatio_n^xchanges_-
Figure 3.1 - Structure of the open source community.
Depending on what they do, players can take on one or more of
the
following three roles: customer, actor or decision-maker.34
Before
describing each category and the various roles that players can
take on,
let's look at a brief definition of each role.
Customers
Customers neither take part in the community nor finance
product
development. Their relationship with the open source
community is
limited to using open source products and exploiting the
community to
meet their own needs.

19. Muffatto, Moreno. Open Source : A Multidisciplinary
Approach, Imperial College Press, 2006. ProQuest Ebook
Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/scad-
ebooks/detail.action?docID=1679623.
Created from scad-ebooks on 2020-04-16 19:16:33.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
6
.
Im
p
e
ri
a
l C
o
lle
g
e
P

20. re
ss
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
52 Open Source: A Multidisciplinary Approach
Actors
The words itself, "actor", highlights the "active" role these
agents play,
i.e. actors actively participate in product development. Their
participation
involves not only analyzing products and identifying and
correcting any
errors or incongruities (re-actor) but also producing new code
and adding
on new features (pro-actor). Anyone who provides technical

21. support or
finances a project is also part of this category.
Decision-makers
These players influence the direction a project takes during the
development, diffusion and distribution stages of a product.
Now, let's take a look at who makes up each category of players
and
which of the three roles these players can take on.
Users. This category is made up of all the people who use open
source
products but do not directly participate in their development
because they
do not have the ability, time and/or resources to do so. Users
are of
fundamental importance to the community as they carry out the
timely
and exhaustive process of observing and testing products and
produce
feedback for the software developers.
The main role of users is as customers of open source software
products. They use products to satisfy their personal needs,
which may
be both professional and personal in nature. Users are also often
defined
using the term "free riders" since they use the fruit of the
community's
work without directly contributing to development. Nonetheless,
the
presence of free riding is not looked down upon within the
community
because free riders are actually indirectly involved in product
development. The feedback users provide is considered to be a
significant and integral part of the development process.

22. Feedback can
contain both criticism of existing features and ideas for new
ones.
Furthermore, since users use the software in real situations,
they can
assess the overall quality of the products. This assessment
implicitly
leads to product selection and thus influences the evolution of
open
source software products. This is why we can say that users can
have
some of the characteristics of actors and decision-makers in the
development process.
Muffatto, Moreno. Open Source : A Multidisciplinary
Approach, Imperial College Press, 2006. ProQuest Ebook
Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/scad-
ebooks/detail.action?docID=1679623.
Created from scad-ebooks on 2020-04-16 19:16:33.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
6
.
Im

23. p
e
ri
a
l C
o
lle
g
e
P
re
ss
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.

24. The Organization of the Open Source Community 53
Prosumers. Prosumers (producer and consumer) are software
developers who actively participate in product development to
meet their
own needs, for the pure pleasure of developing products, and, in
many
cases, with the hope of improving their own professional
prospects. This
group is the nucleus of open source software development. It is
generally
made up of people who come from different walks of life and
use their
free time to work on the development of a code. These people
might be
students or software developers/ professionals with very
different
cultural backgrounds and professional needs.
The main role of prosumers is as actors. The voluntary work of
these
agents provides the main contributions to product development.
The role
of actor can have two different connotations. In the first case,
reaction,
the agent's responsibility is to correct errors and imperfections
in the
code {re-actor). In this case, prosumers help stabilize products
so that
they can actually be used by customers. The second behavior is
related to
production. In this case, prosumers are involved in the research
and
implementation of new features and consequently contribute to
the

25. creation of new code (pro-actor). Nonetheless, the word itself
"prosumer", made by putting the words producer and consumer
together,
shows the twofold nature of these agents. In fact, in addition to
being
actors in the development of codes, they are often the first ones
to use
open source products, i.e. customers. Finally, prosumers can
make
proposals and thus influence the direction the development of a
product
goes in. In other words, they have a significant role in the
management of
development processes as well and are, in this sense, decision-
makers.
Leader Teams. This category is made up of software developers
and is a
sort of elite group chosen by the community based on merit.
This group
of people is given the authority and responsibility of managing
projects.
A leader team is made up of a tight circle of prosumers who
have
participated in the definition and development of open source
products
from the beginning of the projects.
The main role of the leader teams is as decision-makers.
Leaders
dedicate much of their time to planning, managing and checking
the
product development processes and often do not participate in
programming. They guide the development process of a project
and are

26. Muffatto, Moreno. Open Source : A Multidisciplinary
Approach, Imperial College Press, 2006. ProQuest Ebook
Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/scad-
ebooks/detail.action?docID=1679623.
Created from scad-ebooks on 2020-04-16 19:16:33.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
6
.
Im
p
e
ri
a
l C
o
lle
g
e
P

27. re
ss
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
54 Open Source: A Multidisciplinary Approach
responsible for project management. The leader teams have to
try and
resolve any disputes regarding the project. They are responsible
for
motivating development efforts and integrating the various
contributions
received. Finally, since the leaders are made up of prosumers,
they
continue to carry out the role of actor and customer, even if to a
lesser
degree.

28. Companies. This category is made up of the companies that are
interested in the open source community and its products. They
interact
with the open source community by using open source software,
financing product development, and/or participating in the
development
of software. Therefore, they can either influence the
development process
and evolution of products or simply support the community.
Companies can have one or more of the three roles. Many
companies
have chosen to use open source products for their own
production and
management processes and have thus helped diffuse these
products. By
using these products, they act as customers, and by diffusing
them they
act as decision-makers. Other companies get more involved by
having
their personnel directly participate in the development of open
source
software. In this case, they have a role as actors in the
community. The
different ways companies can and are interacting with the open
source
community are dealt with in Chapter 6.
Institutions. This category of players is essentially made up of
universities and governments. Some universities have created
the cultural
environment in which many open source products have been
developed.
Some important products, such as Linux, were created thanks to
the

29. technical support, and sometimes financial support, of
universities.
Recently, governments have also shown interest in open source
products
first by carrying out studies and then, sometimes, by promoting
the use
of open source software in their own structures.
Universities can take on all three roles. They are among the
main
users of open source products and as such are customers. Many
professors and students are also involved in researching and
developing
open standards and open source products, and are, therefore,
actors.
Muffatto, Moreno. Open Source : A Multidisciplinary
Approach, Imperial College Press, 2006. ProQuest Ebook
Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/scad-
ebooks/detail.action?docID=1679623.
Created from scad-ebooks on 2020-04-16 19:16:33.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
6

30. .
Im
p
e
ri
a
l C
o
lle
g
e
P
re
ss
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.

31. The Organization of the Open Source Community 55
Finally, some universities are even decision-makers in that they
support
the community and products through specific investments.
So far, governments have mostly taken on the role of customers,
though they could potentially play an important role as
decision-makers
as well. As we will see in Chapter 7, many governments are
considering
adopting OSS or have already started doing so. If they actually
do start
implementing OSS on a large scale, this decision could
influence the
software choices the public makes.
Table 3.1 sums up the different characteristics taken on by
agents
depending on the role they play.35
Table 3.1 - Roles of the players in the open source community.
(Adaptation from Feller & Fitzgerald, 2002)
Users
Prosumers
Leader
Teams
Companies

32. Institutions
Customer
Use of OSS for
personal or
professional reasons.
Use of OSS within
the OSS
development process.
Use of OSS within
the OSS development
process.
Internal use of open
source products.
Internal use of open
source products.
Actor
Feedback to the
community produced
from actual use.
Re-actor: stabilization
of software.
Pro-actor: addition of
new features.
Product design.
Integration of
contributions.

33. Partial contribution to
OSS development.
Involvement in the
research and
development of OSS
(universities) and open
standards
(governments).
Decision-maker
OSS quality
assessment.
Influence on the
direction development
takes.
Project management.
Product diffusion and,
sometimes,
distribution.
Specific investments
in support of the
community.
Muffatto, Moreno. Open Source : A Multidisciplinary
Approach, Imperial College Press, 2006. ProQuest Ebook
Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/scad-
ebooks/detail.action?docID=1679623.
Created from scad-ebooks on 2020-04-16 19:16:33.

34. C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
6
.
Im
p
e
ri
a
l C
o
lle
g
e
P
re
ss
.
A

35. ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
56 Open Source: A Multidisciplinary Approach
3.2 Demographics
We have just seen that the open source community is made up
of a
variety of stakeholders who, in different ways, support the
community.
This is a concept of community in a broad sense, but there is no
doubt
that the heart of the community is the development community.
Prosumers are the most active players in the development
community.
Who are these people that dedicate a significant amount of their
free time
to developing open source software? In order to answer these
questions
we can look at the results of studies carried out by the
Technical

36. University of Berlin (TUB, 2001), the International Institute of
Infonomics at the University of Maastricht (FLOSS, 2002) and
The
Boston Consulting Group in cooperation with the Open Source
Development Network (BCG/OSDN, 2002).
Men or women? All three surveys confirm that the participation
in the
open source community is overwhelming male, about 98%.
How old are they? More than 70% were aged between 22 and 27
at
the time of the study and are thus members of what is now
commonly
called Generation X, i.e. the generation of people born in the
late 1960s
and 1970s. (The term comes from Douglas Coupland's 1991
book
Generation X: Tales For An Accelerated Culture?) The second
largest
group, about 16% of the total, consists of people born between
1945 and
1964, followed by members of the so-called Generation Y, i.e.
people
born in the 1980s.
What degrees do they have? The majority of open source
software
developers have a university (Bachelor's or Master's) degree,
about a
fifth have just a high school degree and fewer than 10% have a
PhD. The
members of this community do not seem to give significant
importance
to very high levels of education, i.e. post-graduate work.

37. What is their professional background? About 60% are IT
professionals, e.g. programmer, software engineer, IT manager,
and the
second largest group is made up of people in academia (ca.
30%),
two-thirds of whom are students.
Where do they come from/Where do they live? Over 80% live in
North America and Europe. However, the data regarding the
distribution
of these people by nationality differs significantly in the three
surveys
Muffatto, Moreno. Open Source : A Multidisciplinary
Approach, Imperial College Press, 2006. ProQuest Ebook
Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/scad-
ebooks/detail.action?docID=1679623.
Created from scad-ebooks on 2020-04-16 19:16:33.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
6
.
Im

38. p
e
ri
a
l C
o
lle
g
e
P
re
ss
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.

39. The Organization of the Open Source Community 57
considered: while the FLOSS study found 70% are from Europe
and
only 14% from North America, the BCG/OSDN survey and TUB
study
found a more equal distribution in North America and Europe.
How much time do they spend on developing OSS? The data
from
all three studies reveals that even though some professionals are
now
paid to work on OSS, participation in OSS projects continues to
be
mainly a hobby. From a third to a half spend less than 5 hours a
week on
OSS, about a third spend from 6 to 20 hours a week, about a
tenth spend
from 21 to 40 and only 5% spend more than 40 hours a week.
How many projects do they contribute to at the same time?
According
to the BCG/OSDN survey, 30% work on 1 project, 28% on 2
projects,
22% on 3 projects and 18% on 4 or more projects. The FLOSS
survey
reported similar percentages. Both surveys had respondents who
were
not currently working on an OSS project but who had in the
past. About
80% of the developers work on at most 3 projects and the
distribution
from 1 project to 3 projects is relatively even.
How might these demographics change 10 or 20 years from
now?

40. Is it plausible to think that a community of young graduate
males
who dedicate their spare time to developing free software is
sustainable?
At present there is no reason to believe it is not. It is possible
and
reasonable to imagine that new generations, born in the
Information Age,
will continue to show an interest in open source software
development.
What might change is the geographical distribution. Developing
countries, such as India and China, have a large population of
potential
contributors. The age distribution might change as well.
3.3 The Motivating Factors of Individuals and Organizations
The question Bill Gates asked in 1976 continues to be one of
the most
frequently asked questions when speaking about the open source
community: who can afford to do professional work for
nothing? In other
words, what drives and motivates software developers,
companies and
organizations to invest their resources in activities which do not
produce
immediate profits?
Muffatto, Moreno. Open Source : A Multidisciplinary
Approach, Imperial College Press, 2006. ProQuest Ebook
Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/scad-
ebooks/detail.action?docID=1679623.
Created from scad-ebooks on 2020-04-16 19:16:33.
C
o

41. p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
6
.
Im
p
e
ri
a
l C
o
lle
g
e
P
re
ss
.
A
ll
ri

42. g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
58 Open Source: A Multidisciplinary Approach
In order to answer these questions, we must distinguish between
individual software developers, organizations and society as a
whole.
Although these are all heterogenous groups, it is possible to
identify
motivating factors that the players in each group have in
common. Open
source can offer individuals, organizations and society benefits
that
motivate these groups to directly or indirectly participate in or
support
the community.
3.3.1 Motivations for individuals
As we have just seen, the majority of the software developers in
the open
source community are IT professionals or IT students who
receive no

43. financial compensation for their contributions. Furthermore,
though the
average amount of time they spend per week on open source
projects is
5 hours, some spend up to 40 hours or more per week. So the
question
we pose here is what moves these people to dedicate their time,
most
often free time, to participating in this community. We will
consider a
well-known distinction between two types of motivation:
"intrinsic
motivation, which refers to doing something because it is
inherently
interesting or enjoyable, and extrinsic motivation, which refers
to doing
something because it leads to a separable outcome".36 We will
look at the
extrinsic motivations first as they tend to be the more evident
and
'tangible'.
Surveys have shown that one of the most important reasons
respondents give for participating in an open source project is
to improve
their own technical knowledge base. Learning and improving
one's
performance tend to be ranked among the top reported reasons
for
contributing to open source projects.37 Another high-ranking
motivating
factor is the so-called scratching an itch phenomenon, i.e.
people
participate in a project to solve a particular technical problem
or satisfy
specific technical needs. Furthermore, these people can exploit

44. the
contributions that the community can offer, such as independent
peer
review and feedback from the community regarding the quality
of the
work carried out. The so-called "Linus's Law", from Linus
Torvalds,
states that "given enough eyeballs, all the bugs are shallow",
i.e. with a
Muffatto, Moreno. Open Source : A Multidisciplinary
Approach, Imperial College Press, 2006. ProQuest Ebook
Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/scad-
ebooks/detail.action?docID=1679623.
Created from scad-ebooks on 2020-04-16 19:16:33.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
6
.
Im
p
e
ri

45. a
l C
o
lle
g
e
P
re
ss
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
The Organization of the Open Source Community 59
given number of users any problem can quickly be identified

46. and pointed
out.
The knowledge individuals gain by participating in projects or
solving problems can lead to other extrinsic motivations which
are
more economic in nature. The fact that the source code is open
increases
the visibility of each individual's contribution. Therefore, not
only is
each programmer that much more responsible for his own
contribution,
but the fact that other programmers have access to it can
improve
one's own reputation within the community. The main
motivating factor
for software developers, from an economic point of view, is, in
fact, to
have their abilities recognized by the community (peer
recognition) in
order to increase their value as professionals in the job market.
An
improvement in reputation can lead to job offers and promotion,
future
career benefits and even paid consulting opportunities. The
benefits
gained by improving one's reputation can justify what voluntary
participation costs software developers in terms of time, money
and
opportunities lost.38
It is worth pointing out, however, that economic motivations
seem to
be much less important than increased knowledge or improved
reputation
motivations. In the BCG survey, 93% of respondents mentions

47. "increased knowledge base" as an important benefit of
participating in
the open source community, 50% "improved reputation", and
33% "new
job offers". In the FLOSS study, about 75% responded that one
of the
reasons to join the community was to "learn and develop new
skills"
while only 4% cited "make money" as one of these reasons.
The intrinsic motivations seem to be just as, if not more,
important as
the extrinsic motivations for the software developers in the open
source
community. This explains and justifies the fact that so many
professionals keep the community thriving even without
financial
compensation for the work they do. Linus Torvalds, the initiator
of one
of the most successful open source software projects (Linux),
was not
primarily motivated by reputation concerns, but rather by a
desire to
participate in a community he identified with. 9 In fact, surveys
have
shown that "self-determination", i.e. the feeling of
accomplishment,
competence, enjoyment and effectiveness, and enjoyment-based
intrinsic
motivation, i.e. the sense of creativity and intellectual
stimulation
Muffatto, Moreno. Open Source : A Multidisciplinary
Approach, Imperial College Press, 2006. ProQuest Ebook
Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/scad-
ebooks/detail.action?docID=1679623.

48. Created from scad-ebooks on 2020-04-16 19:16:33.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
6
.
Im
p
e
ri
a
l C
o
lle
g
e
P
re
ss
.

49. A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
60 Open Source: A Multidisciplinary Approach
experienced when working on an open source software project,
are
mentioned as two of the most important reasons for
participating in the
open source community.40 These intrinsic motivating factors
can be
either personal or social in nature. For example, the second
most
important benefit of participating in an open source software
project
cited in the BCG/OSDN survey was "personal sense of
accomplishment
for contribution" and in the FLOSS survey about 60% answered
"share
knowledge and skills" as the reason they joined or continue to

50. participate
in the community.
Many open source software developers find working on open
source software projects intellectually stimulating and
participate for
the pure creative satisfaction of doing so. The creation of a code
can be
considered a form of artistic production similar to musical
composition
or painting, where gratification and intellectual satisfaction play
a
fundamental role.41 Paul Graham, author of Hackers &
Painters, a book
that examines the world of hackers and what motivates them,
stated:
When I finished grad school in computer science I went to art
school to study painting. A lot of people seemed surprised that
someone interested in computers would also be interested in
painting. They seemed to think that hacking and painting were
very different kinds of work - that hacking was cold, precise,
and methodical, and that painting was the frenzied expression of
some primal urge. Both of these images are wrong. Hacking
and painting have a lot in common. In fact, of all the different
types of people I've known, hackers and painters are among the
most alike. What hackers and painters have in common is that
they're both makers. Along with composers, architects, and
writers, what hackers and painters are trying to do is make good
things42
What Graham is describing here is what Raymond has called the
joy of
hacking. It is "...the pure artistic satisfaction of designing
beautiful
software and making it work. Hackers all experience this kind

51. of
satisfaction and thrive on it".43 Furthermore, the very way in
which the
community is organized creates an environment where people
can
Muffatto, Moreno. Open Source : A Multidisciplinary
Approach, Imperial College Press, 2006. ProQuest Ebook
Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/scad-
ebooks/detail.action?docID=1679623.
Created from scad-ebooks on 2020-04-16 19:16:33.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
6
.
Im
p
e
ri
a
l C
o

52. lle
g
e
P
re
ss
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
The Organization of the Open Source Community 61
express their creativity, …
3 Here Today, Gone Tomorrow: Open Access, Open

53. Data and Digital Preservation
Ray Moore and Julian Richards
3.1 Introduction
The increasing popularity and pervasiveness of open access and
open data ap-
proaches within contemporary society continues to have a
signi�cant impact on the
archaeological profession. A primary concern within these
discussions has been the
movement towards providing unrestricted access to the peer-
reviewed textual content
produced in the aftermath of archaeological research,
particularly content published
in scholarly journals, although other forms of written output
(monographs, thesis,
books, etc.) have become increasingly drawn into the
discussion. A more recent re-
focusing of this debate generally, and increasingly within
archaeological discourse,
has seen a return to the issue of accessibility of the primary data
produced during re-
search in the hope that openness will promote wider discussion
and revitalise under-
standing. Certainly, the increased and unrestricted access
promised by a more open
approach to archaeological data is likely to change the nature of
archaeological dis-
course and to facilitate new interpretations of the past. At the
same time, the e�ects
of access to the grey data produced during �eldwork within
commercial archaeology,
although less well understood, could have huge bene�ts both
intellectually and eco-

54. nomically. Discussions have suggeste d that in order to deal with
the increasing quan-
tities of open data generated during �eldwork and research the
profession will need
to develop infrastructures to deal with both the dissemination
and preservation of
this data (Kintigh, 2006; Snow et al., 2006). It is our intention
here to suggest that
these two outcomes need not be mutually exclusive; that digital
archives and reposi-
tories can take a leading role in both the maintenance of access
and in the curation of
datasets. The experiences of the UK based Archaeology Data
Service (ADS) are brought
into focus as an instance where both these outcomes have been
successfully achieved.
Discussions of the work of the ADS have often focused on its
role in the preservation
of data, but it also taken a leading role as a data broker,
aggregator and distributor.
It is hoped that a better understanding of the sharing of
archaeological data over the
longue durèe will help us understand contemporary concerns. In
focusing on the work
of the ADS we contend that when promoting open data a hybrid
approach to dissemi-
nation and preservation has the greatest potential to succeed.
Ray Moore: Archaeological Data Service, York, UK
Julian Richards: Archaeological Data Service, York, UK
© 2015 Ray Moore and Julian Richards
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License.
Open Source Archaeology : Ethics and Practice, edited by

55. Andrew T. Wilson, and Ben Edwards, Walter de Gruyter GmbH,
2015. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/scad-
ebooks/detail.action?docID=4179735.
Created from scad-ebooks on 2020-04-16 19:17:15.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
1
5
.
W
a
lte
r
d
e
G
ru
yt
e
r

56. G
m
b
H
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
Sharing Data: The ‘Traditional’ Treatment of Archaeological
Data | 31
3.2 Sharing Data: The ‘Traditional’ Treatment of
Archaeological
Data
The destructive nature of many forms of archaeological

57. investigation has compelled
researchers to make considerable e�orts, both legally and
ethically, to preserve and
disseminate their results. The principal outcome of this research
continues to be text-
based publication; whether the monograph, book, journal or
grey literature report. Yet
at the same time archaeological investigations generate
signi�cant quantities of pri-
mary data which are not easily reproduced or disseminated
using traditional media.
Data sharing has often been di�cult for technical reasons and
while paper has proved
convenient for the distribution of the textual outputs of
archaeological research, it has
never been an e�cient medium for the dissemination of complex
datasets (Je�rey,
2012). As early as 1975, a review by the Ancient Monuments
Board for England con-
cluded that �