ATHENS UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Wireless Community Networks: A Case of Modern Collective Action PhD THESIS

Maria D. Bina

Athens, June 2007

M .

A, 2007

Abstract
Wireless communities constitute a grassroots, decentralized, and self-organized model for the provision of Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) infrastructure, information and communication services, as well as knowledge and expertise in the wireless realm. In particular, individuals operate their own Access Points, invite friends and neighbors to join in as clients to their nodes and, then, interconnect with other nodes (which typically belong to strangers sharing the same community spirit) to build a wireless blanket of home-made hotspots that is scalable enough to cover large metropolitan areas. To support the operation of the community network, individual participants are expected to contribute their time, effort, and monetary resources to set up or connect to Access Points, share their knowledge and expertise, as well as enrich the communitys web with valuable services. At the same time, they are offered a hybrid mode of social connectivity: physical in the form of face-to-face meetings and virtual over digital channels, such as discussion forums and VoIP telephony. Furthermore, the aggregation of individual contributions affords the capacity for producing a shared good that is, in turn, made available to all interested individuals. The work presented in this thesis advances a socio-economic thinking on wireless communities, which seeks to comprehend the phenomenons micro- as well as macroproperties. In doing so, it portrays wireless communities as an impure public information and communication good that is collectively produced by individual contributions of tangible (i.e. money, equipment) as well as intangible (i.e. time, knowledge) resources. The wireless community good is highly heterogeneous possessing several dimensions including physical connectivity and service commons, as well as social connectivity and knowledge exchange facilities. In addition, it does not demand from its contributors to relinquish power over the resources contributed both tangible and intangible something that adds to its novelty. Anchoring on this portrayal, wireless communities are scrutinized under the umbrella of collective action theory, taking into account its traditional formulation and recent modifications adjusting it to technology-augmented contexts, to identify four key properties warranting further inquiry: members motives for becoming involved with a wireless community, costs incurred for gaining access to the community and its services, member participation described in the nature of the processes developing over multiple good dimensions along with the associated interdependencies (including free-riding tendencies and coordination patterns), and the communitys ability to sustain its existence under the influence of all the above.

To empirically elaborate on these four properties, a multi-method research design founded on the premises of triangulation was orchestrated and conducted in three steps. First, a set of exploratory interviews with wireless community enthusiasts was performed to enhance the mounting understanding of the phenomenons properties and particularities and to receive topical idiosyncrasies that have not yet reached researchers documentations. Second, a largescale survey addressing wireless community members was conducted to collect generalizable data, the statistical analysis and interpretation of which provided clarifications on the four wireless community collective action properties. Third, a complementary interview procedure was taken up to confirm survey findings and inform our knowledge regarding wireless communities capacity to produce positive spillover effects to their surrounding sociotechnical environment. Empirical findings indicate that wireless communities are mobilized by highly interested individuals who receive intrinsic gratification from working with a new technology within an intimate space grouping together common-minded individuals with whom they socialize and commit to knowledge and resource sharing practices. Engagement with a wireless community can be pictured as a low-cost activity in terms of resource contribution due to the particularities of the collective good and the heaviness of intrinsic motives as participation drivers. Furthermore, the community offers many possibilities for interaction (heavy involvement with the majority of activities was observed) so that abusive usage (pure freeriding) is almost never realized. Individuals are connected in a number of ways both in the digital and the physical world, while the node-client dichotomy serves as a loose organizational schema with less mobilized participants (clients) exhibiting strong tendencies towards moving closer to the core (nodes). The combined effect of these factors is that wireless communities are self-sustained and base their ongoing existence on their commitment to satisfying members inherent needs, on reciprocal exchanges amongst them, and on the ambidextrous relationship between reciprocity and intrinsic motivation. The aforementioned description of wireless community collective action pinpoints to a strong introvert orientation of the phenomenon questioning its ability to influence the surrounding environment within which it grows and flourishes. In particular, our research has pointed out three potential spillovers that wireless communities can induce: members professionalization opportunities revitalizing the wireless industry with fresh experts and novel ideas, user-driven technological innovation, and contribution to social welfare enlargement through the dissemination of broadband technologies. Nevertheless, empirical evidence pinpoints to modest potentials for the wireless community movement to create a paradigmatic shift within its application domain: professionalization opportunities emerge as a side-effect of members

involvement with the community, innovation is limited to experimentation with existing hardware or software solutions, while attachment to societal goals is not received with equal enthusiasm amongst members. Hence, wireless communities serve the needs of a niche of sophisticated users who, constrained by income, price, industry action, and regulation, become relatively resistant to pressure from providers, are not subject to a technological imperative, and work to adapt a technology to their own ends. The wireless community enthusiast fits the portrait of the unpaid volunteer, who is interested in the project itself, without regarding it as part of a wider arrangement exercising a pivotal role within the currently prevailing telecommunications industry landscape. Overall, this study offers three important insights that are of value to the research community. First, it produces knowledge on a rather under-explored phenomenon, wireless communities, where there is clear lack of empirical evidence describing the mechanics behind its mobilization and operation. Second, it advances the applicability of collective action theory to the provision of a novel information and communication good that departs from all good classes that have been put under scrutiny so far. It also confirms recent modifications on its traditional premises regarding the alleviating threat of free-riding and the nature of coordination occurring among members, to underline the ever-increasing role of technology in facilitating the emergence, growth, and long-term viability of modern collective action initiatives. Finally, it showcases yet another example of the power that modern Information and Communication Technologies can convey to end-users being technologically-savvy to assume a more active role in satisfying their needs. Hence, the insight on wireless communities contributes to the legacy created by similar user-driven digital good production initiatives, such as Open Source Software communities, and could help enlighten recent trends transforming user-generated content (e.g. blogging, video-sharing platforms) to an increasingly important force shaping the current and future outlook of the Internet.


. , (Access Point), , , ( , , ) . , , , , , , , () VoIP . , . - . - (impure public information and communication good) ( , , , ). , ( , , , ), . , (collective

action) . : , , , , . (qualitative) (quantitative) (triangulation). , , , . , . , . - , , , , . (intrinsic gratification). , . , .

, (free-riding) . , () () , , . . : , , , . , , : , , . , , , , . , .

, . , , , . , . . , . , , , , .

10

List of Publications
In peer-reviewed Journals: - Bina ., Giaglis, G.M. (2005). Emerging Issues in Researching Community-based WLANs. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 46 (1), pp. 9-16. In peer-reviewed Conferences - Lawrence, E., Bina, M., Culjak, G., El-Kiki, T. (2007). Wireless Communities: Public Assets for 21st Century Society. In the Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations, Las Vegas, USA, April 2-4 - Bina ., Giaglis, G.M. (2006). Unwired Collective Action: Motivations of Wireless Community Participants. n the Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Mobile Business, Copenhagen, Denmark, June 26-27, Best Paper Award. - Bina ., Giaglis, G.M. (2006). A Motivation and Effort Model for Members of Wireless Communities. In the Proceedings of the 2006 European Conference on Information Systems, Goteborg, Sweden, June 12-14. - Giaglis, G.M., Bina, M. (2004). Framing a Research Agenda for Ad Hoc Community-Based Wireless Local Area Networks. n the Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Mobile Business, New York City, USA, July 12-13.

11

Acknowledgements
Working towards the fulfillment of my doctoral research was a challenging experience for which I would like to express my gratitude to a number of people. First of all, I would like to deeply thank my supervisor, Associate Professor George M. Giaglis, for his support and guidance through this three-year academic journey. Our vibrating discussions were always awaited with much anticipation, since his enlightening comments, suggestions, and constructive criticism were much needed to generate interesting research questions, overcome critical milestones of the research process, and extend my line of thinking to unconsidered territories. I would also like to show gratitude to the members of the committee who have honored me by accepting to appraise my work: Assosiate Professor Diomidis Spinellis and Lecturer Ioannis Nikolaou for their unreserved assistance during this three-year period, Professor George Doukidis for introducing me to the area of mobile business serving as the inspiration for this research, and Professors Costas Courcoubetis, George Polyzos, and Thomas Sphicopoulos for granting me the opportunity to discuss my work with them. Finally, I am thankful to all the people who have participated in various stages of the research: wireless community enthusiasts who conveyed their much needed opinions and feelings during the empirical part of the research, reviewers of my work as this was gradually exposed to the academic community through conferences and journals, and my co-workers at the Wireless Research Center of the Athens University of Economics and Business. Friends and family were an enormous source of support and deserve special appreciation.

12

Table of Contents
Abstract.........................................................................................................................4 .........................................................................................................................7 List of Publications....................................................................................................11 Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................12 Table of Contents ......................................................................................................13 List of Figures ............................................................................................................15 List of Tables ..............................................................................................................16 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................17 1.1 Wireless Networking: Technologies and Service Access Models......18 1.2 The Community-based Wireless Movement ........................................23 1.3 Wireless Communities as a Case of User-Driven TechnologyAugmented Initiative ...........................................................................................27 1.4 Research Objectives ..................................................................................30 2 Reviewing the Literature on Wireless Communities...................................34 2.1 Literature Review Strategy ......................................................................34 2.2 Organizing the Literature ........................................................................40 2.3 Framing a Research Agenda for Studying Wireless Communities ...47 2.4 A Research Opportunity ..........................................................................51 3 Theoretical Framing..........................................................................................54 3.1 Collective Action, Public Goods, and Social Dilemmas ......................54 3.2 Collective Action Revisited .....................................................................58 3.3 Wireless Communities as an Information and Communication Good 62 3.4 Wireless Communities under the Lens of Collective Action Theory 65 3.4.1 Individual Characteristics................................................................65 3.4.2 Group Characteristics.......................................................................66 3.4.3 Action Processes or Interdependencies .........................................67 3.5 A Framework for Analyzing Wireless Community Collective Action 68 4 Research Design ................................................................................................72 4.1 Combining Methodologies through Triangulation .............................72 4.2 Exploratory Qualitative Research...........................................................75 4.2.1 The First Interview............................................................................76 4.2.2 The Second Set of Interviews ..........................................................77 4.2.3 The Third Set of Interviews .............................................................79 4.3 Survey Research ........................................................................................79 4.4 Confirmatory Qualitative Research........................................................81 4.5 Summary ....................................................................................................82 5 Empirical Research Part I: Survey orchestration, statistical analyses, and findings interpretation .............................................................................................84 5.1 Model development..................................................................................84 5.1.1 Motivation Essentials .......................................................................85 5.1.2 Costs....................................................................................................94 5.1.3 Participation / Involvement............................................................96 13

5.1.4 Hypothesization ................................................................................98 5.2 Measurement and Data Collection .......................................................101 5.2.1 Construct Instrumentation ............................................................101 5.2.2 Questionnaire Instrumentation and Proof-testing .....................106 5.2.3 Reliability and Construct Validity................................................107 5.3 Statistical Analyses .................................................................................111 5.3.1 Sample Descriptive Statistics and Demographics ......................111 5.3.2 Motivation and Cost Descriptive Statistics (Mean Values & Correlations) ....................................................................................................112 5.3.3 Participation Descriptive Statistics (Mean Values & Factor Analysis)...........................................................................................................116 5.3.4 Wireless Community Member Segmentation.............................119 5.3.5 Predicting Wireless Community Sustainability .........................127 5.4 Summary of Findings .............................................................................133 6 Empirical Research Part II: Confirmatory Qualitative Research Design and Findings ............................................................................................................136 6.1 Re-introducing Wireless Communities ...............................................136 6.2 Design Issues: Interview Protocol and Sampling...............................139 6.3 Data Analysis and Interpretation .........................................................142 6.3.1 Introducing the Informants ...........................................................142 6.3.2 Coding ..............................................................................................144 6.3.3 Findings ............................................................................................145 6.4 Unfolding the Characteristics of Wireless Communities..................153 7 Conclusions, Limitations, and Further Research .......................................158 7.1 Contribution.............................................................................................158 7.1.1 Contribution 1: A Detailed Empirics-based Exposition of Wireless Communities ...................................................................................160 7.1.2 Contribution 2: Advancing the Application Domain of Collective Action Theory ...............................................................................163 7.1.3 Contribution 3: Marking the Ground for Effective End-user Empowerment .................................................................................................165 7.2 Limitations ...............................................................................................166 7.3 Further Research Directions ..................................................................170 7.4 Concluding Thoughts.............................................................................175 References ................................................................................................................177 Appendix A..............................................................................................................188 A1. The First Interview.......................................................................................188 A2. The Second and Third Set of Interviews...................................................190 Appendix B ..............................................................................................................192 Appendix C..............................................................................................................200 C1. ANOVA Results ...........................................................................................200 C2. ANOVA Post Hoc Comparisons (Scheffe) ...............................................201 C3. MANOVA Results .......................................................................................205 Appendix D..............................................................................................................210 Appendix E ..............................................................................................................213

14

List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Taxonomy of WLAN Application Scenarios.....................................21 Figure 2.1: The Literature Review Strategy...........................................................35 Figure 2.2: The Two Categories of Research Issues .............................................41 Figure 2.3: Decomposing the Inner Properties of Wireless Communities........52 Figure 3.1: The Goods Landscape...........................................................................56 Figure 3.2: Highlights in the Evolution of Collective Action Theory................62 Figure 3.3: The Two Wireless Community Good Classes...................................63 Figure 3.4: A Framework for Analyzing Wireless Community Collective Action..........................................................................................................................70 Figure 4.1: Stages in the Exploratory Qualitative Study .....................................76 Figure 4.2: Research Design.....................................................................................83 Figure 5.1: Taxonomy of Motivation (adapted from (Ryan & Deci, 2000)) ......89 Figure 5.2: A Model for Understanding the Micro and Macro-level Properties of Wireless Communities.......................................................................................100 Figure 5.3: Steps towards Conducting the Survey .............................................107 Figure 5.4: Logistic Regression Model Configurations .....................................129 Figure 5.5: Micro and Macro-level Properties of Wireless Community Collective Action .....................................................................................................133 Figure 6.1: Wireless Community Characteristics ...............................................157

15

List of Tables
Table 1.1: Summary of the IEEE 802.11 Family of Standards .............................20 Table 1.2: Indicative Wireless Community Projects.............................................25 Table 2.1: The Literature Pool of Publications ......................................................37 Table 2.2: Organizing the Literature ......................................................................42 Table 2.3: A Research Agenda for Studying Wireless Communities ................50 Table 3.1: Wireless Communities as an Information and Communication Good............................................................................................................................65 Table 3.2: Research Questions for Investigating Wireless Community Collective Action .......................................................................................................70 Table 4.1: Synergies between Qualitative and Quantitative Research .............74 Table 5.1: Motivation / Cost Constructs, Items, and Operationalization Sources......................................................................................................................104 Table 5.2: Factor Analysis Results ........................................................................110 Table 5.3: Sample Descriptives and Demographics ...........................................111 Table 5.4: Mean Values, SD, and Correlations for Motivation and Costs ......115 Table 5.5: Mean Values, SD, and Factor Analysis results for Participation....118 Table 5.6: Mean Values, SD, and Correlations for Participation Components ....................................................................................................................................118 Table 5.7: Motivation Cluster Analysis Results ..................................................121 Table 5.8: Motivation Clusters Additional Profiling.........................................123 Table 5.9: Participation Cluster Analysis Results...............................................124 Table 5.10: Participation Clusters Additional Profiling ...................................127 Table 5.11: Logistic Regression Results................................................................130 Table 6.1: Research Questions for the Confirmatory Qualitative Research ...139 Table 6.2: Coding Categories and Content..........................................................144 Table 6.3: Wireless Community Profile Evaluation ...........................................151 Table 7.1: Research Questions, Objectives, and Methods .................................159

16

1 Introduction
Its an increasingly common scene: someone perched on a park bench, pecking away at a laptop. But a peek over her shoulder reveals a more startling sight: shes surfing the Web, outdoors and cable free. 1 Since the publication of the above narrative by Erika Jonietz in MITs Technology Review in December 2001, such scenes have become commonplace practically all over the globe, to illustrate the multi-faceted effect that wireless networking technologies exert on individual lifestyles, urban landscapes, and the telecommunications industry in general. Wireless networking has made its way to our lives through a combination of events, some of which were planned by developers and industry stakeholders, while some others were accidental and involved less predictable diffusion pathways. In particular, much of the momentum surrounding wireless networking has been nurtured by a grassroots culture growing on the verge of the telecommunications industry and inspiring individual users to make themselves both the provider and the consumer of a wireless service, in what is generally described as the community-based wireless movement. At the time this research set off, the community-based wireless movement had become an important vehicle for the capitalization of the benefits associated with broadband connectivity by promoting the role of the end-user in the deployment of wireless communication systems. At the time the research was completed, a likewise end-user dynamic was emerging in a different field, the World Wide Web. This dynamic, a reminiscent of the early days of the Internet, is held attributable for the intriguing transformation of the World Wide Web to its becoming a scenery of the many wresting power from the few and helping one another for nothing and how that will not only change the world, but also change the way the world changes 2. The transformation is realized due to the immense success of schemes such as the cosmic compendium of knowledge Wikipedia, the million channel peoples network YouTube and the online metropolis MySpace 3. An horizontal view on all the aforementioned userdriven phenomena, including the community-based wireless movement, converges to the following observation that was the primary inspiration for this research: modern Information

Erika Jonietz. Unwiring the Web. Published in Technology Review in December, 2001 (available online at http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/12677/, accessed on April 4th, 2007). 2 Lev Grossman. Times Person of the Year: You. Published in Time Magazine on Dec. 13, 2006 (available online at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1570810,00.html, accessed on April 4th, 2007). 3 See supra note 2

17

and Communication Technologies (ICTs) relinquish a great amount of power to the individual that can be directed to creative and innovative endeavors with the potential to alter the way technology is endorsed in human activities across time and space. Hence, the focal theme of the inquiry guiding this research involves understanding the characteristics of the community-based wireless movement in terms of empowering end-users to shape their own uses of wireless networking technologies. To further elaborate on the motivation behind the research, the chapter is organized in the following way: First, it reviews the wireless networking realm focusing on both bearing technologies and service access models (section 1.1). Second, it illustrates the community-based wireless movement and its various flavors (section 1.2). Third, it re-positions the movement within a broader context of user-driven technologyaugmented initiatives under an evolutionary perspective (section 1.3). Finally, it describes the motivation behind this research stemming from a multilayered perspective on the wireless community phenomenon (section 1.4).

1.1 Wireless Networking: Technologies and Service Access Models

New technologies are arguably changing the way individuals act and interact within their private and social spheres. The impact is exceptionally apparent in how digitization and its enabling technologies have afforded novel methods for conducting business, communicating with others, or accessing knowledge and information. One of the most prominent technological developments augmenting such opportunities is wireless networking. The concept is not new; the research community, as well as the industry, has struggled towards the development of the standards that would allow cordless communication among devices since the early 1990s, while, as early as in 1993, the engineer Brett Stewart conceived the idea for public wireless Internet access 4. Today, wireless networking is considered a major trend in the world of telecommunications and its potential role is under scrutiny by all stakeholders. Wireless networking can be achieved through numerous standards and protocols. These standards can be classified based on their range; a commonly-accepted classification scheme discriminates between short (Personal Area Network, PAN), middle (Local Are Network, LAN), metropolitan (Metropolitan Area Network, MAN), and wide-area (Wide Area
4

See WiFi timeline at http://wifinetnews.com/archives/001315.html

18

Network, WAN) range. Developers initial conceptualization attributed to them complementary properties in terms of network coverage capabilities, only to be superseded by real-life uses that emerged at the boundaries of the range bubbles and introduced competition among the various wireless communication technologies (Lehr & McKnight, 2003). Eventually, end-users find themselves with a handful of acronyms and inspired appellations corresponding to many extant wireless technologies, such as Bluetooth, WiFi, RFID, or WiMAX, and an extended portfolio of usage scenarios ranging from interconnecting their home or office computing appliances to performing online interactions at public places. Amongst the numerous wireless technologies, Wireless Local Area Networks (WLANs) have become a promising technological trend in the telecommunications landscape and have raised expectations for wirelessing 5 communication activity either in the indoor or the outdoor field. WLANs were publicly introduced in 1997 to address connectivity needs in the local range, namely within 30 to 100m depending on the areas topography. Initially, there were two different technologies enabling the implementation of a wireless local area network, one for corporate environments (IEEE 802.11) and the other for home networks (HomeRF). The IEEE family of standards, however, achieved to outperform HomeRF and is currently recognized as the de facto standard for WLANs another competing standard was developed by ETSI, HiperLAN, as the European answer to IEEE but with doubtful success that quickly rendered it market obsolete. Furthermore, the original 802.11 standard was enhanced to cover higher transmission rates and overcome security drawbacks. Continuous improvements have resulted to the definition of a multitude of IEEE standards, each addressing a particular issue, with 802.11b (popularly referred to as WiFi) and 802.11g (its successor) being widely commercialized, while 802.11n is anticipated as their future replacement. Table 1.1 offers an evolutionary summary of the IEEE 802.11 family of standards.

The term wirelessing is attributed to Meinrath (2005) in his review of socio-historical and technological factors shaping wireless communication systems

19

Table 1.1: Summary of the IEEE 802.11 Family of Standards (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11) Protocol Legacy 802.11a 802.11b 802.11g 802.11n Release Date 1997 1999 1999 2003 2007 (unapproved draft) Operation frequency 2.4 GHz 5 GHz 2.4 GHz 2.4 GHz 2.4 GHz or 5GHz Data Rate 2 Mbit/s 54 Mbit/s 11 Mbit/s 54 Mbit/s 540 Mbit/s ~25m ~35m ~25m ~50m ~75m ~100m ~75m ~125m Range (Indoor) Range (Outdoor)

The main end-user attraction of WLANs, which largely accounts for the thriving commercialization of WLAN-enabled devices and the ever-increasing number of wireless networking islands, is their flexibility (Varshney, 2003). WLANs provide rapid, effortless, and cost-effective, compared to the wired solutions, wireless connectivity to computers, machinery, or other communication systems in a local environment with the minimal requirement that they bear a suitable Access Card. In addition, early standardization under the IEEE family of standards umbrella allowed a great number of manufacturers to quickly enter the WLAN market and provide interoperable devices and machines (Schmidt & Townsend, 2003). WLAN flexibility is further entrenched by their operation at unlicensed frequencies of the telecommunications spectrum range, in particular at the ISM (Industrial Scientific Medicine) band. This operational particularity eliminates regulatory barriers, which may have rendered wireless network deployment inexpedient (Bar & Galperin, 2004a). In fact, WLANs emerged from a rather modest experiment in spectrum management that favors bandwidth sharing on behalf of end-users (Benkler, 2002; Bar & Galperin, 2004a). Nevertheless, the unlicensed mode of operation creates quality of service problems due to interference and casts congestion management loads (Lehr & McKnight, 2003). To overcome such problems, engineers are currently working and, in certain cases, have already figured out solutions, towards reconfiguring WLAN-enabled devices to accommodate for smarter and less consuming uses of the spectrum and are proposing novel network architectures (e.g. mesh networking). The original conceptualization of WLANs was somewhat limited and constrained to the satisfaction of device interconnectivity requirements lessening the hard-wiring requirements of early computer network installations within the home or office environment. However, the technology was flexible enough to accommodate more sophisticated uses that transcended the boundaries of private spaces, homes or office buildings. The critical step for this turn in WLAN application domain is attributed to users starting to leave their home or office wireless

20

transmitters unsecured allowing their neighbors to connect to their private networks (Sawhney, 2003a). Such practices soon developed to the introduction of the concept of hotspots to signify information rich and/or densely populated public areas exhibiting demand for high bandwidth communication and Internet access that can be satisfied through appropriate WLAN configurations. Hotspots are easily built and have made their way in a wide variety of public places (e.g. hotels, coffeehouses, railway or bus stations, air terminals, or even local neighborhoods and communities). Hence, the blending of home, corporate, and publicly available WLANs has resulted to the fabrication of a quilt consisting of several wireless networks private or public, inter-connected or not, overlapping or isolated that address differing user needs and possibly varying area coverage requirements. Nevertheless, this usage scenario path was more or less accidental, since it was mainly driven by sophisticated users fragmented initiatives for stretching the standard beyond the boundaries envisioned by its original creators (Bar & Galperin, 2004b; 2006). Figure 1.1 illustrates the three WLAN application scenarios discussed above and showcases the spatial flexibility of WLAN technology in satisfying end-user needs.

User needs Publiclyavailable Internet access Broadband connectivity

Office

Internet / intranet access Device inter-connectivity

Home

Internet sharing Device inter-connectivity

Coverage area

Figure 1.1: Taxonomy of WLAN Application Scenarios

The provision of WLAN access in public spaces is not a clear-cut task; it involves various stakeholders (end-users, location owners, equipment providers, Internet service providers, application or content service providers, etc.) with potentially controversial interests. In a rough classification schema, these stakeholders are organized around two broad categories of service models targeted at the provision of WLAN access: commercial (or for-profit) and community (or not-for-profit) service models (Rao & Parikh, 2003a; 2003b). Although the commercial-community segregation is not utter and leaves grey areas in the field in-between

21

(for example, various agencies ranging from municipal authorities to educational institutions, such as universities, are building their own WLANs and offer open access to inhabitants or students, respectively) (Fuentes-Bautista & Inagaki, 2005), it is indicative of the two approaches currently employed for the deployment of public WLAN infrastructures, one promoted by for-profit actors and the other nurtured by the community-based wireless movement. In particular, commercial or for-profit service models are usually operated by telecommunications companies, either incumbent, such as Internet Service Providers (ISPs) or Mobile Network Operators (MNOs), or newly established entities that act as dedicated WLAN service providers, popularly known as Wireless Internet Services Providers (WISPs). Their business model involves a top-down methodic approach for building a local wireless infrastructure, usually a hotspot or a collection of neighboring hotspots, over which they provide Internet access for a fee. There are notable business cases employing the commercial service model including Starbuckss pioneering wireless Internet offering and other similar examples, all of which denote the complex value chain that needs to be streamlined for the delivery of public wireless Internet access. Hence, the long-term profitability of such offerings as standalone ventures has frequently been questioned, while the increasing level of competition for addressing augmenting consumer demand has resulted in organizational actors re-thinking their strategies, re-evaluating their business models, and re-structuring their alliances. In essence, the top-down, for-profit model has managed to establish scattered wireless networking islands, which, in most cases, are isolated from a network point-of-view (i.e. they do not overlap to enable roaming from one island to the other), but can be aggregated from a business point-of-view (e.g. the case of Boingo 6 offering its customers access to multiple commercial WLANs through one account). Standing at the other side of the two-category classification, community service models represent a totally different approach for the deployment of and access to WLAN infrastructures, to be detailed in the following section. Nevertheless, the co-existence of diverse models, as well as the particularities and challenges associated with each of them, has brought the wireless industry at a critical juncture that needs to be picked up within the agenda of researchers, practitioners, and policy-making bodies alike (Bar & Galperin, 2004a; 2006).

See www.boingo.com

22

1.2 The Community-based Wireless Movement

The Community-based Wireless Movement is organized around loose federations of enthusiasts, technology activists or amateurs, who cooperate to set up a wireless network infrastructure using their private resources, over which they generally offer unrestricted access. Wireless networks developed by communities of users grow on a grassroots basis and follow a bottom-up self-organizing approach characterized by the absence of a central mechanism with the authority to control or coordinate the networks growth and operation. The wireless movement debuted in large American cities like New York (NYCWireless 7) and Seattle (SeattleWireless 8) in 2001 but soon gained momentum in many parts of the world; in fact, nearly every city across the globe reports some sort of community wireless networking project. Anecdotal descriptions for the wireless community phenomenon speak of an outdoor amenity that transforms the urban landscape demonstrating an alternative model for the widespread diffusion of wireless broadband networks (Schmidt & Townsend, 2003) and refer to community projects as wireless guerillas that challenge existing technologies, regulatory regimes, and industries (Rheingold, 2002; Ch. 6). The community model for the provision of WLAN connectivity capabilities has emerged due to a multitude of factors ranging from the versatility and resilience of the IEEE 802.11 standards to consumer inertia against non-compelling commercial, wireless or fixed, broadband service offerings. Most important of all, it was end-users thrill from working with a new and exciting technology and wanting to stretch its capabilities and redeploy its application boundaries that led to the emergence of the movement (Schmidt & Townsend, 2003). Technology enthusiasts found a common ground for serving personal needs for broadband connectivity and experimentation with an emerging technology, often under a community enlargement and social welfare umbrella, which resulted to the blossoming of numerous community wireless networking projects around the world. Above all, the community-based wireless movement reintroduced the role of the end-user in shaping the uses and applications of a new technology and his power to reconfigure access to broadband infrastructures (Schmidt & Townsend, 2003; Dutton et al., 2004). Since the community-based wireless movement has been nurtured in local environments, it exhibits a plethora of particularities tied to cultural individualities, as well as socio-political, economic, and technological geographies. Moreover, it is interesting to note the absence of colloquialism when it comes to referring to the community movement in scholarly research.
7 8

See www.nycwireless.net See www.seattlewireless.net

23

Documented notations include wireless community networks (Bar & Galperin, 2004b; Flickenger, 2002) or community wireless networks (Meinrath, 2005), free or open wireless networks (Schmidt & Townsend, 2003; Sandvig, 2005), network community Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs) (Camponovo et al., 2003; Herslow et al., 2002), WiFi network communities (Auray et al., 2003) and freenets (Lehr & McKnight, 2003; FuentesBautista & Inagaki, 2005). In more sophisticated appraisals, researchers pronounce that the community model is organized around untidy agglomeration(s) of non-commercial, activist, and amateur components aiming at constructing a decentralized cooperatively run communication infrastructure (Sandvig, 2004), or that community wireless networks allow for open, freely accessible non-proprietary systems that utilize the buying power and economies of scale of neighborhoods, towns, cities (Meinrath, 2005). Furthermore, a horizontal view on the related literature indicates three key attributes used by the majority of authors to describe the community movement: grassroots, self-organized, and bottom-up. To enrich our understanding of the wireless community phenomenon, we sought anecdotal evidence from the communities themselves on how they describe their mission and goals. Table 1.2 offers typical descriptions retrieved from wireless community project websites, which are arrayed to reflect the movements geography: pioneering communities can be found in American cities like New York City, Seattle, and Champaign-Urbana (Illinois), while Europe presents a fragmented case with cities like Paris (France), Leiden (Netherlands), and Athens (Greece) considered leaders after superseding Londons early global debut with the Consume project, which is now abandoned. Although there are numerous community projects all over the world, the ones presented in Table 1.2 have managed to gain momentum beyond their local boundaries and can be considered representative of the community-based wireless movement. Furthermore, the referred descriptions picture the multi-flavored nature of the movement, since not all projects have similar goals. Indeed, Schmidt and Townsend (2003) distinguish between Philanthropists focused on installing open networks in public places, Educators aiming at teaching their members about wireless technology, and Networkers seeking to create an open alternative to local telecommunications grids. Similarly, not all projects operate in a comparable fashion. Auray et al. (2003) distinguish communities technical choices in terms of their network topology, star-vs.-ring, and their outlook towards allowing Internet provision or not.

24

Table 1.2: Indicative Wireless Community Projects Indicative Wireless Community Projects NYCWireless is a non-profit organization that advocates and enables the growth of free, public, wireless Internet access in New York City originally started as an informal group of wireless technology enthusiasts, it has grown into a multi-faceted organization that helps individuals and communities to use wireless technology to provide free public Internet access9 SeattleWireless community is a grassroots community wireless network project. Its goals America Europe
9 10

include the creation of a broadband wireless metropolitan area network, as well as the creation of tools that help achieve that goal a not-for-profit community of volunteers although we have many different motivations, we believe that we can build a network without recurring fees. 10 Champaign-Urbana Community Wireless Network is a world renowned coalition of wireless developers and community volunteers committed to providing low-cost, do-it-yourself, community-controlled alternatives to contemporary broadband models. Our mission it to develop decentralized community-owned networks that foster democratic cultures and local content. 11 Paris-Sans-Fil is a group of individuals who work towards the development of wireless networks in Paris. Its mission is the promotion of free, open, and community-oriented use of wireless technologies. Wireless networks are created by citizens and for citizens and offer a novel space of urban freedom. 12 The Wireless Leiden non-profit foundation has established a fast, open, and inexpensive wireless communication network, technically comparable to the Internet, but standing alone and functioning independently. 13 The Athens Wireless Metropolitan Network is a non-profit wireless community aiming at the development, usage, and promotion of wireless broadband networks. Its driving force is voluntary giving combined with community spirit. 14

Over and above the aforementioned descriptives of the community-based wireless movement, we delineate our own definition under the term wireless communities. The definition is simple, analytic, and flexible enough to accommodate diverse community networking flavors:

Retrieved from the web (http://www.nycwireless.net/about) on November 16th, 2006 Retrieved from the web (http://www.seattlewireless.net/) on November 16th, 2006 11 Retrieved from the web (http://cuwireless.net/about) on November 16th, 2006 12 Retrieved from the web (http://www.paris-sansfil.info/) on November 16th, 2006 translated from French 13 Retrieved from the web (http://www.wirelessleiden.nl/english/) on November 16th, 2006 14 Retrieved from the web (http://www.awmn.net/?id=info) on November 16th, 2006 translated from Greek

25

Wireless Communities represent a grassroots, bottom-up, self-organized organizational model grouping wireless enthusiasts and activists who non-coercively cooperate to deploy a wireless communication network infrastructure, usually enriched with content or services of interest, that is scalable enough to cover urban and metropolitan areas, openly available and freely accessible to all interested individuals.

As implied by the definition above, wireless communities represent an innovative organizational arrangement promoting end-user private resource sharing and peer collaboration for the provision of a non-proprietary shared information and communication system. To achieve this objective, community members operate their own Access Point (node), invite their friends and neighbors to connect to it as clients by deliberately leaving their node open, and connect, in their turn, with other nodes to build up a quilt of wireless links around neighborhoods or greater urban areas. Such actions require investment in wireless equipment, incurred by community participants, as well as contributions in terms of less tangible private resources, such as time and effort to set up the wireless link, upload digital content to the community network, and host web-like services (VoIP telephony, online gaming, Internet Relay Chat, email, etc.) including the possibility for sharing Internet bandwidth. Furthermore, individuals are expected, though not explicitly obliged, to support knowledge exchange and skill transfer processes from expert to novice community members. Over and above these functions, the community also serves as a field for socialization by bringing together common-minded individuals who connect via social relationships of varying strength. Hence, wireless communities are multi-faceted and host an array of activities for participants, ranging from technical tasks to sociality-like interactions, all of which are performed under a shared cooperative mentality. In essence, the wireless community network is a network created by users and for users that attributes to them the dual role of being both providers and consumers of wireless services. Beyond providing a means for hands-on experimentation and custom-made communication capabilities for their members, wireless communities have heavily contributed to invigorating interest in wireless networking (Howard, 2002; Sawhney, 2003a). Their libertarian and notfor-profit ethos fuelled by organic, bottom-up innovation reminisce the origins of the Internet (Dutton et al., 2004), while their voluntary spirit has been praised numerous times (Sandvig, 2004; Bar & Galperin, 2004b). Similar user-driven initiatives have manifested in the early days of telephone networks or other utility infrastructures (Sandvig, 2004). Thus, it is topical to examine how the wireless community movement fits and possibly extends similar

26

paradigms of end-users reclaiming power for the configuration of technical systems or artefacts.

1.3 Wireless Communities as a Case of User-Driven Technology-Augmented Initiative

Wireless communities emerge, grow, and potentially flourish within a broader technological, socio-economic, and political environment. This context is not static but incorporates the legacy delivered to it by earlier likewise initiatives of end-users urged to self-experiment with the uses of a new technology, propose alternative configurations, and conceive original applications. In other words, wireless communities do not strike roots and grow on a virgin ground; instead, they encounter a terrain marked by old cases to which they can be parallelized or receive useful feedback from. In the wireless community case, this terrain is shaped by two trends: the historical pattern of communication systems deployment and the proliferation of technology-mediated communities like open source software communities, peer-to-peer file sharing communities, and virtual communities. Looking at the history of communication systems, from the early days of the radio till recent ICT advancements, their evolutionary path is marked by centrally-driven (corporate or state) strategic choices as much as by users testing the capabilities of a new technology and, in many cases, showcasing different application scenarios than the ones conceived by their developers or producing technological innovation (von Hippel, 1988). Numerous examples of decentralized, cooperatively developed and run communication infrastructures exist, to depict that community-like movements are no surprise for telecommunications policy research (Sandvig, 2004; Bar & Galperin, 2004a): communities have built roads (Hughes, 1983), provided telephone connections (Fischer, 1992), and determined the early days of radio (Douglas, 1989; Streeter, 1996). The amateur radio operator of the early 20th century provides perhaps the best analogy to the community-based wireless movement (Bar & Galperin, 2004a). As Douglas (1989) reveals, these users experimented at length with radio equipment and modified it to extend its range and performance, much as wireless communities are today tinkering with homemade antennas and creating software tools to extend the reach and improve the functionality of WiFi networks. At the time, the mushrooming of amateur radio operators and the way these users were adapting and improving the technology took the dominant industry players completely by surprise. Similarly, many incumbent operators have also been surprised by WiFi rapid growth driven not only by corporate strategies but also by the trial and error of users resulting to notable contributions, such as routing protocols for

27

mesh networks, authentication software and the real-life testing of signal propagation and interference problems (Bar & Galperin, 2004a). Thus, an interesting parallelism is unfolding between the contemporary wireless community enthusiast and the cult of the boy operator before 1920 (Douglas, 1989). Nevertheless, amateur radio activities have continued to spring even after these early days as the technology evolved and updated the opportunities for experimentation and many wireless communities embrace members with relevant experiences. Researchers studying the underlying patterns in the development of socio-technical systems concur that user-driven initiatives are almost never a significant alternative to centrally driven commercial systems and their role is timely restrained to the early stages of development (Hughes, 1983; Fischer, 1992; Douglas, 1989). Following Hughes (1983) and Sawhneys (1992) evolutionary models of infrastructure development, amateur action emerges at the inception of new technologies (as there is initially no profession for an innovation there can be no professionals) to invent and develop uses and applications before these become stable enough to attract more organized financial interests. In this conception, user communities are important at the introduction of a system, but then they fade away as the need for daring and tolerance for disorganization diminishes (Sandvig, 2004). Early accounts on wireless communities are in line with these theoretical predictions. Communities were originally viewed as vehicles for experimentation, diffusion, and popularization that would eventually be superseded by for-profit models or be employed as adjunct to their networks for providing service in commercially undesirable areas and addressing public goals that other organizational forms could not (Sandvig, 2004). Nevertheless, the sustained existence of the phenomenon in many parts of the world challenges these forecasts. Whether wireless communities will manage to elude from their destined fate or not, to fizzle out after a brief but pregnant moment in history (Sawhney, 2003a), is still contingent upon numerous intertwining factors, including technological advancement, industry reactions, and telecommunications policy debates, not to mention the fervour of their members. The second trend shaping the context within which the wireless community phenomenon grows refers to the way modern communication technologies have induced the emergence and proliferation of various community forms, the core operation of which occurs at the digital, not the physical, domain. Such community forms include virtual communities digital assemblies of common-minded individuals brought together for communicative and informative interactions , open source software developer communities the collective effort of which has re-engineered the modes of software production, and peer-to-peer file sharing communities. Wireless communities can be considered as the wireless equivalent of these

28

community forms, an observation that directly derives from the claims of wireless community members about being influenced from such initiatives in terms of mentality and community culture, as well as in terms of reliance to their methods for producing and operating the community network (Schmidt & Townsend, 2003; Damsgaard et al. 2006; Bar & Galperin, 2006). Hence, the wireless community movement contributes to the ever-expanding array of technology-induced collective structures by stretching its application domain to the wireless realm. The appearance of the aforementioned community forms has signalled important shifts in a variety of domains. Most importantly, they have altered the way individuals regard modern ICTs, in that they do not only consider them as a tool for improving job efficiency and productivity but also as a fascinating, self-empowering means for satisfying needs for selfexpression and communication. Furthermore, their impact has transcended their boundaries to influence economic production processes (e.g. open source software has challenged many aspects of traditional production including innovation models (von Hippel & von Krogh, 2003) and division of labour concepts (Weber, 2004)) and re-shape industries including the software industry, in the case of open source communities (Dalle & Jullien, 2003), the music industry, in the case of peer-to-peer communities (Alexander, 2002), and e-commerce, in the case of virtual communities (Balasubramanian & Mahajan, 2001). All three community forms have challenged researchers in a swath of disciplines to understand the inner and outer dynamics involved in their operation and potential success, while the impact described above provoked the attention of practitioners and policy-makers, who were drawn to consider potential reforms in the way technology, the Internet, property rights, the wires, and the air are controlled (Lessig, 2002; Benkler, 2002; 2004). In addition, these developments have also paved the way for what we currently witness happening at the online front urging its reintroduction as the Web 2.0, a tool for bringing together the small contributions of millions of people and making them matter 15, where user-generated content and interactions are increasingly influencing the design principles of web sites. Following the discussion above, it appears that all user-driven initiatives discussed, including the community-based wireless movement, share certain communalities. These common features relate to the way technology produces cooperation at the end-user level, facilitates and promotes peer collaboration, and advances the fabrication of artifacts, consisting of both technical as well as human components like wireless communities, following a decentralized approach that shifts power to the final beneficiaries of the artifact and excludes the need for a

15

See supra note 1

29

central planner, state or corporate-like. Thus, wireless communities contribute an interesting story to the tale of user-driven technology-augmented initiatives. Nevertheless, their capacity to leave an influential legacy remains open to academic enquiries and practitioner speculation, though intriguing visions have already seen the light to create promises for the future: Everything you know about telecommunications is about to change. Large wired and wireless telephone companies will be replaced by micro-operators, millions of which can be woven into a global fabric of broadband connectivity 16.

1.4 Research Objectives

In sum, wireless communities are a novel technology-augmented community form grouping together common-minded individuals who build their own wireless network infrastructure, share digital services, exchange technical knowledge, and enjoy social connectivity. They represent an intriguing phenomenon that is tied to the resilience of modern ICTs in terms of delivering power to end-users to arrange their own agenda of technology uses, over and beyond what is commercially offered. Much of the intrigue surrounding the wireless community movement stems from the fact that wireless community members are mobilized to act cooperatively for the delivery of an end-to-end communication system that spans from the physical to the application layer. Thus, wireless communities extend the scope of earlier userdriven initiatives by relying on individuals for the provision of both the system infrastructure and the services afforded over it. In doing so, they introduce additional complexities with regards to mobilizing and organizing member interactions that elevate the need for a closer look at their particularities. Extant knowledge accumulated through studying the evolution of communication systems and the emergence of technology-mediated user communities is not adequate to accommodate and explain the defining properties of wireless communities. Instead, fresh research questions are required that will allow a holistic description of the phenomenon taking into account its multiple dimensions and potential research appeal. This description of the wireless community movement forms the baseline for the research inquiry guiding this study. The research inquiry is framed under the requirement for a multilayered perspective when trying to decipher the particularities of wireless communities. In essence, there are more than one ways to portray the wireless community movement. First, it is a phenomenon rooted to the capabilities of wireless communication technologies, which enabled end-users to experiment and develop uses for an emergent technology, WiFi, beyond
16

Negroponte, N. Being Wireless. Published in Wired Magazine (10.10) in October, 2002 (available online at http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.10/wireless.html, accessed on April 4th, 2007)

30

what was originally planned. Moreover, wireless communities are a social phenomenon, since they bring together common-minded individuals in a collaborative project out of which opportunities for social exchanges emerge. They are also a political phenomenon because their existence is anchored on the need for efficient peer collaboration achieved through formal, as well as informal, procedures and norms amongst community participants. Finally, wireless communities are an economic phenomenon in both the microscopic and the macroscopic sense. At the micro-level, individuals become involved with a wireless community project after engaging in some kind of cost-benefit analyses transforming their motivation and anticipated effort to a utility function. At the macro-level, individual contributions to the community aggregate in an elaborate production process that yields an ownerless, commonly shared communication system. Hence, to understand the core of the wireless community phenomenon and its implications for the telecommunications industry, it is topical to develop an analytic explanatory framework that takes into account its multiple dimensions, be they implicit or explicit. The explanatory framework developed, explored, and validated in this research is anchored on the premises of collective action theory (Olson, 1965). Collective action represents a theoretical strand holding explanatory capacity with regards to the mechanics developed when individuals organize in groups to further their common interests. As such, the theory has provided insights into a wide array of phenomena falling within the reference domain of disciplines such as sociology, political science, organizational theory, and economics. Over the years, the theory has yielded significant explanatory power regarding individual and group behavior in a variety of settings and has grown into a valuable tool for understanding the dynamics of technology-related or enabled communities, including open source (e.g. Bonnacorsi & Rossi, 2003), virtual (e.g. Kollock, 1999), and peer-to-peer file sharing communities (e.g. Cunningham et al., 2004) with which wireless communities share resemblances, as depicted above. Given the cross-disciplinary appeal of collective action that is in line with the multilayered approach on the wireless community phenomenon, the theory provides a solid theoretical background for building up our study of wireless communities. Furthermore, anchoring wireless communities to the collective action tradition stretches the theorys explanatory capacity beyond settings already investigated. Following the discussion presented so far, it becomes evident that wireless communities present a challenging research topic. The freshness, as well as the organizational uniqueness of the phenomenon that builds upon the collaborative efforts of individuals targeted at a common interest, attribute to it dimensions that warrant further scrutiny so as to understand its full dynamics under multiple perspectives. Hence, the research organized and presented in

31

this thesis aims to shed light on the wireless community phenomenon by addressing three different objectives, the intertwinement of which is expected to offer a comprehensive view on both its practical and theoretical implications: 1. The first objective of this research refers to understanding the inherent particularities of wireless communities, or, in other words, the what, the why, and the how behind the emergence, operation, and possible proliferation of a fresh phenomenon, which has managed to capture the attention of a swath of interested constituents, including academics, industry stakeholders, and policy-makers alike. 2. The second objective of the research ties the unfolding of the characteristics of wireless communities to collective action theory. In particular, the research introduces the theory to an original application domain by capitalizing on its premises to build an explanatory model regarding the way wireless communities are mobilized and organized. Furthermore, it investigates the degree of the theorys applicability and explanatory capacity within the wireless community context and elaborates on the requirement for possible modifications when applying the theory in cases of technology-induced collective actions similar to the phenomenon under study. 3. Finally, the third objective of the research builds upon the findings of the previous two to re-invigorate the discussion on how contemporary ICTs empower end-users to reconfigure their access and usage patterns of modern technologies. In doing so, the discussion is focused on identifying the conditions under which user-driven initiatives become influential to produce paradigmatic shifts within their application domain that can be of value to both practice and theory. To achieve these objectives, we organized and implemented a structured research plan consisting of a series of inter-connected steps, each of which builds upon the knowledge accumulated through the previous ones. The process and its results are presented in the following chapters: Chapter 2 provides an overview of the literature related to the wireless community phenomenon with the aim to identify the research challenges of the area. In doing so, it follows a structured approach that winds up to the formulation of a research agenda for wireless communities and the demarcation of the research opportunity for this study. Chapter 3 introduces the theoretical baseline of the research by detailing the premises of collective action theory and its evolutionary application in a variety of fields. Based on the theorys cornerstones, the conceptual framing of wireless communities is sketched and germane research questions are postulated.

32

 Chapter 4 decomposes the research strategy followed in this study by detailing the methods and mechanics applied to provide answers to the research questions postulated in the previous chapter. In particular, the study opted for a combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods in what is called triangulation, to capitalize on both methods merits for shedding light on a phenomenon that is currently under-explored. Chapter 5 details the integration of interviews (a qualitative tactic) to survey design and execution (a quantitative tactic), describes the resulting research model, and discusses the empirical findings regarding the properties of wireless community collective action. The chapter ends up by outlining emergent implications for the structuring and orchestration of modern technology-oriented collective actions. Chapter 6 details the mechanics behind the conduct of a second round of qualitative research and combines the findings with the conjectures reached at in the preceding chapter to a comprehensive discussion regarding the defining characteristics of wireless communities. Chapter 7 concludes the research by addressing each of the three objectives described above. It also identifies potential limitations of the study and highlights avenues for further research in the area. As a final note, the study presented tackles with a challenging and fresh research topic that brings, once again, at the forefront of the telecommunications industry the role of end-users in reconfiguring the uses and applications of a new technology. Though it remains to be seen whether wireless communities will eventually create a paradigmatic legacy in their application domain, their study creates opportunities for interdisciplinary synergies to craft our understanding of complex technology-augmented contemporary phenomena.

33

2 Reviewing the Literature on Wireless Communities

Wireless communities have only recently emerged as a challenging topic stimulating scholarly research from a wide array of disciplines and research domains. Acknowledging the need to structure and codify existing knowledge in the area of wireless communities, this chapter adopts a structured and methodical approach in identifying and discussing issues warranting further inquiry. Furthermore, it builds upon them to spot theoretical insights for addressing wireless communities under a multi-disciplinary perspective and frame the research opportunity motivating this study. To this end, the chapter is organized as follows: First, it describes the strategy employed for the literature review process (section 2.1). Second, it organizes the collection of studies in categories based on the nature of the issues addressed in them (section 2.2). Third, it applies the aforementioned categorization, as well as the findings from the thorough analysis of the publications, to inform a Research Agenda (section 2.3). Finally, it sketches the emerging research opportunity, which is the focal point of research in this thesis (section 2.4).

2.1 Literature Review Strategy

In general, the scope of a literature review is two-fold: to collect knowledge concerning a particular area of interest the selection stage and to use the collected pool for the identification of further research challenges and the stimulation of new ideas, interpretations, and analyses the analysis stage. A macroscopic view of the review process shows that the two stages follow an iterative cycle since the analysis of selected publications will naturally lead to the identification of new knowledge sources (through the exploitation of the references listed in every study), thus firing a new selection and analysis process cycle. The process is terminated when no more relevant studies can be identified. Figure 2.1 visualizes the process and its analytical steps.

34

Initial selection of publication resources

select

review
Screening

Reference check

SELECTION

select

when no more relevant papers can be identified

ANALYSIS

- Scrutinize the collected papers in terms of their scope, methodology, argumentation, and findings - Identify challenging issues to inform a Research Agenda for the area under study

Figure 2.1: The Literature Review Strategy

Applying the aforementioned strategy to this research was a challenging endeavor, mainly due to the novelty of the phenomenon under study. At the time the literature review process was set off, the phenomenon was still at its nascence in many parts of the world. Nevertheless, it had managed to intrigue enthusiastic references by renowned scholars including the famous metaphor of the water lily pad as delivered by Nicholas Negroponte (2002). This public interest was soon mitigated to the research community. Scientific interest in wireless communities grew sharply and transformed from novelty to maturity by mitigating from conferences to journals, while also spanning over a variety of thematic areas. The complexity involved in the process was further accentuated by two wireless community particularities. First, there was and largely still is lack of consensus among scholars when referring to the phenomenon of grassroots networked initiatives for building wireless infrastructures by users and for users (the issue is also analyzed in Chapter 1). Hence, screening the publications had to be performed having multiple notations and descriptives into mind, something that complicated the searching by keyword procedure. Second, wireless communities were initially appraised as an alternative model for the provision of wireless broadband connectivity and, thus, were anchored to the mobile and wireless business research domain. Nevertheless, their unique features have managed to bring together researchers from a wide variety of disciplines including economics, sociology, management, computing, and even law, only to depict the phenomenons inherent interdisciplinary nature

35

and the need to widen the scope of the literature review beyond the wireless business approach. Having the above into mind, the process was initiated by selecting a set of initial publication outlets to mirror the theoretical anchoring of wireless communities to the mobile / wireless business research domain as an extension of electronic business research. Hence, the resources that were initially considered included relevant journals and conferences known for their outlook towards addressing emerging trends within the mobile / wireless business domain, such as the International Journal of Electronic Commerce and the International Conference on Mobile Business. Screening publications to assess their relevancy to the study of wireless communities and identify referred works that could be of value to this research yielded a pool of 28 publications to be submitted to the analysis stage. At this point, it should be noted that, although the literature was regularly scouted throughout the conduct of this study, the publications that formed the basis for the research design and theorization and are presented in this chapter, were collected during its first year and reached up to the beginning of 2006. Apart from publications that have undergone a peer-review process, we came across a plethora of non-peer-reviewed documentation including Masters theses, industry project reports, discussion papers, and press material; the latter were not counted in the final pool of papers and, thus, were excluded from the analysis stage. These publications manifest the vivid interest in the area, but, due to their lack of academic rigidity, their analysis and interpretation were performed with caution. In many of the collected papers, scholarly interest is attributed to authors personal involvement with a wireless community project (as is the case with authors Sascha Meinrath, Terry Schmidt and Anthony Townsend). In addition, the bulk of the respective literature originates from the United States of America, followed by European researchers, to denote the magnitude that the phenomenon has acquired in these geographic regions. Table 2.1 organizes the publication pool in a two-dimensional map that arrays them in chronological order and classifies them based on their source (journal, conference, or other source). The chronological arrangement pinpoints to a certain transformation in research interest regarding wireless communities mitigating them from the periphery to the core of scholarly inquiries so that they constitute a distinct research theme.

36

Table 2.1: The Literature Pool of Publications Journal Publication 2002 (7) Benkler, Y. Some Economics of Wireless Communications. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology. Howard, D. Its a Wi-Fi World Wireless broadband may finally be ready for prime time. ACM netWorker. McDonald, D. Social Issues in Self-Provisioned Metropolitan Area Networks. Proceedings of the Workshop on Mobile Ad Hoc Collaboration at the ACM 2002 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2003 (9) Rao, B., & Parikh, M. Wireless Broadband Networks: the US Experience. International Journal of Electronic Commerce. Sawhney, H. WiFi networks and the rerun of the cycle. Info The Journal of policy, regulation and strategy for telecommunications. Lehr, W., & McKnight, L.W. Wireless Internet Conference Publication Verma, S., & Beckman, P. A Framework for Comparing Wireless Internet Service Providers with Neighborhood Area Networks. Proceedings of the Americas Conference of Information Systems. Verma, S., Beckman, P., & Nickerson, R.C. Identification of Issues and Business Models for Wireless Internet Service Providers and Neighborhood Area Networks. Proceedings of the Workshop on Wireless Strategy in the Enterprise: An International Research Perspective. Camponovo, G., Heitmann, M., Stanoevska-Slabeva, K., & Pigneur, Y. Exploring the WISP Industry Swiss Case Study. Proceedings of the 16th Bled Electronic Commerce Conference. Sawhney, H. WiFi Networks and the Reorganization of Wireline-Wireless Relationship. Proceedings of the 31
st

Other Herslow, L., Navarro, C-J. & Scholander, J. Exploring the WISP Industry. Master Thesis, Lund University, Sweden. Rheingold, H. (2002). Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution. Perseus Books.

Dutton, W.H., Gillet, S.E., McKnight, L.W., & Peltu, M. Broadband Internet: The Power to Reconfigure Access. Discussion Paper, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford. Auray, N., Beauvallet, G., Charbit, C., & Fernandez, V. Wi-Fi: An Emerging Information Society Infrastructure. STAR Issue Report N. 40.

Annual Telecommunications Policy and

37

Access: 3G vs WiFi? Telecommunications Policy. Schmidt, T., & Townsend, A.Why Wi-Fi Wants to be Free? Communications of the ACM. Rao, B., & Parikh, M. Wireless broadband drivers and their social implications. Technology in Society. 2004 (6) Bar, F., & Galperin, H. Building the Wireless Internet Infrastructure: From Cordless Ethernet Archipelagos to Wireless Grids. Communications & Strategies. Sandvig, C. An Initial Assessment of Cooperative Action in WiFi Networking. Telecommunications Policy. Dutton, W.H., Gillet, S.E., McKnight, L.W., & Peltu, M. Bridging broadband Internet divides: reconfiguring access to enhance communicative power. Journal of Information Technology.

Research Conference

Sandvig, C., Young, D., & Meinrath, S. Hidden Interfaces to Ownerless Networks. Proceedings of the 32nd Research Conference on Communication, Information, and Internet Policy. Bar, F., & Galperin, H. Building the Wireless Infrastructure: Alternative Models. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Wireless Communication Policies and Prospects: A Global Perspective. Damsgaard, J., Parikh, M., & Rao, B. Wi-Fi Community Networks: a Common Good Analysis. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Mobile Business (ICMB).

38

2005 (5)

Bendahan, S., Camponovo, G., Monzani, J-M., & Pigneur, Y. Negotiation in Technology Landscapes: An Actor-Issue Analysis. Journal of Management Information Systems.

Fuentes-Bautista, M., & Inagaki, N. Wi-Fis Promise and Broadband Divides: Reconfiguring Public Internet Access in Austin, Texas. Proceedings of the 2005 Telecommunications and Research Policy Conference. Sandvig, C. The Return of the Broadcast War. Proceedings of the 33rd Research Conference on Communication, Information, and Internet Policy. Gaved, M., & Mulholland, P. Grassroots Initiated Networked Communities: A Study of Hybrid Physical/Virtual Communities. Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

Meinrath, S. Wirelessing the World: The Battle Over (Community) Wireless Networks. In R. McChesney, R. Newman, & B. Scott (Eds.), The Future of the Media: Resistance and Reform in the 21st Century, NY: Seven Stories Press.

2006

Damsgaard, J., Parikh, M.A., & Rao, B. Wireless Commons: Perils in the Common Good. Communications of the ACM.

39

2.2 Organizing the Literature

The organization of the collected literature followed a two-fold objective: first, to understand the way researchers have endorsed wireless communities in their studies and have anchored them to existing theories, frameworks, and prior research outcomes, and, second, to identify germane issues that warrant further inquiry. To achieve these objectives, the analysis stage was conducted in a structured approach that claimed the critical interpretation of the literature and the re-engineering of its findings to produce a parsimonious, yet informative, description of wireless communities as a challenging research theme. Hence, the first level of analysis included a thorough scrutiny of the collected papers in terms of their scope, methodology and findings. This was followed by a categorization of the issues addressed in them to reflect broad genres of research challenges, while the second level of analysis built on the generated findings to inform a research agenda for wireless communities to be used not only for the purposes of this research but also as a roadmap for future endeavors. Following the first level of analysis, the issues studied in the literature can be grouped in two broad categories as depicted in Figure 2.2. The first category refers to issues emerging when trying to position wireless communities within their surrounding environment. In particular, researchers have correlated the emergence of the wireless community phenomenon with current business and social trends developing in an ever-changing ecology of actors that is framed by technological advancements within the wireless realm. Their arguments focus on the two-way dynamics between wireless communities and their environment, especially its technological, marketplace, regulatory, and social dimensions. The second category groups together the structural challenges associated with organizing a wireless community in terms of mobilizing and coordinating individuals to work together for a community project. Such issues address the inherent dimensions that attribute to the phenomenon its organizational uniqueness.

40

Technology

Organizing a Wireless Community: Mobilizing and Coordinating participants

Marketplace

Society

Regulation

surrounding environment

Figure 2.2: The Two Categories of Research Issues

Table 2.2 arranges the issues investigated in the collected literature by mapping them to the corresponding studies. As shown in Table 2.2, researchers have pinpointed to a number of research challenges; nevertheless, not all of them have been treated to the same extent and with the same depth of analysis in terms of providing solid, theoretically-driven interpretations and empirical validation.

41

Table 2.2: Organizing the Literature Research Issues Network resources usage Bandwidth congestion Studies Rao & Parikh (2003a; 2003b), Camponovo et al. (2003), Lehr & McKnight (2003), Bar & Galperin (2004b), Damsgaard et al. (2004; 2006), Meinrath (2005) Security Verma et al. (2002), Herslow et al. (2002), Schmidt & Townsend (2003), Rao & Parikh (2003a; 2003b), Camponovo et al. (2003), Dutton et al. (2003), Meinrath (2005) Technology Mesh Networking Schmidt & Townsend (2003), Bar & Galperin (2004a; 2004b), Sandvig et al. (2004), Meinrath (2005) Following-up technological evolution Localized services and configurations Long-range connections Network control shift to end-devices Roaming Industry Actors Categorization and Comparison - Top-down vs. bottom-up models for wireless broadband provision Marketplace - For-profit vs. not-for-profit models for wireless broadband provision - Wide area vs. selected locations coverage - Beyond dichotomous typologies Negotiation and Alliances between actors in the wireless industry Herslow et al. (2002), Lehr & McKnight (2003), Camponovo et al. (2003) Fuentes-Bautista & Inagaki (2005) Bendahan et al. (2005) Rao & Parikh (2003a; 2003b), Camponovo et al. (2003) Verma et al. (2002), Verma & Beckman (2002) Rao & Parikh (2003a), Damsgaard et al. (2006) Verma & Beckman (2002), Herslow et al. (2002) Bar & Galperin (2004a), Dutton et al. (2003) Benkler (2002), Bar & Galperin (2004b) Herslow et al. (2002), Schmidt & Townsend (2003)

42

Entrepreneurial innovation Spectrum policy debate: Spectrum commons (instead of property rights in spectrum allocation) Policy / Regulation Bandwidth (Internet) sharing in grey legal zone Reforms for a decentralized wireless grid Infrastructure development patterns Reinforcement of local social ties

Dutton et al. (2003), Meinrath (2005) Benkler (2002), Rheingold (2002), Bar & Galperin (2004b), Sandvig (2005), Meinrath (2005) Verma & Beckman (2002), Herslow et al. (2002) Dutton et al. (2003), Bar & Galperin (2004a) Sawhney (2003a, 2003b), Bar & Galperin (2004a, 2004b), Sandvig (2004) Verma & Beckman (2002), Schmidt & Townsend (2003), Auray et al. (2003), Gaved & Mulholland (2005) Fuentes-Bautista & Inagaki (2005), Meinrath (2005), Gaved & Mulholland (2005) Auray et al. (2003), Sandvig (2004), Gaved & Mulholland (2005) Lehr & McKnight (2003), Schmidt & Townsend (2003), Sandvig (2004), Dutton et al. (2004) Auray et al. (2003), Fuentes-Bautista & Inagaki (2005) Herslow et al. (2002), McDonald (2002), Schmidt & Townsend (2003), Sandvig (2004) Rao & Parikh (2003a; 2003b), Camponovo et al. (2003), Schmidt & Townsend (2003), Damsgaard et al. (2004; 2006) McDonald (2002), Rheingold (2002), Rao & Parikh (2003b), Bar & Galperin (2004b), Damsgaard et al. (2004; 2006) Schmidt & Townsend (2003)

Fostering social capital Societal Provide access to under-served areas Raising awareness on wireless broadband technologies

Involvement of local public bodies Member characteristics: - Motives and incentives

Community Organization

- Member involvement and commitment

Group interactions, ties, and dynamics

Community mission

43

Following the categorization presented above, the technological dimension in the wireless community literature groups together a variety of issues amongst which the configuration of appropriate network resource usage routines for avoiding congestion driven by abusive uses (Rao & Parikh, 2003a; 2003b; Camponovo et al., 2003; Lehr & McKnight, 2003; Bar & Galperin, 2004b; Damsgaard et al., 2004; 2006; Meinrath, 2005), overcoming security deficiencies due to the lack of strict relevant procedures (Verma et al., 2002; Herslow et al., 2002; Schmidt & Townsend, 2003; Rao & Parikh, 2003a; 2003b; Camponovo et al., 2003; Dutton et al., 2003; Meinrath, 2005), and experimenting with mesh networking architectures and protocols (Schmidt & Townsend, 2003; Bar & Galperin, 2004a; 2004b; Sandvig et al., 2004; Meinrath, 2005) appear as overarching. Additional issues include those arising due to localities, e.g. urban topologies impacting network architectures (Verma & Beckman, 2002; Bar & Galperin, 2004a; Dutton et al., 2003), users sophistication in shaping service or content demands, and roaming requirements (Verma & Beckman, 2002; Herslow et al., 2002; Schmidt & Townsend, 2003), and the need to keep in pace with technological advancement in both hardware and software solutions to preserve the communitys innovative outlook (Rao & Parikh, 2003a; Damsgaard et al., 2006). Furthermore, some researchers picture wireless communities as a testbed for decentralized networks relying on smart end-user equipment to perform complicated tasks including spectrum management and routing (Benkler, 2002; Bar & Galperin, 2004b). Hence, the technological challenges associated with the operation of wireless communities bear the capacity to spur user-driven innovation initiatives within the wireless realm. Marketplace issues deal with investigating the structure and dynamics of the wireless industry to determine wireless communities positioning against all other actors (Rao & Parikh, 2003a; 2003b; Camponovo et al., 2003; Verma et al., 2002; Verma & Beckman, 2002; Herslow et al., 2002; Lehr & McKnight, 2003). Researchers following this line of thinking have anchored on traditional theoretical frameworks and models from strategy and marketing (e.g. Porters five forces (Herslow et al., 2002), Value Chain Analysis (Rao & Parikh, 2003a; 2003b; Camponovo et al., 2003; Herslow et al., 2002), the Delta Model (Herslow et al., 2002), and Actor Issue Analysis (Bendahan et al., 2005)) to concur that wireless communities vis--vis for-profit models for wireless broadband provision are in a disadvantageous position, which will probably become even worse as wireless access becomes a commodity and wireless infrastructures grow in coverage. Nevertheless, the phenomenon has acquired certain dynamics for the popularization of wireless networks (Rao & Parikh, 2003a; 2003b; FuentesBautista & Inagaki, 2005) that can be further capitalized with partnerships beyond the core group of individuals who started it, including location owners, equipment manufacturers,

44

software houses, and public agencies, as well as entrepreneurial action (Bendahan et al., 2005). Wireless communities are a challenging topic within the agenda of telecommunications policy research for two reasons. First, the surface of the wireless community phenomenon occurred at a time of wireless policy debate burst, especially in the United States of America, regarding the need to introduce reforms in spectrum allocation regimes (Dutton et al., 2003). In particular, the use of unlicensed spectrum under the WiFi protocol has introduced a novel conceptualization for electromagnetic spectrum as something that has a user interface (Sandvig, 2005). This aspect has never before been drawn to the attention of regulators and, coupled with the effective operation of wireless communities, has shown that spectrum commons can be more efficient than traditional property rights spectrum allocation procedures (Benkler, 2002; Rheingold, 2002; Bar & Galperin, 2004b; Sandvig, 2005; Meinrath, 2005). Second, telecommunications policy research is largely involved in understanding the evolution of infrastructures and communication systems under the effect of constantly updated or newly emerging technologies, including WLANs. Wireless communities contribute to the decentralized, grassroots tactic that has largely driven the deployment of the wireless grid; nevertheless, similar trajectories have a historic precedent in the deployment of early telephone networks or road infrastructures that depict the role of communities in popularizing an emerging technological trend, or even introducing additional uses for it. Hence, researchers have anchored on theories of communication infrastructure evolution to investigate how different models for wireless infrastructure deployment, including wireless communities, determine the trajectory of the wireless grid and its potential to upgrade from being an appendix to becoming a full-fledged building block of broadband infrastructures (Sawhney, 2003a; 2003b; Bar & Galperin, 2004a; 2004b; Sandvig, 2004). Finally, there is a legal dimension in wireless communities, calling for initiatives to remove potential grey zones in bandwidth or Internet sharing (Verma & Beckman, 2002; Herslow et al., 2002) and equipment installation and operation (Dutton et al., 2003; Bar & Galperin, 2004a). The societal dimension in wireless community research investigates the impact of the phenomenon on the local communities within which community networks are embedded and on society at large. To address societal enlargement goals, wireless communities engage in pursuits aiming at the dissemination of broadband technologies (Lehr & McKnight, 2003; Schmidt & Townsend, 2003; Sandvig, 2004; Dutton et al., 2004), ally with public agencies or other non-profit organizations (Auray et al., 2003; Fuentes-Bautista & Inagaki, 2005), or even provide connectivity to under-served or isolated areas (Auray et al., 2003; Sandvig, 2004;

45

Gaved & Mulholland, 2005). Beyond such large objectives, wireless communities are also well positioned to reinforce local social ties (Verma & Beckman, 2002; Schmidt & Townsend, 2003; Auray et al., 2003; Gaved & Mulholland, 2005) and create social capital within the neighborhoods covered by community networks (Fuentes-Bautista & Inagaki, 2005; Meinrath, 2005; Gaved & Mulholland, 2005). Hence, the reach of wireless community societal impact can be both of local or nation-wide significance; nevertheless, not all researchers appear equally enthusiastic on the social enlargement capacity of the wireless community movement. Finally, the community organization issues address both individual and group level dynamics that need to be put into place for the phenomenon to set off and sustain its existence. At the individual level, researchers pinpoint to a wide array of individual motives and incentives that are considered indispensable not only for mobilizing involvement with a wireless community but also for ensuring long-term commitment to it as a critical factor for the survivability of the wireless community movement (Herslow et al., 2002; McDonald, 2002; Schmidt & Townsend, 2003; Sandvig, 2004; Rao & Parikh, 2003a; 2003b; Camponovo et al., 2003; Damsgaard et al., 2004; 2006). At the group level, researchers are interested on the nature of interactions occurring among community members, their way of cooperating and building social ties (McDonald, 2002; Rheingold, 2002; Rao & Parikh, 2003b; Bar & Galperin, 2004b; Damsgaard et al., 2004; 2006). The combination of both level dynamics influences a communitys standpoint by offering a commonly-held mission (Schmidt & Townsend, 2003). Nevertheless, the issues belonging in this category have received considerably less attention by researchers than the ones in the previous categories, though the critical role of users is acknowledged in nearly all studies. Overall, the categorization process contributed in defining the research territory for studying the various aspects of wireless communities. It also provided indications on the nature of inquiries that can be formed to elaborate on the phenomenons particularities and associate it with extant knowledge. This assertion is better illustrated in the next section where the issues presented in Table 2.2 are re-examined to produce a research agenda for studying wireless communities.

46

2.3 Framing a Research Agenda for Studying Wireless Communities

Building on the knowledge produced through the scrutiny of the literature and the resulting categorization process, a research agenda was informed delineating research directions for studying the multiple dimensions of wireless communities. The agenda is formulated on the basis of extrapolating germane research challenges and is theory-driven; it designates theoretical tactics and tools that can be employed to shed light on the respective challenges. It is also indicative of the inherent inter-disciplinary nature of the wireless community phenomenon by implying that it can be an interesting research theme for researchers originating from various disciplines. The research agenda has six building blocks originating from the five categories of research issues delineated in Table 2.2. The following paragraphs detail each of these building blocks by introducing relevant research questions and modes of inquiry for their investigation.

Building Block 1: Technological Innovation Wireless communities offer a unique setting for studying the mechanics of user-driven technological innovation. Technological challenges associated with the deployment of a decentralized network covering urban landscapes stimulate experimentation on behalf of community members. In fact, experimentation emerges as an essential element of member behavior, a shared mentality that lies in the heart of the phenomenons existence depicting how end-users can contribute to technological advancement and shape alternative use scenarios. Hence, a key question emerges: can wireless communities be considered as innovation institutions following the tradition of user communities and user-driven innovation models? And if so, what are the consequences of such innovation model to wireless technologies evolution? Insofar, research has come up with controversial arguments regarding the innovation potential of wireless communities, with some scholars proclaiming their innovative outlook (e.g. Schmidt & Townsend, 2003; Bar & Galperin, 2004a; Meinrath, 2005;), while others being more conservative in their evaluations (e.g. Sandvig, 2004; Auray et al., 2003). To further elaborate on the issue, it is topical to introduce relevant theoretical concepts originating in management and organization sciences (e.g. the work of von Hippel (1988) on the sources of innovation) and evaluate their interpretive capacity for the wireless community case through real-life evidence.

Building Block 2: Managing Shared Network Resources Wireless community networks, by relying on their members to be both their providers and consumers, introduce management problems when it comes to the usage of their resources,

47

either in terms of bandwidth crunches or excessive service demands. These problems create tension among members and can be detrimental to the long-lived existence of communities. Researchers picking up on this issue (e.g. Verma et al., 2002; Bar and Galperin, 2004b; Damsgaard et al., 2004; 2006; Fuentes-Bautista & Inagaki, 2005) have drawn insight from theoretical frameworks such as common-pool resources (Ostrom et al., 1994) and the tragedy of the commons (Hardin, 1968; Ostrom, 1990). Their approach highlights an issue that warrants further clarification: will the measures needed to avoid the demise of the community network be hardwired in equipment, embedded in network communication protocols, or fabricated onto the social web of ties and norms directing member behavior within the community? To address this query, it is recommended that all alternatives are evaluated taking into account the level of local difficulty in introducing each of them as a shared norm with which all community members should comply.

Building Block 3: Industry Analysis Revisited Since the majority of the studies examining the structure of the wireless industry are dated as early as in 2002 and 2003 (see Table 2.2) when the wireless community was at its nascence it is topical to re-investigate the dynamics of interaction among industry actors. This updated view on the industry builds upon the observation that the emergence of wireless communities was initially fired by the inability of commercial providers to cover latent consumer demand in terms of both coverage capability and compelling service offerings. Nevertheless, the industry has much evolved ever since in both directions so that the following question emerges: has there been a shift in wireless communities positioning and power within the wireless industry when compared to early assessments implying that the phenomenon is destined to fade away? Elaborating on this topic, it is germane to re-examine the top-down versus bottom-up typology of wireless broadband access models that is currently challenged by the entrance of hybrid actors, such as municipal networking projects developed with the cooperation of for-profit and not-for-profit entities. Hence, the third building block of the agenda proposes the re-evaluation of the strategic role of wireless communities in an ever-evolving technology-driven industry consisting of numerous actors engaging in multi-faceted interactions.

Building Block 4: Evolution of the Wireless Communication Grid Following a similar frame of thinking, it appears quite challenging to persist with earlier inquiries regarding the role of wireless communities in shaping the characteristics of the wireless communication grid (e.g. Bar & Galperin, 2004a; 2004b; Sandvig, 2004). The driving research question remains the same Is decentralized communication network development a significant alternative to the traditional, centrally-driven communication

48

systems that have historically prevailed? -, but the context is slightly different since there have been advancements in both wireless / mobile and fixed broadband networks, including increasing penetration rates for broadband and 3G networks. Relevant theoretical frameworks that have been scrutinized but are still relevant because they offer an evolutionary perspective on the phenomenon under study include the Infrastructure Development Model (Sawhney, 1992), Hughes (1983) model of infrastructure evolution, path dependency concepts like network externalities (Katz & Shapiro, 1985), as well as theorizations drawing from the political economy of communication networks (e.g. Mansell, 1993; Benkler, 1998). All the aforementioned theoretical directives can provide updates on the trajectory followed by wireless communication networks and the role of wireless communities beyond the early stages of deployment.

Building Block 5: The Social Impact of Wireless Communities Wireless communities are considered a vehicle for the popularization of broadband technologies to audiences falling within, as well as beyond, the radius of their connectivity reach. Although research has attributed to the wireless community phenomenon certain capacity to promote social welfare objectives (see Table 2.2 for an indicative list of such objectives), the magnitude and effectiveness of this ability still remain unclear under the light of controversial research findings (e.g. Auray et al., 2003; Schmidt & Townsend, 2003; Sandvig, 2004; Meinrath, 2005). Hence, it is topical to re-examine the mechanisms through which wireless communities can achieve societal goals within either their locality or society at large: Is there room for wireless communities to assume an active role in technologyinduced social enlargement initiatives? And, if so, what lines of action are considered relevant? Elaborating on the societal role of wireless communities resides on understanding how wireless community members endorse such role, something that reflects on communities strategies for spatial extension and establishment of interaction mechanisms with other entities, including local inhabitants, public agencies, and other not-for-profit organizations.

Building Block 6: Wireless Communities as an Innovative Organizational Form The final block of the agenda shifts attention from the outer to the inner plane of wireless communities. In doing so, it places the individual at the core of the inquiry by delineating two research questions that have not been adequately or systematically treated in the related literature (e.g. McDonald, 2002; Schmidt & Townsend, 2003; Auray et al., 2003; Sandvig, 2004; Damsgaard et al., 2004; 2006): What are the incentive systems mobilizing and upholding individual involvement with a wireless community? How are individuals with potentially deviating incentive systems cooperating to support the operation of the wireless

49

community? These questions investigate the why and the how behind communities formation and operation. They are also suggestive of the inter-disciplinary approach that needs to be adopted since similar inquiries draw from diverse disciplines including psychology, sociology, and economics. Following this perspective, McDonald (2002) and Sandvig (2004) pinpoint to the theory of collective action (Olson, 1965) as a suitable framework for picturing the complexities involved in member mobilization and cooperation in a wireless community. In sum, a closer look on the literature collected through the process described earlier in this chapter indicates six different research directions building up a roadmap for studying wireless communities. Table 2.3 summarizes the delineated directions and corresponding research questions.
Table 2.3: A Research Agenda for Studying Wireless Communities A Research Agenda for Studying Wireless Communities Technological Innovation Can wireless communities be considered as innovation institutions following the tradition of user communities and user-driven innovation models? What are the consequences of such innovation model to wireless technologies evolution? Managing Shared Network Resources Will the measures needed to manage shared network resources be hardwired in equipment, embedded in network communication protocols, or fabricated onto the social web of ties and norms directing member behavior within the community? Updated Industry Analysis Has there been a shift in wireless communities positioning and power within the wireless industry when compared to early assessments implying that the phenomenon is destined to fade away? Evolution of the Wireless Communication Grid Is decentralized communication network development a significant alternative to the traditional, centrally-driven communication systems that have historically prevailed? The Social Impact of Wireless Communities Is there room for wireless communities to assume an active role in technology-induced social enlargement initiatives? What lines of action are considered relevant? Wireless Communities as an Innovative Organizational Form What are the incentive systems mobilizing and upholding individual involvement with a wireless community? How are individuals with potentially deviating incentive systems cooperating to support the operation of the wireless community?

50

2.4 A Research Opportunity

The literature categorization, as well as the resulting research agenda, implies a two-level study of the wireless community phenomenon: one focusing on its inner, structural characteristics that shape its organizational uniqueness and one addressing its impact on the surrounding environment, including dimensions such as technological evolution, industry structure, social enlargement, and communication systems development. Nevertheless, the second approach has received greater attention from the research community though it is our position that, without knowing the inner features and the way wireless communities are mobilized, organized, and coordinated, it is more difficult to determine with certainty and plausibility the way they can influence the environment. Hence, this research adopts a usercentric perspective and anchors on the study of the defining and distinctive characteristics of wireless communities as an essential step for understanding their positioning within a broader market, technology, regulatory, or societal space. Re-examining the research questions postulated in the final building block of the research agenda, it appears that individuals engage in a layered system of behaviors when it comes to their participation in a wireless community. At the first level, an individual needs to be properly motivated to participate in a wireless community, or, in other words to perceive that certain valuable benefits would be delivered to him. At the same time, one needs to weigh potential costs for becoming involved with a wireless community project, such as investment in effort and equipment. Combining benefits and costs in an economic-like decision making process mobilizes ones involvement with the community; nevertheless, the process remains latent to ensure the continuity (or discontinuity) of ones involvement. In addition, one needs to choose a contribution level to the community resources, which are shared and available for consumption by all community members. At this point, his actions impact and are impacted by others actions, as well as by the nature of ties and behavioral norms developed within the community, to create a second level of interacting behaviors. The growth and potential survivability of wireless communities are contingent upon the nature of these interactions to suggest that apart from individual characteristics, group characteristics and dynamics are also important. Figure 2.3 decomposes the inner properties of wireless communities that provide the basis for our inquiry to be elaborated on the following chapters.

51

Motives

Contribution Community Growth and Survivability

Costs

Consumption

Figure 2.3: Decomposing the Inner Properties of Wireless Communities

The description above underlines the complexities involved in organizing viable wireless communities. This research seeks to uncover the nature of these complexities and provide comprehensive arguments on the trajectories available to wireless communities. In doing so, it adopts the collective action approach, already discussed but not exploited in the wireless community literature, as the most suitable for analyzing situations where both individual and group behaviors are of interest. In particular, collective action provides a solid theoretical background for unfolding the multiple dimensions of wireless communities as described in Chapter 1 (section 1.4), since it is a theory that has been successfully introduced in various studies of community forms, including technology-related ones, and is capable of addressing social, economic, as well as organizational research concerns that emerge when individuals cooperate to achieve a shared goal or mutual interest (the following chapter details the theoretical cornerstones of collective action and provides an overview of its recent, as well as not so recent, applications). Hence, collective action fits to the multilayered perspective on wireless communities, which was proposed earlier as topical for understanding the inherent particularities of the wireless community phenomenon, and will be applied to structure an analytical framework for the investigation of the characteristics presented in Figure 2.3. Focusing on the user side of the wireless community phenomenon, the core of our study addresses wireless communities as a distinct organizational form, the growth of which is determined by member characteristics and interactions, while, it views the remaining elements of the agenda as peripheral dimensions of the overall inquiry. In addition, our approach recognizes the lack of empirical data regarding the behaviors and perceptions of wireless community members, since researchers have mostly based their assertions on the phenomenon on case studies (e.g. Auray et al., 2003; Sandvig, 2004; Sandvig, 2005) or anecdotal evidence originating from their experiences with the wireless community movement (e.g. Schmidt & Townsend, 2003). Hence, our research sets off to uncover the distinctive structural characteristics of wireless communities through empirically informing our understanding of the collective action mechanics driving participation and fostering

52

cooperation in a wireless community. The following chapters detail the strategy applied for achieving this goal starting from the assembly of a suitable and solid theoretical framework based on the premises of collective action to be presented in Chapter 3.

53

3 Theoretical Framing
Insofar, the literature review process has portrayed wireless communities as a unique organizational form that brings at the forefront of the telecommunications industry the role of end-users in shaping the uses and applications of a new technology beyond what was originally conceived by its developers. As such, they present a challenging research topic that creates opportunities for interdisciplinary synergies to craft our understanding of complex technology-augmented contemporary phenomena. Anchoring on the latter observation, this thesis proposes the study of wireless communities under the umbrella of collective action theory. The following paragraphs detail the conceptual framing of wireless communities based on the theorys cornerstones to wind up with the formulation of key research questions aiming at shedding light on the phenomenons properties. Hence, the chapter is organized in the following way: First, it introduces the fundamental premises of collective action theory and its position within a broader socio-economic portfolio of theories for explaining human behavior in group settings (section 3.1). Second, it reviews the evolution in some of the theorys pillars and its role in explaining technology-induced or technology-augmented collective action initiatives to further underpin its suitability in the wireless community context (section 3.2). Third, it extends the scope of collective action to wireless communities by elaborating on the nature of the good provisioned through them (section 3.3). Fourth, it investigates the fit between wireless communities and collective action by juxtaposing the theorys predictions against the wireless community context to provide a holistic description of the phenomenon under its theoretical lens (section 3.4). Finally, it summarizes the theoretical grounding of wireless communities to collective action by offering a relevant conceptual framework and germane research questions to guide further empirical research and assess the theorys explanatory capacity in novel domains, including wireless communities (section 3.5).

3.1 Collective Action, Public Goods, and Social Dilemmas

Collective action represents a theoretical strand holding explanatory capacity with regards to the mechanics developed when individuals organize to further their common interests. As such, the theory concerns researchers in a variety of fields, including economics (Olson, 1965; Samuleson, 1954), sociology (Oliver, 1993; Marwell & Oliver, 1993), political science

54

(Chamberlin, 1974; Hardin, 1982), and communication (Connoly & Thorn, 1990; Markus, 1990). Over the years, it has provided insights into a wide array of phenomena falling within the reference domain of the aforementioned disciplines. Amongst these studies, the work of Olson (1965) has been widely recognized as a keystone for our understanding of individual and group behavior in collective action cases as well as their dynamic interaction with regards to the actions evolution. In his Logic of Collective Action, Olson (1965) proclaims that groups of individuals with common interests are expected to act on behalf of their common interests much as single individuals are often expected to act on behalf of their personal interests. In addition, he offers a multi-disciplinary treatment of collective action and regards it as having significant role in political science (for example, in labor union organization), in sociological and organizational studies (by placing emphasis on groups and organizations as a formal mode for organizing group actions), over and beyond its treatment in the economics field, where the emergence of collective actions is challenged by the selfinterested, economic view on human behavior. As such, Olsons elaboration on the nature of decisions and attitudes involved in the evolution of collective action has paved the way for its assimilation as a valuable framework for explaining human behavior by researchers in various domains. In particular, economists refer to collective action to describe activities that require effort coordination by two or more individuals whose decisions to join in the action reside on a rational calculus of their expected utility from participating (Cornes & Sandler, 1996). Social scientists agree on a core definition of collective action as a common or shared interest among a group of people (Oliver, 1993) or describe it as a set of social practices that can allow the emergence of social movements (Melluci, 1996). Incorporating a social psychology perspective urges the examination of the attitudes and resources deriving when individuals see themselves as members of networked groups, while the exchange of messages between people in these groups underpins the communicative nature of collective action (Flanagin et al., 2006). Hence, collective action is an intriguing topic that has yielded, over the years, a vivid discourse amongst researchers on the conditions and the regularity with which collective actions emerge and succeed. The major contribution of collective action theory lies in its application for explaining a mode of production that is referred to as the private provision of public goods. Falling within an economic course of thinking, the private provision of public goods emerges in cases where groups of individuals are better positioned to provide a public good than governments or any other market or price-based mechanism (Myles, 1995). These cases usually require crucial information about individuals needs, behaviors, and capacities that is only known within

55

them (Bowles & Gintis, 2002), or surface in the absence of market alternatives to satisfy an extant demand (Hardin, 1982). In such case, the provision of the public good is accomplished through voluntary contributions of privately-owned goods and resources by individuals. Thus, it becomes topical to illuminate the notion of a public good. In economics literature, goods are distinguished based on two properties: excludability in provision (no-one can be excluded from using the good) and rivalry in consumption (one persons consumption does not reduce the amount available to anyone else) (Hardin, 1982). Absence or existence of both properties leads to a one-dimensional categorization of goods between two ends; public goods are non-excludable and non-rivalry (e.g. air, forestry) and stand on the one end, while private goods are both excludable and rivalry and stand on the other end (i.e. market products). Nevertheless, reality checks show that public goods are, in fact, an ideal representation. Consequently, there are various permutations for goods in between the two ends of the aforementioned spectrum, which, in turn, are termed impure public goods. A stricter taxonomy of goods denotes four classes of goods: public, private, club, and common or collective goods. Club goods are excludable (an exclusion mechanism is employed to deter individuals from consuming them) but partially non-rival (Cornes & Sandler, 1996), while common goods suffer from congestion (for example, roads and highways suffer from traffic), which results to rivalry in their consumption. Mechanisms for the provision of goods include markets (best suited for private goods), governments (best suited for public goods), and collective action for all but private goods (Cornes & Sandler, 1996). Figure 3.1 summarizes the four classes of goods by placing them on a two-dimensional map.

excludability

Club Goods

Private Goods

nonexcludability

Public Goods

Collective Goods

non-rivalry

rivalry

Figure 3.1: The Goods Landscape

56

Prior economic research has attested the existence of a number of challenges for privately provided public goods, namely problems of under- or sub-optimal provision and overexploitation (Olson, 1965; Cornes & Sandler, 1996; Myles, 1995). Economic theorists attribute them to pure human nature that is guided by self-interest: people would normally find it against personal interest to contribute for a common interest (Olson, 1965; Cornes & Sandler, 1996). In other words, individuals are not provided with a sound incentive to contribute to collective action though the outcome of the action would leave them better off (Olson, 1965). This juxtaposition between individual rationality and collective irrationality creates the so-called social dilemma (Kollock, 1998). Social dilemmas underlie a host of societal problems involving publicly shared goods and resources in terms of both undersupply and overconsumption (Kalman et al., 2002), thus making them a useful tool for the canonic representation of many real-life situations (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002), e.g. voluntary action and volunteering (Diekman, 1985; Murninghan et al., 1993). Perhaps, the most famous work illustrating how the lack of incentives creates a Tragedy of the Commons was published by Hardin (1968), who described the challenges presented to a group of herders having open access to a shared property where they can let their cows graze. Olson, in his theoretical discourse, discusses dilemmas by calling attention to the intrinsic difficulty of mobilizing collective action. At the initialization of any collective action initiative, a start-up dilemma arises that can be overcome by the existence of a privileged group or, in other words, by properly motivated and resourceful individuals forming the critical mass needed to set off the action (Oliver et al., 1985). During the actions growth, its potentials are jeopardized due to the emergence of the free-rider dilemma. Free-riding is a natural consequence of a goods non-excludable nature and illustrates a situation of exploitation of the great by the small (Olson, 1965): free-riding encompasses the dynamics created when an individual exhibits the tendency to exploit what others have contributed without contributing himself. In a more illustrative turn of phrase, when others are expected to contribute for the provision of a public good, an individual is happy not to contribute (Myatt & Wallace, 2002). Free-riding is a solid threat to the sustained existence of any collective action initiative since it can be the optimal behavioral choice for individuals, especially when the collective grows in size. In fact, size is considered a critical factor for the success of collective action projects as scrutinized by Olson (1965). In his argumentation, group size influences collective action in three ways: first, larger groups would be less likely to achieve collective action at all; second, the overall level of collective provision would be lower for larger groups that did achieve collective action; and third, the degree of sub-optimality in collective provision would

57

increase with group size due to problematic coordination and the reduced visibility of individual contributions, all of which encourage free-riding tendencies. Hence, Olson winds up by proposing that small groups are more efficient and viable than large ones. Nevertheless, there are two countermeasures that can be employed to deter free-riders: selective incentives, which provide private and excludable benefits enjoyed only by participants, and intervention from a recognized authority with the capacity to coerce individuals into maintaining their contribution. Though Olsons assertions regarding the size issue appear to be valid in numerous cases, they have fired up an interesting debate among scholars summarized in the words of Hardin (1982), who stated that the problem of size is the most controversial issue in the contemporary literature on collective action. Thus, the theory of collective action has been revisited by researchers in various fields who have furthered our understanding on its ability to explain how individuals mobilize and cooperate to achieve their common interests.

3.2 Collective Action Revisited

Olsons seminal work on collective action has received practically equal amounts of credit and critique over the years. Oliver (1993) summarizes the points in Olsons theorization that have been put under scrutiny by scholars, all of whom pinpoint that the relationship between size and collective action growth and success is not as explicit as proposed by Olson but lingers on a number of contingencies. Picking up from the possibility for a non-linear effect of size on collective action, Critical Mass Theory (Oliver et al., 1985; Oliver & Marwell, 1988; Marwell et al., 1988; Marwell & Oliver, 1993) offers a comprehensive treatment of the particularities that need to be taken into account when predicting the evolution of any collective action project. In particular, Critical Mass Theory identifies more than one factors that collectively influence the emergence and sustained existence of collective action initiatives. First, the form of the production function (i.e. accelerating vs. decelerating) informs the severity of the start-up and the free-rider dilemmas (Oliver et al., 1985). For example, in cases of accelerating production functions, the action is hard to take off but once set off free-riding is not a major concern because the value of the good produced increases with the number of people participating. In such scenario, the critical mass, being the collective of individuals behaving differently from typical group members, is necessary to pay the start-up costs and induce widespread collective action. However, in cases of decelerating production functions, the situation is reversed and the critical mass ensures the long-term provision of the good in the presence of

58

non-contributors who make free-riding a sizeable threat. Second, the critical mass of participants needed to initiate collective action is more probable to exist in cases of increased interest and resource heterogeneity among possible constituents (Oliver et al., 1985). Though interest heterogeneity has been explored by Olson in his assertion regarding the exploitation of the great by the small, which describes the difference in participation in a collective action due to varying degrees of interest, resource heterogeneity has received less attention even though resource scarcity is a major inhibitor for participating in collective action projects, especially non-business oriented ones (Oliver et al., 1985). Third, the costs incurred for participating in collective action add to the complexity of the group size effect and its contingency on interest and resource heterogeneity (Oliver & Marwell, 1988). Finally, the social morphology of the action, as illustrated by the density and centralization of the ties found within its related social network, influences the progress of the action positively by establishing cooperation as a habit of behaviour (Marwell et al., 1988). Overall, the introduction of Critical Mass Theory and its acceptance as a compelling collection of assertions explaining collective action in numerous contexts (Oliver & Marwell, 2001) has shown that the theory of collective action should not be treated as static but as continuously evolving under the light of updated theoretical and empirical evidence as well as emerging real-life scenarios. A swath of such real-life scenarios originates in modern ICT (Information and Communication Technologies) augmented environments. Since the early 1990s, researchers have delved into understanding the diversity of forms and dynamics that collective action has revealed in conjunction with technological developments (Flanagin et al., 2006). In doing so, the boundaries of collective action have been stretched to cover contemporary technologyinduced phenomena including interactive communication systems (e.g. Fulk et al., 1996), inter-organizational information and communication systems (e.g. Monge et al., 1998), online communities (e.g. Kollock, 1999), database-mediated collaboration (e.g. Kalman et al., 2002), open source software (e.g. von Hippel & von Krogh, 2003; Bonnacorsi & Rossi, 2003), organizational information commons (e.g. Fulk et al., 2004), and electronic networks of practice (e.g. Wasko et al., 2004). These recent advances showcase the transferability of collective action from the physical to a technology-mediated environment (for example, virtual communities or electronic networks of practice extend the scope of their physical counterparts to a networked context) and its ability to explain the mechanics involved in the private provision of digital not physical goods or artifacts, like open source software code or online information commons, grouped under the labels of connective or communal information and communication goods (Fulk et al., 1996).

59

The evolutionary approach to collective action has yielded some interesting insights regarding the deconstruction and subsequent reconstruction of its fundamental premises as proclaimed by Olson: the necessary condition for collective action imposes that a group must be small (the size issue) or able to coerce its members or able to provide sufficient selective incentives to contributors (Lupia & Sin, 2003). The revisiting is essential due to the digital nature of the goods under scrutiny, the production process of which is not subject to the same dynamics as material goods, which were the original targets of collective action theory. In particular, digitization introduces divisibility as a defining element of the respective goods, something that has a profound impact on both the level and the process of production. Production levels are perpetual and depend on individual valuations of the good produced, while the good does not need to be completely produced to be consumed, rather use can occur during production as well. These particularities are especially relevant to information goods, since different types of information have different saliency and value to different persons (Fulk et al., 2004). Further complexities are imposed due to the fact that use of a communication good can be equivalent to contribution (Fulk et al., 1996) or that digital information goods can be easily reproduced so that their ownership is never fully transferred from the private to the public domain of the collective e.g. an individual can contribute knowledge to an information commons but remains the owner of this piece of information and can apply it in alternative uses as well (Fulk et al., 2004; Bimber et al., 2005; Flanagin et al., 2006). All the above imply that evaluating of the costs and benefits from participating in a collective action becomes a more subjective process than it was with traditional material goods. The process is further complicated by the experiential nature of the goods: some of the costs and benefits can only be discerned after using the good and not a priori (Fulk et al., 2004) and this complexity is not found in purely physical goods (Fulk et al., 1996). Although the aforementioned description of modern ICT-related collective actions indicates certain amount of complexity introduced in individual decisions to participate or not, researchers are fairly optimistic regarding the outcome of such projects (Lupia & Sin, 2003; Bimber et al., 2005; Flanagin et al., 2006). Their optimism stems from the fact that these collective actions emerge in technology-augmented environments with built-in communication means that are efficient and effective even for large group sizes. Thus, one of Olsons primary concerns regarding the arising of coordination problems with increases in group size is alleviated due to the establishment of advanced, synchronous as well as asynchronous, communication mechanisms, such as online boards, discussion fora, and emailing, that allow participants to collaborate and organize their actions. The combination of these factors digital nature of the goods and technology-enhanced communication capabilities results to the relaxation of two conventional menaces, namely the threat of free-

60

riding and the need for formal organization (coercion in Olsons theorization) to coordinate scattered community members as the collective grows in size (Lupia & Sin, 2003; Bimber et al., 2005; Flanagin et al., 2006). Free-riding is eliminated by no longer being outburst as the result of a binary decision making process on behalf of participants. The decision to free-ride or not transforms to an individuals level of commitment to shift private resources from the private to the public domain; nevertheless, one does not relinquish power over them, as already discussed in the previous paragraph (Bimber et al., 2005). In addition, pure free-riding becomes obsolete and difficult to manifest and, thus, to detect when use of a good is equivalent to contribution as is the case with communicative in nature goods (Fulk et al., 1996; 2004). The propensity to free-ride is further reduced due to two reasons: using the good affords firing contribution levels and increased individual action visibility serves as a deterrent for non-contributory behaviours (Fulk et al., 1996; 2004; Flanagin et al., 2006). Finally, the need for coercion is substituted by self-organization tactics, the emergence of which is facilitated through the blending of both personal and impersonal interaction modes taking place over multiple digital communication channels (Flanagin et al., 2006). Overall, technology-induced collective action appears to be less distressed by traditional social dilemmas, but still resides on effectively mobilizing and committing its participants, thus making selective incentives the most important ingredient for a successful collective action. Figure 3.2 summarizes the highlights in the evolution of collective action theory starting from its framing by Olson at the intersection of economics, sociology, and political science and winding up to the recent modifications in the theorys cornerstones that account for its introduction as a compelling explanatory framework for the private provision of information and communication collective goods. The discussion on the origins of collective action theory and its subsequent interpretation under the light of technology-related goods and hosting environments offers legitimacy to the claim that wireless communities can, in fact, be scrutinized under its lens. The remaining part of the chapter details the collective action properties of wireless communities, starting up with describing the good produced by the efforts of wireless community enthusiasts and highlighting issues that call upon further inquiry regarding the mechanics that transform individual resources to publicly-enjoyed benefits. Ultimately, the portrayal of wireless communities as a case of modern collective action opens up further possibilities for testing its capacity in correlation to technological developments.

61

Highlight 1: Olson frames Collective Action theory

Two major cornerstones: - the size issue - free-riding is a sizeable threat that is overcome only if participants receive selective incentives or if they are coerced to collaboration

Highlight 2: Critical Mass Theory

Non-linear effect of size on collective action growth and success: - form of the production function - interest and resource heterogeneity - costs - social morphology

Highlight 3: Collective Action in ICTaugmented environments

Departure from material to digital connective and communal goods: - desired production level is not objective - complex production process due to good divisibility - resource contribution does not signify loss of ownership

Highlight 4: Collective Action Revisited

ICT-related collective actions can be effective and successful: - plethora of communication mechanisms efficient for large sizes - diminishing free-riding threat - self-organization instead of coercion

Figure 3.2: Highlights in the Evolution of Collective Action Theory

3.3 Wireless Communities as an Information and Communication Good

Wireless communities represent an innovative, user-driven model for the provision of WLAN infrastructure, information and communication services, as well as knowledge and expertise in the wireless realm. To support the operation of the community network, individual participants are expected to contribute their time, effort, and monetary resources to set up or connect to Access Points, share their knowledge and expertise, enrich the communitys web with valuable services, while, at the same time, they are offered a hybrid mode of social connectivity (physical in the form of face-to-face meetings; virtual over digital channels, such as discussion forums and VoIP telephony). Furthermore, the aggregation of individual contributions affords the capacity for producing a shared good that is, in turn, made available to all interested individuals.

62

Private resource contributions from wireless community participants result to the production of a heterogeneous good in the sense that it has several dimensions, both tangible and intangible, that are differently valuable to different individuals (Hardin, 1982). The primary dimension of this good consists of a wireless network infrastructure built through interconnecting privately-owned hotspots (or nodes), which accommodate multiple clients and host an array of web-like services. Thus, the first class of goods combines physical connectivity and digital service commons. Over and above it, the wireless community creates a second class of goods by providing social connectivity facilities through physical and virtual media and by pooling together the technical knowledge and expertise of its members. Such heterogeneity extends the connectivity-communality dipole proposed by Fulk et al. (1996) to embrace systems where users do not reside on existing infrastructures but build their own end-to-end communication network. Figure 3.3 illustrates the two classes of goods produced by the contributions of wireless community participants.

Social Connectivity

Knowledge and Expertise Commons

Second class of goods

Digital Service Commons

Physical Connectivity

First class of goods

Figure 3.3: The Two Wireless Community Good Classes

There are two important implications of the heterogeneous nature of the wireless community good and its networked foundation both for physical and social connectivity. First, not all participants share the same perception regarding the optimal level of production for each of its dimensions (Fulk et al., 2004). Hence, individual interests in participating in a wireless community may be diversified to produce different agendas regarding the evolution of its components. For example, someone may be more interested in seeing the community network geographically expanded, while someone else may be satisfied with an undersized but content-rich network. Second, the value of the community network emerges from its grassroots nature that derives from its gradual development over time and geographies. The community good is divisible in the sense that it cannot be produced as a whole, but can be

63

consumed irrespective of production level (Fulk et al., 2004). Thus, it complies with the dynamics of an accelerating production function. Furthermore, the good created within wireless communities deviates from the formal properties of pure public goods, namely non-rivalry in consumption and excludability in provision. Infrastructure connectivity and access to service commons do afford nonexcludability since access to community networks is generally open to all interested individuals, although it can be hindered by physical constraints (when potential participants do not find themselves within the vicinity of a network node). However, they suffer from a certain degree of rivalry in the consumption side due to bandwidth shortages and network capacity limits. Nevertheless, software and hardware advances (e.g. efficient routing protocols and sophisticated end-user equipment) promise to alleviate, at least to a certain degree, the effect of crowding. Social connectivity is only partially non-rival, since congestion in certain digital communication functions may occur, and also non-excludable, in that it rests within each individual to decide whether to participate or not (Fulk et al., 1996). Access to knowledge commons exhibits both non-excludability and non-rivalry, mainly due to their intangible nature (Wasko & Faraj, 2000). Hence, to be theoretically consistent, we refer to the wireless community good as an impure public or collective good. Good characteristics are further shaped by the degree of power/ownership loss over the resources contributed for their provision. Earlier research has pointed out that contributing intangible resources, such as knowledge, expertise, and information, cannot be compensated in concrete terms (Fulk et al., 2004). Furthermore, contributors may lose some control of these resources but they are still in possession of them and can employ them in alternative uses (Fulk et al., 2004). Wireless communities extend the latter assumption to tangible resources as well: an individual remains the owner of his equipment, may decide to withdraw it at any time and is accountable for its operation within the community network. Thus, resource ownership is never fully transferred from the individual to the community for both sides of the community good tangible and intangible. This finding decomposes the already porous boundaries between the public and private domain of modern collective action even further (Bimber et al., 2005; Flanagin et al., 2006). Following the discussion above, Table 3.1 summarizes the particularities of the wireless community good that need to be taken into account when interpreting its provision under the umbrella of collective action.

64

Table 3.1: Wireless Communities as an Information and Communication Good Dimension Heterogeneity Description Tangible and intangible components First class (tangible): physical connectivity, digital service commons Second class (intangible): social connectivity, knowledge pool Grassroots development, accelerating production function Impure public good: non-excludability and non-rivalry can be hindered by physical constraints Limited loss of power/ownership over both tangible and intangible resources contributed to the community

Divisibility Public Good Properties Power/Ownership Loss

3.4 Wireless Communities under the Lens of Collective Action Theory

Collective action, by referring to both individual and group behavior, is better analyzed under a layered approach, starting with its individual components before moving on to the collective and its structure. Researchers have adopted this approach and their enquiries have gradually focused from examining individual decisions to exploring group structure and within-group interactions (Oliver, 1993). Marwell and Oliver (1993) offer a structured perspective on collective action by delineating four topical dimensions in its study: a) good characteristics and production function; b) individual characteristics; c) group characteristics; and d) action processes or interdependencies. Having already investigated the properties of the wireless community good, the following paragraphs theorize on the remaining characteristics.

3.4.1

Individual Characteristics

At the individual level, the decision to participate in a wireless community is formulated as a cost-benefit calculation: individuals weigh their expectations for benefits from participating in collective action against the costs incurred due to the contribution of available, privately-held resources (Marwell & Oliver, 1993). Focusing on the benefit side of the equation, Olson (1965) proposes that individuals can be driven by a desire to win prestige, respect, friendship, and other social and psychological objectives. The multi-dimensional nature of the wireless community good emphasizes that participants are driven by expectations for varied benefits, similar to the ones proposes by Olson, but not uniformly distributed, since it is possible that not all individuals are equally interested in each good class (for example, someone may be more interested in the communitys learning commons rather than its social affiliation possibilities). In addition, what drives participation may be different from what

65

sustains involvement because some of the benefits arise only through experiencing the collective through time (Fulk et al., 2004). Consequently, motivation emerges as a fundamental concept for understanding the what and the why behind individual participation in a wireless community and its timely evolution. Furthermore, the motivational territory that needs to be examined goes beyond traditional economic rationality and calls upon redefining rationality within a socio-psychological frame (Gupta et al., 1997). Individual decisions to participate in a wireless community are also affected by the nature and magnitude of the costs incurred from the contribution of private resources. The heterogeneity of the wireless community good implies that costs are heterogeneous too, depending on whether they are accumulated through tangible (monetary expenses to purchase the wireless equipment) or intangible (time spent within the community in relation to other activities, information and knowledge publicized to other participants) resource contribution, with the former being more easily assessed than the latter. Furthermore, costs for participating in a highly technical activity, such as the wireless community, are contingent upon prior skill levels or, in other words, on the beforehand availability of resources (Marwell & Oliver 1993). Overall, the evaluation of costs is a personal and dynamic procedure (Fulk et al. 2004) the outcome of which is anticipated to influence the magnitude and persistence of participation in a wireless community.

3.4.2

Group Characteristics

At the group level, interest is shifted from individual characteristics, such as costs and motivation, to group characteristics and their fortitude to produce a good beneficiary to its stakeholders. At this level, we are interested in the processes that develop among participants and their degree of interdependence (Marwell & Oliver, 1993). Processes among participants develop in accordance to good dimensions: each participant is presented with a portfolio of activities to which he can participate (either through using them or contributing to providing them). However, his choice of participation level (i.e. intensity in usage or contribution) and orientation (i.e. which activity to pursue) is not solely dictated by personal preferences, but also emerges in conjunction to others choices that engage him in strategic interactions with other members. These interactions create interdependencies that assure the optimality or not in the production level of the community good. For example, the addition of a new member or the upgrade of an existing one is contingent upon another members network status and their willingness to cooperate to set-up the necessary link. Moreover, the provision of valuable content through the community web depends on individual contributions, and social

66

opportunities emerge due to members interactive participation in meetings, discussion fora, or other communication mechanisms.

3.4.3

Action Processes or Interdependencies

Interdependencies can be heightened when participants experiencing the community good are encouraged, under the effect of reciprocity (Monge et al., 1998) or feelings of connective efficacy (i.e. peoples beliefs that others would be willing and able to benefit from their contributions) (Kalman et al., 2002), to increase their level of contribution. As a result, collaboration levels augment and participants develop the habit of cooperation (Marwell et al., 1988; Kalman et al., 2002). In addition, the employment of several synchronous (e.g. face-to-face meetings, VoIP) and asynchronous communication mechanisms (e.g. online forum), which can be effective and efficient even for large collectives the members of which are geographically spread or even connected by loose ties (Constant et al., 1996; Lupia & Sin, 2003; Bimber et al., 2005; Flanagin et al., 2006), facilitates the establishment of cooperative attitudes on behalf of wireless community members. Hence, group dynamics, in the form of group characteristics and member interdependencies, are pivotal in assuring the coordination of individual efforts towards the production of the wireless community good at desirable levels. Under an evolutionary perspective, the designated properties of wireless community collective action are expected to impact its future dynamics, its sustainability and long-term viability, in two ways. First, the threat of free-riding diminishes due to the combined effect of wireless community good characteristics and the action processes among participants. Freeriding emerges when individuals adopt non-contributory behaviors while persisting on consuming the collective good. It is usually apparent in large groups, where actions become less noticeable and visible. In wireless communities, noticeability issues may alleviated through the use of multiple communication mechanisms and the implementation of network management techniques that allow the identification (and potential reprimand) of abusive users. Furthermore, the heterogeneity of the wireless community good alters the traditional notion of a free-rider in two ways: an individual may be free-riding on one dimension but be an active contributor to another, while use can be equivalent to contribution. The latter is especially true for social connectivity activities or network building, where the addition of a new node expands the network although its owner may be only consuming online community services. In essence, the wireless community collective action exemplifies theoretical propositions regarding the relaxation of the binary nature of the decision to contribute or not

67

(Bimber et al., 2005) and demonstrates yet another case where the detection of free-riders is problematic since pure loafing is practically impossible (Fulk et al., 1996). Second, the requirement for formal organization or coercion to coordinate contributions and tackle with free-riding as the collective grows in size is expected to be relaxed. Formal organization was considered imperative since individuals in large collectives were not able to easily reach each other, cooperate, and make their contributions visible. Modern collectives, like wireless communities, apply more than one communication mechanisms, do not require dense social networks, and are not susceptible to detrimental free-riding behaviors. Consequently, wireless communities flourish within flexible and flattened organization schemes that promote participant autonomy and blend personal with impersonal modes of interaction (Lupia & Sin, 2003; Flanagin et al., 2006). In sum, framing wireless communities under the umbrella of collective action identifies four key properties to which further scrutiny is requisite: members motives for becoming involved with a wireless community, costs incurred for gaining access to the community and its services, processes developed over multiple good dimensions along with the associated interdependencies, and the communitys ability to sustain its existence under the influence of all the above. These characteristics can be summarized as reflecting the micro- and macrolevel properties of as the collective grows in size and their investigation is pivotal for our understanding of the way wireless community collective action is mobilized and organized.

3.5 A Framework for Analyzing Wireless Community Collective Action

Discussing the particularities of wireless communities under the premises of collective action theory has shown that several theoretical predictions can be formulated regarding the microand macro-level properties of wireless communities. Nevertheless, empirical evidence is requisite to confirm or confute these theorizations. To this end, we introduce a relevant conceptual framework assembling the key points in collective action theory that need to be scrutinized to address wireless communities and their operation mechanics. The framework incorporates the properties of the wireless community good since they directly affect the way wireless communities are organized at the individual and the collective level as already discussed in the previous paragraphs. It also adopts a layered structure suggesting that individual characteristics determine group properties, which, in turn, produce

68

interdependencies among members, to ultimately impact the sustainability potentials of wireless communities. In particular, individual characteristics encompass the motives and costs determining an individuals decision process to participate in a wireless community or not. Driven by individual motive versus cost systems, wireless community members engage themselves in a series of processes corresponding to the activities available through the community network. Hence, group characteristics are shaped by the groups ability to produce a valuable good deriving from the aggregation of individual participation preferences in terms of intensity and orientation. Furthermore, the production of the wireless community good, as described in section 3.3, implies that individual and group characteristics intertwine to render the notion of participation more complex due to member interactions and interdependencies (action processes in Marwell and Olivers theorization). These dynamics, in turn, impact the level of free-riding and the way coordination is achieved beyond coercion: free-riding is not expected to be an optimal choice under the influence of collaborative norms, the habit of cooperation, and the nature of the wireless community good, whereas coordination resides on members self-organization. Ultimately, the combination of all factors determines the communitys sustainability and long-term viability.

Figure 3.4 illustrates the framework under which wireless community collective action is
studied. The framework can be further decomposed to a series of research questions exploring its building blocks (Table 3.2).

69

Sustainability

Individual characteristics Motivation and Cost profiles

Group characteristics The group is able to produce the good through its members participation preferences

Action Processes - collaboration instead of free-riding - coordination instead of formal organization

Good characteristics

Figure 3.4: A Framework for Analyzing Wireless Community Collective Action

Table 3.2: Research Questions for Investigating Wireless Community Collective Action Collective Action Dimension Individual Characteristics Group Characteristics Action Processes (Interdependencies) Research Questions What are the motivation profiles of wireless community members? What are the cost structures of wireless community members? What participatory preferences are exhibited by wireless community members with regards to the processes supporting the operation of a wireless community? Is free-riding a compelling threat? If not, how is it overcome? How is coordination among wireless community members achieved?

Under what combination of individual and group characteristics as well as action process, is the wireless community sustainable in the longterm (if any)?

70

Beyond providing answers that will enhance our understanding of the wireless community phenomenon, these research questions are also expected to further investigate the validity of discussing wireless communities under the umbrella of collective action theory. In other words, the research presented in this thesis contributes to the ongoing discourse regarding the role of collective action theory in explaining technology-augmented phenomena. The discussion was initiated by researchers investigating various forms of user-supported information and communication systems within and beyond organizational boundaries (e.g. Monge et al., 1998; Fulk et al., 1996; 2004). It was then fired up due to the momentum achieved by user-driven digital good production initiatives, especially the growth and sway of virtual communities (e.g. Kollock, 1999; Rheingold, 1993) Open Source Software communities (e.g. von Hippel & von Krogh, 2003; Bonaccorsi & Rossi, 2003). Similar userdriven movements are constantly emerging in the ICT field but with unsure success potentials. Understanding their collective action mechanics will be valuable for assuring that their constituents are able to reap the associated benefits. There are two dimensions along which this research addresses the explanatory power of collective action theory in conjunction with technological developments. First, it advances its applicability to the provision of a complex, multi-faceted information and communication good that departs from all good classes that have been put under scrutiny so far. Second, it seeks to provide confirmation to the theorys recent modifications regarding the alleviating threat of free-riding and the nature of coordination occurring among members. Ultimately, the research documents a novel application domain for collective action theory, the particularities of which bear the capacity to alter the dynamics of the actions components and their impact on its viability. The following chapters detail the empirical research designed and carried out along with its findings regarding the postulated research questions and their implications for the update of extant knowledge on wireless communities and modern collective action.

71

4 Research Design
The practice of research is structured around three cornerstones: the posing of appropriate questions for uncovering the dynamics of a newly emerged or latent phenomenon, the design and execution of a suitable research protocol for collecting answers to the questions posed, and finally, the interpretation of the answers collected under the light of extant theoretical and empirical knowledge. Having delineated the research questions that are germane for shedding light on the dynamics of wireless communities under the umbrella of collective action theory, the scope of the following paragraphs is to outline the mechanics through which answers to the postulated questions were sought. In doing so, the chapter is organized in the following way: First, it discusses the main elements that need to be taken into consideration while sketching a research design with the capacity to provide compelling answers to the proposed research questions. The discussion ends up by delineating a multi-method research design to be further analyzed next (section 4.1). Second, it decomposes the research strategy for performing the first part of the research design, namely exploratory qualitative interviews with wireless community members and prospects (section 4.2). Third, it outlines the mechanics for conducting the second part of the research design, a survey addressing wireless community members (section 4.3). Finally, it describes the conduct of a second round of qualitative research wrapping up the collection and interpretation of empirical data from wireless communities (section 4.4).

4.1 Combining Methodologies through Triangulation

The investigation of open research questions surrounding an issue of interest requires careful planning on behalf of the researcher. The process of planning for the purposes of scientific inquiry is summarized in the steps included in what is called research design, or, in other words, the strategy employed for finding out the answers to the research questions at hand (Babbie, 1998). Research design is informed on the basis of the conceptual framework describing the phenomenon as well as the underlying purposes of the research, usually a combination of exploration (of a new interest or subject), description (of situations or events), and explanation (Babbie, 1998). Having formulated the appropriate research questions for

72

shedding light on the phenomenon under study, there are three critical elements in the orchestration of the research design: the selection of the unit of analysis (i.e. what or whom can be studied e.g. individuals, groups, organizations, or artifacts (Babbie, 1998)), the transformation of the concepts under investigation into measurable entities through the development of a suitable research instrument, and the selection of a data collection method.

Deriving from the context of this research, the wireless community itself constitutes the first level of analysis by representing a social grouping of common-minded individuals who are involved in building and using a technological artifact, a wireless network incorporating multiple dimensions beyond the mere delivery of digital content. Nevertheless, the collective action conceptualization of wireless communities shifts attention to the role of individual participants, both at a microscopic and a macroscopic level, and their impact on the emergence, growth, and sustained existence of the community collective. Hence, empirical data are to be sought from individual wireless community members under the premises of the ever-expanding collective action theory. To this end, individuals are to be researched in terms of their characteristics, their state of being within a wireless community, their attitudes and beliefs stemming from their participation in the community. The process of defining a suitable research instrument for extracting the empirical information needed to clarify the concepts that are of interest is contingent upon the data collection method. In general, there are two methodological subcultures from which the researcher can pull his preferred tactic for collecting empirical data: one professing the superiority of deep, rich, observational data, the qualitative approach, and the other the virtues of hard, generalizable survey data, the quantitative approach (Sieber, 1978). Qualitative research differentiates from its quantitative counterpart because it produces findings not arrived at by statistical procedures or other means of quantification (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Moreover, the purpose in quantitative studies is to examine relationships and test hypotheses between dependent and independent variables, whereas qualitative research entails making statements identifying the phenomenon under study (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Although the two methods seem to contradict each other in terms of the mechanics involved in their conduct and the nature of the findings arrived at, researchers concerns on how to overcome the pitfalls associated with each have promulgated their application in combination in what is referred to as triangulation (Webb et al., 1966; Denzin, 1978; Jick, 1979).

73

Triangulation exemplifies the complementarity of the two approached and can be performed for supplementary, informational, developmental, or other reasons (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Under the triangulation perspective, there can be back and forth interplay between the two procedures, with qualitative data affecting quantitative analysis and vice versa (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), to provide a thick, holistic description of the phenomenon under investigation (Jick, 1979). In general, qualitative research can be used to explore substantive areas about which little is known or as a means of validating quantitative data, whereas quantitative studies systematize the observational data acquired through qualitative means (Jick, 1979). Given the fact that wireless communities are relatively under-researched, especially when it comes to the collection and interpretation of empirical data, triangulation is an attractive methodological option that allows capitalizing on the merits of both procedures to enhance our understanding of the phenomenons collective action properties and dynamics. Having opted for the triangulation approach gives rise to scheduling issues which of the two methods should be applied first and why? particularly when one takes into consideration that significant contributions can be achieved both ways and across stages, as analyzed by Sieber (1978) and summarized in the table below (Table 4.1).
Table 4.1: Synergies between Qualitative and Quantitative Research (adapted from Sieber (1978)) Contribution of fieldwork to surveys Survey Design Scouting and gaining familiarity with the sample Survey Data Collection Pre-testing of the questionnaire for improvement; Acquiring knowledge of the population to gain legitimacy of the survey Survey Analysis Theoretical structure of the survey deriving from qualitative fieldwork; Construction of questionnaire items based on qualitative observations; Validation and interpretation of survey findings; Clarification of provocative or puzzling results Qualitative Data Analysis Verification of field interpretations; Casting of new light to field observations Contribution of surveys to fieldwork Fieldwork Design Identification of cases of interest either for generalizability or theory refinement purposes Fieldwork Data Collection Correction for the elite bias stemming from questioning selected informants; Information on overlooked subjects

As it can be seen from the table above, the fruitful integration of both data collection methods can empower the researcher at all stages, from the design to the analysis of the data collected. Fitting the purposes of this research, summarized in the quest for shedding light to a novel

74

research domain the understanding of which is supported by scarce empirical evidence, the interplay between the two methods was structured according to the following schedule: 1. Exploratory Qualitative Research using the interview approach 2. Survey Research applying a questionnaire instrument 3. Confirmatory Qualitative Research using the interview approach The mechanics for applying each of the methods are described in detail in the following sections.

4.2 Exploratory Qualitative Research

The need for conducting qualitative research under the exploratory frame of inquiry emerged early in the course of this research mainly due to the unavailability of extant empirical knowledge on wireless communities. This observation led to the decision to incorporate empirical research in the form of interviews as a complementary tactic to the literature review procedure to enhance the mounting understanding of the phenomenons properties and particularities and to receive topical idiosyncrasies that have not yet reached researchers documentations. In fact, qualitative interviews with wireless community informants were performed in a stepwise manner with each step corresponding to a milestone in the theoretical analysis and framing of the phenomenon. At each step, the purposes of the research were slightly differentiated depending on the outcome of the previous step and its correlation with theory. These variations were satisfied with the use of appropriately formulated research instruments, the tightness of which, with regards to the questions included, gradually elevated as the concepts became bounded by the context of wireless communities. Hence, the qualitative part of the empirical research was set off to satisfy two primary demands: First, to increase our familiarity with a newly emerged, under-explored phenomenon that has only recently drawn the attention of the research community. Second, to build up the ground for the orchestration, execution, and results interpretation of the second part of the empirical research as described in the left column of Table 4.1. To this end, seven interviews with wireless community members were performed over a period of nine months (October 2004 June 2005). The interviews were scheduled in three rounds each of which was organized around its own research agenda. Deciding on the exact number of interviews and the individuals participating in them was grounded on the theoretical sampling approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Following

75

this approach, sampling for qualitative research is not predetermined from the beginning of the research but evolves during the process and ends when theoretical saturation is achieved (i.e. the interviews do not generate new knowledge on the phenomenon at study) usually not more than eight respondents are sufficient (McCracken, 1988). In addition, the sampling process tried to identify and target the three instances that produce the greatest payoff for the qualitative researcher the typical, the exceptional, and the disconfirming cases since it is their combination that contributes to the depth and richness of qualitative data (Miles & Huberman, 1994). To help improve the reliability of the studies, relevant interview protocols were constructed (Yin, 1994) including various kinds of questions, such as non-directive, planned, category, or auto-driving prompts (McCracken, 1988) depending on the specific goals attached to each interview round. Figure 4.1 summarizes the steps in the exploratory qualitative study and their position within the research design of the thesis.

Rough Conceptual Framework based on Literature Review

The First Interview - Loosely-structured interview protocol - Exceptional community member

Tight Conceptual Framework based on Literature Review (continued) and Interview Findings

The Second Set of Interviews

- Theory-driven interview protocol - Typical community members

The Third Set of Interviews

- Theory-driven interview protocol - Non-typical community members

Survey Orchestration

Figure 4.1: Stages in the Exploratory Qualitative Study

The following paragraphs detail the conduct mechanics for each of the three interview rounds. Appendix A includes the list of participants to the interview process as well as the interview protocols employed.

4.2.1

The First Interview

The first interview was conducted early enough in the course of this research, in October 2004. At that time, the literature review process had already produced some interesting results. It had identified a series of germane research questions regarding the particularities of the wireless community phenomenon deriving from the ever-increasing interest on behalf of

76

the research community. It had also widened its perspective to accommodate the theory of collective action as articulated in economics and sociology and its role in the private provision of public goods. These interim literature review results had led to sketching of a rough conceptual framework built around the nature of the dilemmas involved in wireless community collective action and the means to overcome them. Thus, an opening interview was scheduled to provide support for the initial literature review findings regarding the organization and operation mechanics of wireless communities as well as for the tentative, at the time, association of the phenomenon to the premises of collective action. The orchestration of the first interview involved the construction of a suitable protocol and the selection of an appropriate informant capable of providing answers to the designated questions. Due to the immature stage of the research, it was decided that an exceptional wireless community member whose involvement with the community is long-lasting and noticeably active is needed to shed light on these early inquiries. In addition, the interview protocol was based on loosely-structured, exploratory, non-probing questions serving as a means for gently querying for information about the research questions and objectives (Alam, 2005) through encouraging the interviewee to articulate his own views and opinions regarding wireless communities. To this end, the interview opened with a grand-tour question (McCracken, 1988) asking the respondent to describe his experience with the wireless community in a detailed manner and then moved on to more specific questions relating to the activities performed within the community, the drivers and the inhibitors behind individual involvement, the evolution of the phenomenon over time as well as its future potential. Data collected through the first interview provided an updated view on the wireless community phenomenon stretching beyond the anecdotal evidence presented in the related literature that referred to other than the Greek cultural and socio-economic contexts. The data were also helpful as moderators for the remaining literature review procedure as they contributed in bounding the collective action territory of wireless communities and the properties of the good created by them. Finally, they provided legitimacy to the early assumptions regarding the role of motivation, interdependencies, and social dilemmas on the lifepath of a wireless community.

4.2.2

The Second Set of Interviews

The second round of qualitative research took place six months after the opening interview. During this six-month period, further theorizing on the collective action properties of wireless communities yielded a tighter conceptual framework pinpointing to four key concepts and

77

their interrelation, namely, motivation, costs, participation dynamics in the form of processes and interdependencies, and sustainability. Hence, at that point, the desire was to capitalize on the qualitative-quantitative synergies in terms of building the survey instrument, gaining legitimacy for its conduct, as well as providing early evidence for the articulated research questions. To serve these purposes, the interview protocol employed was different from the one used in the first interview, mainly due to the stricter conceptual bounding of wireless communities and the explicit formulation of the research questions. Hence, it was largely inspired by the collective action umbrella under which wireless communities are investigated in this research and in particular by the need to scrutinize motivation, costs, and participation dynamics as topical predictors of the sustainability of the wireless community phenomenon. Beyond the opening, grand-tour question, it included category questions accounting for the key concepts under investigation as well as planned prompts (repeating key terms regarding motives, costs, participation, and prospective involvement to extract reactions from interviewees) (McCracken, 1988). Furthermore, to avoid any kind of bias directing interviewees to the desired answer, questions were phrased in a neutral way and the implementation of the protocol was flexible enough to accommodate deviations in terms of question sequence as well as allow participants with more eloquence to express themselves (Eisenhardt, 1989). Sampling for this round of interviews tried to identify cases of interest due to the richness of information contained in them that would allow capturing the phenomenons full breadth. The process started with a typical wireless community member and then continued with the remaining interviews taking place during a community meeting where it was possible to select informants based on their experience and role within the community as well as their demographic profile in terms of age and educational or occupational background. Three more interviews were conducted during the meeting to complete this stage of empirical research. All four interviews took place in a one-month period, from March to April 2005. Analysis and interpretation of the data collected through this second extended round of interviews were conducted using the N6 Software for Qualitative Research and applied the coding approach (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Codes are tags or labels for assigning units of meaning to the descriptive or inferential information compiled during a study and are attached to chunks of varying size. Codes are created from a start-list prior to fieldwork to reflect the concepts under study as such, they need to have a coherent structure and correspond to the same operational definitions as the underlying concepts do.

78

They can also be revised during analysis in terms of their conceptual reference or bridged to create new codes, whereas emerging codes may surface as well. Following this methodological approach, extracts from the interviews were mapped to carefully predetermined codes or categories reflecting the main dimensions and sub-dimensions of the conceptual framework. This analytical process provided confirmation to the proposed conceptual framework, especially with regards to clarifying how the delineated concepts fit the wireless community context. Furthermore, the results of the analysis were also exploited during the construction of the survey instrument as detailed in the next chapter.

4.2.3

The Third Set of Interviews

Soon after conducting the second round of interviews and the analysis and interpretation of the collected data, a third round was orchestrated with the aim to collect personal experiences from non-typical cases that were not interviewed during the first two rounds. Non-typical or disconfirming cases in the context of this research include individuals detached from the community movement, either non-participating or participating with mediocre enthusiasm, especially when compared to the ones already interviewed. To this end, two final interviews were conducted in May 2005; the first of them addressed a non-community member who nevertheless regards wireless communities as an important vehicle for the diffusion of wireless broadband technologies to larger audiences, while the second one involved a less active community member. The underlying aim of this part of the qualitative research was to test the boundaries of the proposed conceptual framework in terms of its capacity to host polar cases. Hence, the same interview protocol was used and data examination was performed using the same coding schema.

4.3 Survey Research

The second part of the empirical research sought the collection of generalizable data on behalf of wireless community members with regards to answering the research questions posed in the previous chapter. To this end, the quantitative study was structured according to a tight research agenda including the following milestones: i. Development of a model showcasing relevant concepts and their inter-relation based on the refined conceptual territories for motivation, costs, participation, and sustainability as derived from the fruitful integration of interview and literature review findings.

79

ii.

Transformation of the general concepts delineated in the model to specific, measurable indicators or variables so that systematic observations of the theoretical representations could be collected. The process, also known as operationalization (Babbie, 1998)), involved reviewing studies examining similar concepts and ideas and integrating them into the wireless community context with the aid of interview findings. At the end, a questionnaire-like measurement instrument addressing wireless community members was constructed.

iii.

Proof-testing of the questionnaire instrument through pre-testing (i.e. initial testing of one or more aspects of the survey research design including drafting the questionnaire to a selected group of subjects (Babbie, 1998)) and pilot-testing (i.e. a miniaturized walk through of the entire study (Babbie, 1998)) This step is critical when new items are introduced or old ones are heavily revised (Summers, 2001).

iv.

Deciding on the sampling tactic and the delivery mechanism of the questionnaire to the informants. This step in the survey design process was particularly challenging mainly due to the absence of formal data documenting the exact number and distribution of wireless community members among the general population. In addition, the process of reaching out to community members and invite them to participate in this research was even more cumbersome, since potential respondents are scarce and scattered all over the country. Hence, these particularities introduced two important considerations to be taken into account when deciding on the sampling tactic. First, it is not possible to distinguish between the notions of population, study population, and sampling frame as it is traditionally the case with empirical studies (Babbie, 1998); instead these three coincide to describe the aggregation of elements (sampling units) from which informants can be drawn to respond to the questionnaire. Second, the lack of knowledge on the number of wireless community members and the difficulty in tracing them among the population suggested that probability sampling, which is generally recommended as the most rigorous method for selecting a sample (Babbie, 1998), is not a plausible choice. Hence, we had to rely on a combination of non-probability sampling techniques, such as reliance on available subjects and snowball sampling (Babbie, 1998), to collect data from as many wireless community members as possible through advertising the survey and its purposes to all communities with which contact could be established. In addition, the survey was accessible through the Web to capitalize on community members documented familiarity with the Internet and facilitate its promotion. It took place in November 2005 and resulted to the collection of 106 responses from wireless community members all over Greece.

80

v.

Validation of the research instrument after conducting the survey to ensure that the data collected can provide compelling and justifiable answers to the underlying research questions. This process provides a high degree of confidence that the method selected is useful in the quest for scientific truth (Nunally, 1978) and is considered essential for rigorous research (Straub et al., 2004).

vi.

Application of the appropriate statistical techniques to extract solid answers shaping the properties of wireless communities under the research questions posed, i.e. cluster analysis, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), logistic regression analysis.

vii.

Interpretation of the statistical findings in terms of the questions asked, while also allowing for the possibility to extend in un-explored by the survey areas that are considered necessary to complement our understanding of wireless community collective action.

The orchestration details of the survey as well as the extraction and interpretation of answers to the research questions are presented according to the aforementioned agenda in the following chapter.

4.4 Confirmatory Qualitative Research

Following the conduct of the quantitative part of the empirical research and the interpretation of its results with regards to shedding light on wireless communities micro- and macro-level properties, it was decided that a second round of qualitative research would be useful in further clarifying the findings up until then. To this end, a second set of interviews with selected informants was scheduled fitting the research agenda presented below: i. Research Objective. The objective of this second round of qualitative research fell within the confirmatory approach in scientific inquiry; in other words, the primary aim was to provide additional support to the conjectures reached through the quantitative study and the statistical analyses of the data collected. Furthermore, the interpretation of the statistical findings under the light of the initial research questions and their correlation to the properties of wireless communities as envisaged in the related literature extended the original scope of the proposed research questions to new fields and issues of interest that were left un- or under-explored by the quantitative study. Hence, the interviews were organized with the aim to provide further explanations for the driving forces behind wireless communities and capture all possible dimensions in the dynamics of the movement, especially with regards to

81

its relationship and potential impact on its hosting technological and socio-economic environment. ii. Interview Protocol. The interview protocol was largely based on the findings reached through the quantitative part of the study, while also building on the characteristics of wireless communities as identified by the literature review process, especially the ones not fairly treated under the proposed research questions. In addition, the confirmatory perspective adopted in this research dictated the incorporation of tight, close-ended questions, properly phrased to include several prompts that would generate reactions by interviewees while also avoiding directing them to the desired answers. iii. Sampling. Selecting informants for the interviews was based on the premises of theoretical sampling described earlier in this chapter but relied on a different pool of wireless community members than the one employed during the first phase of the research. Furthermore, to increase confidence on the outcome of the research, evolving sampling followed a reputational case or snowball or chain selection tactic that involves selecting interviewees based on other informants recommendations and in relation to the objectives of the research (Miles & Huberman, 1994). In particular, each interviewee was requested to pinpoint to another community member with potentially deviating opinions or interesting thoughts on the community movement. Ultimately, five interviews were conducted in a two-month period (December 2006 January 2007), a number that is in line with experts suggestions (McCracken, 1988; Eisenhardt, 1989). iv. Analysis and Interpretation. Analysis of the qualitative data was conducted using the N6 Software for Qualitative Research and followed a pre-determined coding schema directly deriving from the objectives of the research that did not accommodate for the development of new codes; emerging codes were considered opportunities for further research beyond the scope of the current thesis. The organizing details for this part of the research, along with the findings generated through the careful screening of the interview data, are presented in Chapter 6.

4.5 Summary
In sum, the work presented in this thesis opted for a multi-method research design to capitalize on the documented synergies between both methods for collecting empirical data, namely the qualitative and the quantitative approach. The decision to integrate fieldwork and

82

survey tactics emerged naturally from the nature of the phenomenon under study: it is quite novel and largely under-explored when it comes to its empirical assessment and evaluation. Hence, both types of data were considered essential for providing a holistic view on wireless communities properties and their correlation to the premises of collective action. Figure 4.2 summarizes the integration of qualitative and quantitative research targeted at the provision of compelling answers to the postulated research questions and links together all the steps framing the inquiry (i.e. understanding the mechanics of wireless communities) that guides this research.

Conceptual Framework Literature Review Research Questions

Exploratory Qualitative Research

Understanding Wireless Community Collective Action

Quantitative Research

Confirmatory Qualitative Research

Figure 4.2: Research Design

83

5 Empirical Research Part I: Survey orchestration, statistical analyses, and findings interpretation
In line with the research design presented in the preceding chapter, the following paragraphs detail the integration of fieldwork to survey design and execution, discuss the empirical findings regarding the micro- and macro-level properties of wireless communities, and outline possible implications for the structuring and orchestration of modern technology-oriented collective actions. To this end, the chapter is organized in the following way: First, it decomposes a model consisting of relevant concepts, namely motivation, costs, and participation dynamics, to their dimensions in the context of wireless communities through a combination of theoretical reasoning and empirical evidence acquired during interviews with wireless community enthusiasts (section 5.1). Second, it summarizes the mechanics through which the model was transformed to a valid research instrument a questionnaire that was opened for responses through a web-based survey addressing wireless community members all over Greece (section 5.2). Third, it extrapolates answers regarding the micro and macro-level properties of wireless communities through performing statistical tests on the accumulated quantitative data (section 5.3). Finally, the chapter discusses the findings regarding motivation, cost, and participation dynamics focusing on how they can be accounted for in modern collective action (section 5.4).

5.1 Model development

The development of a research model is considered essential for the empirical investigation of the research questions postulated in Chapter 3 (Table 3.2). The model decomposes the key concepts of motivation and costs (illustrating individual characteristics), examines the multiple facets of participation and its correlation to group characteristics and interdependencies, and, finally, separates prospective involvement as a measure of sustainability. Bounding these concepts to the wireless community context relies on evidence from the literature review process and the exploratory qualitative research.

84

5.1.1

Motivation Essentials

The concept of motivation is very broad and in its simplest interpretation describes the state in which humans are moved to do something; in this sense, a person who is energized or activated towards an end is considered motivated, whereas someone who feels no impetus or inspiration to act is characterized as unmotivated (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). Motivation has been an object of scientific inquiry in a variety of disciplines: psychologists and sociologists stand in a suitable position to delve into the sources of motivation and its impact on the outcome of human behavior (for a review on the study of motivation in modern psychology refer to (Deci & Ryan, 2000)), whereas economists, in an ever increasing number of contributions, point that the typical homo economicus (the economic man whose actions are the result of rational, self-interested calculations) is a narrow-minded representation that needs to be enriched with socio-psychological traits to inspire economic as well as socio-political acts (Hirschleifer, 1985; Frey & Benz, 2002). The common ground in the multi-disciplinary treatment of motivation is its recognition as an important mediator in the process of transforming individual effort to a valued and beneficial outcome. As such, motivation has a role in numerous settings, including work (e.g. Osterloh et al., 2002; Amabile, 1993) and non-work related environments, like volunteerism (e.g. Clary & Snyder, 1999), socio-political movements (e.g. Klandermans, 1997) or learning (e.g. Ryan & Deci, 2000a). Furthermore, researchers in the Information Systems (IS) field have picked up its importance and transformed it to an influential constituent when studying the process of integrating innovative information and communication technologies into peoples everyday lives and routines (e.g. Davis et al., 1992; Igbaria et al., 1996; Venkatesh, 1999; 2000). To structure the investigation on wireless community participants motivation, we apply the classic intrinsic vs. extrinsic distinction as treated and analyzed in Deci and Ryans SelfDetermination Theory (SDT), a collection of theoretical as well as empirical tools that effectively explain human motivation within social contexts (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000b). The core of the theory lies on tying motivation to the satisfaction of innate human needs under the effect of social contextual conditions, all of which form an analytical framework for understanding individual goal pursuits and striving for achieving selfdetermination as a necessary requirement for happiness and well-being. Evolutionary work on SDT by Deci and Ryan has yielded an interesting development on the intrinsic-extrinsic classification schema that was soon followed up by other researchers: the relaxation of what was originally viewed as a dichotomy between intrinsic and extrinsic motives and its replacement with a motivation continuum that allows the two forms of motivation to interact in a more constructive than corruption (Deci, 1975; Lepper & Greene, 1978) or crowding out

85

(Frey, 1997) way. This is achieved through the processes of internalization and integration where individuals transform extrinsic regulations and rewards to personally endorsed values and mores (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). The discussion on the synergetic or competitive interaction of the various motivation facets is ongoing and has fired further developments with Frey (1997) and Lindenberg (2001) focusing on an aspect of human behavior that was largely under-explored by Deci and Ryan, namely normative or principle-based motivation. Their work led to the introduction of yet another motivation dimension, referred to as obligationbased intrinsic motivation. In sum, individual motivation for participation in a wireless community is best viewed as an array of diverse drivers that can be of intrinsic, extrinsic or obligation-based intrinsic nature. This view on motivation is consistent with the original collective action theorization (people are sometimes motivated by a desire to win prestige, respect, friendship, and other social and psychological objectives (Olson, 1965)), which suggests that the combination of these motivation dimensions establishes idiosyncratic motivation profiles amongst wireless community participants. Each of the dimensions is elaborated in the following paragraphs through a combination of theoretical insights and germane connotations elicited from wireless community enthusiasts.

5.1.1.1

Intrinsic Motivation

Individuals are intrinsically motivated towards participating in a wireless community when they receive inherent satisfaction due to the fun, novelty, or challenge entailed in their involvement (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In other words, the activity is undertaken because it is self-rewarding, a challenge beyond boredom (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975), and not as a means to an end. Since the ideal incentive scheme for intrinsic motivation is the contents of the activity itself, in the case of a wireless community, it is the technical dimension of involvement that affords the creation of intrinsic pleasure (Venkatesh, 2000; Agarwal & Karahanna, 2000). Relevant intrinsically-driven behaviors were manifested by wireless community members during the interviews. Interviewees pinpointed the technical challenge of setting up ones own wireless node and connecting it to the network as a source of gratification and immediate satisfaction that emerges not only during working for the project but, especially, when being able to see and control the outcome of ones intellectual work product: - ...the satisfaction that you derive when you are building something... creative, in other words, it is interesting, you receive some sort of gratification from achieving things and developing something 1

86

- ... the best way to learn something is by playing... when you combine learning with having fun then you have two very good ingredients... the key for success is to have fun 2 - ... because it is something you love, you work extensive hours... the discovery of a new technology is magic 3 - ...the participation in the voluntary network is interesting due to its technical challenge 4 Hence, a primary driver is the enjoyment derived by wireless community participants when they perceive their involvement as interesting, challenging, and intellectually stimulating. Nonetheless, pleasure from participating is also delivered to individuals while unconditionally (i.e. without expecting anything in return) sharing their private resources. This act of unreserved private resource sharing encapsulates the concept of altruism and altruistic actions have been documented as creating intrinsic satisfaction (Baumeister, 1982) and gratification from increasing others happiness and well-being (Marwell, 1982). In the wireless community case, altruism serves as an intrinsic motive when participants feel no reluctance to allow clients to access their homemade hotspots for clients (Damsgaard et al., 2006), to share excessive bandwidth (Benkler, 2002) or expertise (Sandvig, 2004), as well as to help others connect to the community network. Wireless community members who participated in the interview process expressed their altruistic inclinations in the following manner: - You are involved in something that is beyond personal interest, you work for the common interest... you derive personal satisfaction because you share with other people and contribute to a commonly held endeavor 5 - My mentality is centered on what I can offer to the network (instead of what I can get from it) 6 - I felt like offering (my experience and knowhow) 7 Theorizing on interviewees opinions on how the sharing of resources within the wireless community introduces community welfare concerns as part of individual interests revealed peripheral aspects of altruism, particularly its correlation with the akin, however far from fully matching, concept of gift-giving (Mauss, 1950). Gift-giving occurs in the presence of abundant resources (Raymond, 1999; Markus et al., 2000), contrary to altruism that can surface even in the presence of scarce resources on behalf of benefactors. Performing this action earns the giver feelings of sympathy or intrinsic satisfaction when living up to a moral commitment (Rose-Ackerman, 1988). However, when sharing is performed as a gift-giving practice, it usually implies anticipations for gift return (in the form of credit) to the giver from his beneficiaries; this expectation is not compatible with altruism in its absolute or pure form

87

but expressive of relative or impure altruism, where self-concern has a minor role in motivating an act too (Andreoni, 1990). This kind of behavior is further analyzed while scrutinizing alternative motivation dimensions, namely introjected regulation (an extrinsic motive) and obligation-based intrinsic motivation. The emergence and sustaining of intrinsic motivation is contingent upon the successful accomplishment of need satisfaction pursuits related to achieving sentiments of competence, autonomy, and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). In particular, the need for relatedness (the desire to feel connected to others) is heavily associated with actions that are social in nature and favor the formation of friendships and social relationships (Vallerand, 2000). Relatedness in the wireless community surfaces when the community, by delineating its boundaries from the outer world, elevates participants consciousness of kin, thus connecting them with each other and separating them from non-members (Wellman & Gulia, 1999; Bagozzi & Dholakia, 2002). This attribute can be found in both the physical and the virtual space of the wireless community and underlines its resemblance with former computer-mediated community forms: wireless communities encompass ... individuals experienced in communicating through computers 8. In addition, the opportunities for social connectivity emphasize the role of wireless communities in enhancing individual social networks and offering various social interaction possibilities (Sandvig, 2004). This role is in line with earlier observations regarding the impact of emerging information and communication technologies, like the Internet, on fulfilling social affiliation needs (Rheingold, 1993; Wellman et al., 1996), while it showcases how the innate need for companionship is an important determinant in individual choices for getting involved in endeavors beyond conventional lifestyles including hobbyist activities or volunteering acts. Hence, we hypothesize that the need for relatedness is a salient participation motive as evident in the following descriptions: - Most of the relationships developing within the community are friendly in nature 9 - The simplest thing that one can find is good company within his neighborhood, getting to know new people... (at physical meetings) there is conversation, there is opinion exchange... it is social in nature ... and that is something participants want... social interaction and group membership are interesting side-effects of participation 10 - ... the essence in the wireless community is the participation, the involvement, itself; the fact that beyond individual utilities, people get together, are more or less willing to cooperate, exchange opinions... 11 To wrap up, the intrinsic motivation portfolio of the wireless community participant consists of the pleasure derived due to getting involved with a challenging, technical in nature,

88

endeavor, the feelings of gratification generated when sharing resources in a non-egoistic way, and the opportunity for belonging to and socially interacting with a group of commonminded individuals. Such inherent benefits, tied to the development and sustained existence of the wireless community network, represent a form of selective incentives (Olson, 1965) and designate stable solutions to the social dilemmas involved in collective action (Kollock, 1998).

5.1.1.2

Extrinsic Motivation

Extrinsic motivation shifts the attention from the individual and his activity to the environment outside the activity, when the latter is performed for its instrumental value or as a means to attain some separable outcome (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). Extrinsic motives embody a functional perspective on motivation and are more aligned to an economic course of thinking (Frey, 1997). In SDT, extrinsic motives are classified along the ends of a continuum depending on their degree of autonomy support as a fundamental human need and, thus, on the extent to which they can be internalized (assimilated to the self) towards the intrinsic end of the motivation spectrum (Figure 5.1). To structure our argumentation on extrinsic motives driving individuals to participate in a wireless community, we adopt SDTs classification.

Extrinsic Motivation

Intrinsic Motivation

External Regulation

Introjected Regulation

Identified Regulation

Integrated Regulation

Autonomy supportive

Figure 5.1: Taxonomy of Motivation (adapted from (Ryan & Deci, 2000))

Beginning with the least autonomous extrinsic motive, external regulation acknowledges that some individuals may participate in a wireless community to satisfy an external demand, such as job requirements or punishment avoidance (Ryan & Connell, 1989), or obtain an externally imposed reward, like monetary compensation. This kind of behavior was not observed in any of the interviews (e.g. if you have in mind receiving monetary compensation for participating you dont even consider starting with it 12) to suggest that tangible rewards or rule-following demands should not be regarded as motivators for wireless community participants. Whether such attitude represents a typical behavioral principle remains to be empirically established.

89

Next to external regulation, introjected regulation describes participation targeted at enhancing feelings of worth when contributing to something of meaningful value or boosting individuals egos through establishing collegiate reputation and peer recognition within the wireless community. Wireless community pioneers Schmidt and Townsend (2003) consider this a relevant incentive scheme since they consider technical expertise as an integral part of wireless community enthusiasts identities that can bring to them personal benefits in the form of self-esteem and reputation. The pursuit of reputation results to anticipations for social approval, which, in turn, can have a role in supporting collective action when conceptualized as a social exchange process with social approval being the token of exchange (Gachter & Fehr, 1999). Building ones reputation within a structure of peers is closely related with perceptions of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986) and expectations that individual contributions will make a difference in the progress of collective action that will raise participants sense of self-worth. The importance of such mechanisms for relaying feelings of positive approval and satisfaction to individuals, due to the high quality or the expected impact of their contributions, has been long established in the open science mode of inquiry (Dalle & David, 2005) and further duplicated in various social structures, technology-related or not, to motivate and influence the direction of individual efforts (e.g. the application of online feedback mechanisms to facilitate the conduct of various e-business practices (Dellarocas, 2003)). Nevertheless, evidence from our interviewees contradict Schmidt and Townsends intuitive prediction regarding the effect of recognition on the motivation systems of wireless community participants since the relevant verbal nuances are limited; one interviewee only mentioned that there are people who matter most in the community, who have the greatest impact
13

. Thus, it would be quite interesting to seek further empirical evidence to shape

our understanding regarding the presence or absence of reputation-based or self-worth incentive mechanisms. A more autonomous form of extrinsic motivation is found within identified regulated behaviors that occur when individuals identify themselves with the personal importance of participating in a wireless community; however, the activity is still performed for its instrumentality and not for itself. Human capital theory (Becker, 1962) suggests that individuals, endowed with differing aptitudes and abilities, will strive to acquire additional knowledge and experience, whereas signaling theory (Spence, 1976) presumes that individuals showcase their education and experience to signal imperfectly observable productivity characteristics to current and future employers. For wireless communities, involvement in varied technical tasks can help an individual enhance personal capabilities, explore different career options, or develop professional contacts through the communitys social networking functions.

90

Early assessments of the phenomenon depict that although wireless communities offer a platform for experimentation on wireless technologies and the crafting of respective skills (Sandvig, 2004), the developing human capital is not heavily exploited for professional amelioration purposes (Auray et al., 2003). Interview findings, however, show that wireless community participants are more concerned with creating positive spillovers from the community to the workplace than initially thought. In addition, nearly all interviewees recognize the ability of wireless communities to transform to a pool of knowledge regarding wireless technologies and produce what Resnick (2005) refers to as sociotechnical capital: a form of capital created when Information Technologies (IT) help people connect with information and other people and share and exchange resources. - ... attitude towards experimentation and learning regarding an emergent technology ... creation of know-how through experimentation and knowledge exchange 14 - ... the experience that you acquire is valuable and I do not consider as undesirable using this experience for your personal promotion... I learn a great deal of things that are directly useful in my profession... you expose yourself to a dynamic environment of heterogeneous people working together for a particular reason and the way you evolve and develop within this set of people earns you important experience... getting to know people helps your profession 15 - ... applying theory in practice... and if we can apply this in our profession too it is even better...what you get is knowledge 16 - The community, though it does not deliver money, delivers experience and social connections than can bring business 17 - You earn from learning... that can benefit your professional life. I believe that just giving the opportunity to young people, who are now students, to learn and get involved with things that may be useful in the future is important 18 - ... the possibility of getting involved in learning about wireless networks 19 To elaborate on the dimensions of identified regulation, one needs to distinguish the process of learning from its expected outcome in the professional amelioration field. Learning in a wireless community is situated within a context of peers and enabled through various processes including face-to-face meetings, tutorials, or online help mechanisms. Drawing on the literature on communities of practice (e.g. Wenger, 1998; Brown & Duguid, 1991), learning in a wireless community involves what Schon (1983) described as knowing-inaction where knowledge is often tacit in the practice of and interactions among individuals who spontaneously or intuitively participate in the processes mentioned above. Thus, the

91

course of learning is capable of producing intrinsic satisfaction similar to the one produced when involved in a highly challenging and stimulating activity. Nevertheless, the input from the interviews provides limited support for re-positioning learning at the intrinsic end of the motivation continuum. Finally, the latter form of extrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, is theorized by Deci and Ryan as practically synonymous to intrinsic motivation, because it occurs as an expression of personal identities and values like altruism studied above.

5.1.1.3

Obligation-based Intrinsic Motivation

Obligation-based intrinsic motivation explains individual behavior steered on the feeling that one must follow a particular rule or norm of principle (Frey, 1997). Lindenberg (2001) states that obligation-based behavior emanates from the goal, acquired through socialization, to act appropriately, thus resulting in strong solidarity and a sense of community. The grassroots operation of wireless communities is attributed to individuals responding to normative rules that ascertain mutual and fair cooperation terms (Schmidt & Townsend, 2003; Damsgaard et al., 2006). Such behaviors are best described within the conceptual territory of reciprocity; reciprocity emerges when people have positive regard for the social system in which their behaviors are embedded and this regard may be based on personal experience either in the past or expectations for the future (Constant et al., 1996). Reciprocity ensures ongoing supportive exchanges (Shumaker & Brownell, 1984), helps group members learn to contribute to the common good by observing others contributions and the resulting rewards (Macy, 1990), and enhances the potential for successful collective action (Fehr & Gachter, 2000). Wireless community participants reciprocate the benefits they receive from others. This exchange is not necessarily targeted to ones direct benefactors; usually, it affects other community members who, in turn, exercise similar behaviours in a course of action that is labelled generalized reciprocity. Such behaviours are usually elicited over the course of a collective action through experience. Hence, reciprocity is expected to determine the way coordination is achieved amongst wireless community participants. - My reasoning is that since someone else has started doing something and you end up with enjoying the service he provides, you can do the same... in the beginning you cannot picture yourself as part of the group... you will feel part of the group because depending on what you get from the network you adapt your behaviour too... you feel like continuing this offering process so that what you learn you pass it on to others... 20

92

- ... cooperation levels multiply, not doubling but in higher order, because there is always help and people find each other instantly... what is the essence of every community? it holds a stick and passes it on to the next generation... 21 Reciprocity has an interesting position within the motivation agenda of wireless community members since it can influence and be influenced by both intrinsic and extrinsic motives. In particular, the reputation mechanism described as part of introjected regulation is fueled by reciprocal behaviors on behalf of community members: individuals learn to reciprocate partly because they observe the outcome of others contributions embodied in their reputation status within the community. Furthermore, reciprocity can have a role in strengthening the sharing of resources by inducing individuals to freely reveal their knowledge or home-made hotspot to the community when viewing others doing it at low cost (and even receiving credit or other intrinsic rewards for doing so). The existence of reciprocity as a normative rather than casual behavioral principle among wireless community participants has another important implication: the observance and adherence to reciprocal norms is intrinsically, rather than extrinsically, controlled and involves the development of trust amongst community participants (Osterloh & Rota, 2004). Thus, reciprocity is more likely to emerge, sustain, and leverage the level of coordination needed for wireless community collective action under conditions of strong intrinsic motivation.

5.1.1.4

Additional Thoughts on Motivation

To end up this discussion on the motivation of wireless community participants, it is interesting to note that neither the SDT motivation framework nor the findings from the interviews accommodate ideological beliefs as salient motivators for participation in a wireless community. This observation contradicts initial accounts of the phenomenon where fighting the industry was considered an important incentive shaping the wireless community movement (Schmidt & Townsend, 2003; Sawhney, 2003; Meinrath, 2005). In particular, interview findings pinpointed to a lack of ideological homogeneity within the wireless community movement, thus making the bounding of a relevant conceptual domain rather impossible or extraneous for the wireless community context. Interview highlights indicate ambitions to surmount unattractive commercial offerings for broadband access as a relevant driver only at the early stages in the development of the community, or for users whose needs are sporadic and targeted to the delivery of digital content. Moreover, two interviewees described wireless communities as vehicles for the diffusion of wireless broadband communication technologies because they alleviate user concerns regarding the security pitfalls of wireless communications and accommodate potentials for bridging the digital

93

divide especially in under-served areas. Thus, the exploration of ideological drivers as part of the wireless community member motivation portfolio is left to be performed in the second part of the empirical research where further details were sought regarding the role of such beliefs in the development process of wireless communities.

5.1.2

Costs

Participation in a wireless community is a costly endeavor that creates burden to community members in two ways. First, costs are produced due to the contribution of private resources to be transformed to a collectively-held and enjoyed good in a repetitive process that is necessary to sustain the value and, thus, the long-lived appeal of the community to its members and prospects (Butler, 2001). Second, costs are incurred for getting access and exploiting the communitys assets, thus turning consumption into a costly, yet agreeable and beneficial, activity (Fulk et al., 2004). Decomposing the costs for participating in a wireless community, they arise from individuals willingness to invest effort and equipment (Sandvig, 2004). Investing in wireless equipment is a key tangible cost. It is the prerequisite for the establishment of the physical connectivity implied as a structural element of the wireless community good (as presented in Chapter 3, section 3.3). It also earns to its sponsor physical access to the network infrastructure and the overlaying digital service commons, both of which form the first class of the wireless community good. The investment in equipment is not one-time-off since hardware upgrades may be further needed to comply with novel network architectures (e.g. mesh networking) or more efficient spectrum management tactics. This kind of cost is directly appraised on the basis of members monetary expenditure for gaining ownership of the equipment, or its components in the case of off-the-self solutions. Hence, the first cost component entering the utility-like decision making function of wireless community members illustrates the tangible costs required for gaining access to the physical dimension of the wireless community good. Demands for effort investments normally arise during involvement with the wireless community. The costs created mainly relate to investments in intangible resources, such as time and energy, as well as potential trade-offs between these two and the total benefits acquired (opportunity cost). Furthermore, they vary depending on the level of difficulty accrued in exploiting or feeding all good classes produced in a wireless community, including social connectivity and knowledge commons. As such, we refer to them as ongoing

94

intangible costs and consider them important determinants of individual behavior occurring over ones time span of involvement with a wireless community. Furthermore, wireless communities introduce an additional cost dimension that complements investments in effort (ongoing intangible costs) and equipment (tangible costs). In particular, the level of prior familiarity with wireless technologies can be an important determinant in ones decision to become involved with a wireless community, since it can be considered as an entry barrier describing the practical difficulties in setting up the connection with the community network. Hence, we delineate a third cost component to reflect how set-up costs for first-time connecting to the community network considerably weigh when deciding to become involved with a wireless community. Breaking down costs into three components directly relates to interview findings where interviewees have detailed and appraised the costs they have incurred for participating in the wireless community in the following way: - The cost for wireless equipment is gradually dropping so that individual members payoff is increased. Consequently, the burden for AWMN 17 members arises from the personal time and effort devoted to the involvement with the network. 22 - ... the opportunity cost since you could be entailed in alternative activities... we are talking about cost in terms of resources... what kind of resources do you contribute to the project? Tangible as well as intangible 23 - I believe that the major investment so that you can be an active member is in terms of time... because it is not a product that you buy and instantly consume, it is something you build... I would say that money is not (an issue) 24 - ... (participation in the wireless community) is time-consuming 25 - I do not consider upgrading my status from client to node for the time being... it takes time and money 26 This categorization of costs reflects their dual tangible as well as intangible nature and the fact that their appraisal fluctuates over the time-span of involvement with the wireless community. In addition, the evidence from the interviews add further complexity by suggesting that cost appraisal is a subjective process, since different interviewees provided with different cost hierarchies. Similar reflections on the multi-faceted, dynamic nature of costs in modern collective actions have already seen the light in the work of Fulk et al. (2004) on digital information commons. Costs, along with motives, enter individuals decision making process and collectively determine the nature and heaviness of ones involvement
AWMN stands for Athens Wireless Metropolitan Network, one of the most active wireless communities in Greece and Europe as well.
17

95

with the wireless community, the technicalities of which are examined in the following paragraphs.

5.1.3

Participation / Involvement

Participation in a wireless community is a highly ambiguous notion since it involves a series of processes picturing an individuals involvement with the multiple dimensions of the wireless community good described earlier. Most important of all, an individuals participation profile is determined by his network position as a node (operating his own Access Point) or a client (connecting to others Access Points), so that the community consists of a core of contributors operating the networks physical dimension and a periphery of participants with a less influential infrastructural role. However, both sets of participants, nodes and clients, are provided with the same portfolio of activities and services to which they can either participate, contribute, or both, in a way that one aspect can hardly be distinguished from the other. This interchangeable role (contributor as well as consumer) was highlighted in the interviews, further emphasizing the fact that the whole breadth of the community network is built by users and for users who communicate their efforts and ideas through multiple channels with varying levels of involvement intensity. - ... the value of the services offered to community members: file sharing services, online gaming, and SMS gateway services are amongst the most popular ones, while, currently, members interest is focused on experimenting with and promoting VoIP... both services and content are the outcome of members collective effort 27 - ... you have access to material offered through p2p and ftp services hosted by other users... it is the best way for finding specialized on the wireless network material... forum is the most massively used communication mechanism... a great part of the interaction among members takes place at physical meetings where much of the low-level work is conducted including ideas exchange, task allocation, q&a... at the beginning, the reason for joining is because you imagine that you would be able to download... 28 - ... the communitys forum is a very nice interactive newspaper, you learn the news, what is happening, who wants to join in... thats why it is an interesting tool, a meeting place 29 - ... the content and services offered through AWMN (gaming, file sharing, and email) cover my needs 30 The interview evidence presented above offer two valuable insights for this research. First, consistent with the collective action representation of wireless communities, not all activities are valued to the same extent for all participants, thus making it possible to discern differing

96

participation patterns and profiles. Second, the level and orientation of involvement should not be viewed as a static, but rather as a dynamic, procedure that transforms over time in both directions, from consuming to contributory preferences and vice versa. The first shift is considered more likely and to a large degree attributable to the experiential nature of the community good that needs to be used to deliver its value this aspect of the community good has already been discussed earlier. However, other factors, like gradually increasing perceptions for connective efficacy (i.e. peoples beliefs that others would be willing and able to retrieve their contributions), as well as reciprocity pressures, can also be held responsible (Kalman et al., 2002; Fulk et al., 2004). The time span of involvement with the wireless community provides the means for reviewing relevant behavioral shifts and time-dependent participation patterns. Furthermore, the dual role assumed by community participants introduces an intriguing element for the macro-description of wireless communities. The sustainability of a wireless community is ensured through the constant interplay between consumption and contribution that supports the conversion of private resources into valued benefits (Butler, 2001) and intertwines the progress of the collective to individual choices (Fulk et al., 2004). In other words, interdependencies are introduced among contributory and consuming behaviors and these interdependencies are the primary enablers of a wireless communitys sustainability. Additional sources of sustainability can be traced in a wireless communitys ability to attract new members and retain existing ones so that they engage themselves in the contributory and consuming behaviors that are necessary for the survivability of the community as described above. To empirically elaborate on the conditions favoring the sustainability of a wireless community, our research focused on existing members and their evaluations regarding the level of their prospective involvement with the wireless community: will it be augmented, diminished, or sustained to the same extent? This mode of inquiry is grounded on the assumption developed earlier that participation patterns, or, in other words, the interplay between contributory and consuming behaviors, are time-dependent and enable the ongoing transformation of resources to benefits. In addition, the pace of new members entering the wireless community is also reflective of a wireless communitys sustainability, but was not targeted in this research since there is not enough documentation on behalf of wireless communities regarding their growth rate. Hence, prospective involvement is considered the primary concept illustrating the sustainability of a wireless community, albeit not the sole one.

97

5.1.4

Hypothesization

The discussion presented so far delineates four distinctive concepts as fundamental in understanding wireless community collective action, namely motivation, costs, participation, and prospective involvement tendencies as a measure of sustainability. The investigation of the research questions proposed in Chapter 3 (Table 3.2) implies that these concepts (and their sub-concepts) correspond to measurable constructs that should not be solely appraised in isolation from each other but also in a nomological pattern that pinpoints to specific, theoretically as well as empirically driven inter-construct relations. First, it has already been proposed that motivation varies amongst participants depending on the nature of the interplay (i.e. the extent of the complementarity) between intrinsic and extrinsic motives. To investigate this assertion, we formulate the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 1: It is possible to discern different groupings of wireless community participants based on similarities in their motivation portfolios. Second, participation is difficult to be assessed in a straightforward manner, since individuals actually differ in their orientation (consumption versus contribution) and the level of intensity with which they get involved in the multitude of activities afforded through the community network. Thus, we come up with the following hypothesis regarding the nature of participation in a wireless community: Hypothesis 2: It is possible to discern different groupings of wireless community participants based on similarities in their involvement with the activities afforded through the community network. Finally, and since the objective of this research is to explore the conditions that favor the prosperity and long-lived existence of wireless communities, we are interested in determining the most salient predictors of increased prospective involvement as a measure of sustainability that ensures the continuous transformation of resources to benefits under tolerable cost levels. Following the premises of collective action, all three components, being dynamic and interactive in nature, can have an effect on the actions outcome (i.e. the production of the collective good), its standing against the typical free-riding hazard, and, finally, its sustainability (Osterloh & Rota, 2004). Motivation evolves over time since what drives participation may be different from what sustains involvement, costs are dynamic through incorporating both set-up and recurring components the relative evaluation of which possibly determines an individuals decision to increase or decrease his level of involvement,

98

and participation preferences create interdependencies among participants that spillover to impact the level of free riding. In addition, it is theorized that the more one gets involved with the community, the more one is induced to contribute to it (Fulk et al., 2004). Overall, the interplay among the three concepts informs how wireless communities should be organized and governed to foster viable collective actions. To examine the determinants of wireless community collective action sustainability, we formulate the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 3a: Motivation has a positive impact on wireless community collective action sustainability. Hypothesis 3b: Costs have a negative impact on wireless community collective action sustainability. Hypothesis 3c: Participation has a positive impact on wireless community collective action sustainability. Figure 5.2 summarizes the hypotheses formulated by depicting the model showcasing motivation, costs, participation/involvement and prospective involvement as topical concepts for understanding the micro and macro-level properties of wireless communities. Investigating the validity of the postulated hypotheses is expected to shed light on the particularities of wireless community collective action and offer insights on how technologyenhanced collective actions deviate from the original conceptualization of the theory.

99

H1: motivation profiles Enjoyment Intrinsic Altruism Relatedness External Regulation Extrinsic Introjected Regulation Identified Regulation Obligationbased Intrinsic Activities H2: participation profiles Participation / Involvement H3c H3b
concept

Motivation

H3a Prospective Involvement

Reciprocity

Node/Client Tangible costs Set-up costs Ongoing intangible costs Costs

Sub-concept From concept to sub-concept Independent-to-dependent concept relationship

Figure 5.2: A Model for Understanding the Micro and Macro-level Properties of Wireless Communities

100

5.2 Measurement and Data Collection

5.2.1 Construct Instrumentation

Following the description and conceptual bounding of the constructs that are relevant for the research questions posed in this study, the next step was the orchestration of a questionnaire instrument to be applied for collecting generalizable quantitative data from wireless community members. The core of the questionnaire instrument consisted of a series of statements regarding the motives driving participation in a wireless community and the costs incurred for capitalizing on the benefits delivered through the community network. The process of mapping each construct (scale) to a set of items (indices) suitable for measurement purposes (i.e. operationalization) was challenging mainly due to the fact that the phenomenon under investigation is quite original and its full capacity has not been scrutinized by the research community yet. In fact, at the time the survey was designed and executed, the quantitative approach had not received researchers attention and early empirical assessments of the wireless community movement applied the interview (Auray et al., 2003) or the ethnographic case study approach (Sandvig, 2004). To address the originality of the wireless community research context, the items quantifying the conceptual domain of the constructs at hand originated from two main sources: extant relevant knowledge and corresponding instrumentations in empirical investigations within various fields, as well as exploratory interview findings illustrating idiosyncrasies and anecdotal perceptions on motives and costs that cannot be captured otherwise. The latter tactic exemplifies the synergies achieved when integrating fieldwork results to the design of survey instruments (Lazersfeld & Wagner, 1958; Sieber, 1978; Strauss & Corbin, 1998) already discussed in the preceding chapter. Operationalizing motivation and cost constructs based on items applied in prior studies is a practice recommended for ensuring the content validity of the research instrument (i.e. does the instrumentation, e.g. questionnaire items, pull in a representative manner from all of the ways that could be used to measure the content of a given construct? (Straub et al., 2004)). It also showcases the interdisciplinary nature of the phenomenon under study, since it anchors on studies originating from a variety of fields, such as psychology, economics, and Information Systems. Nevertheless, a number of item adaptations had to be performed to fit the wireless community context, mainly drawing from wireless community literature and interview findings, including the formulation of original items to reflect wireless communities unique dimensions.

101

Moreover, the instrumentation process adopted a layered perspective allowing the gradual formulation of items from the sources described above. First of all, anchoring the study of wireless community motivation on the Self-Determination Theory paradigm and its classification of motives (Figure 5.1) implied the use of the theorys toolbox of measurement devices for assessing individual motivation. In particular, this study applied a number of items included in the Interest/Enjoyment, Relatedness, and Effort/Importance sub-scales of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI), a multi-dimensional scale developed by Deci and Ryan (available at http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/measures/intrins.html) and validated in a number of experiments for assessing individual experience related to a target activity capable of generating intrinsic satisfaction (e.g. Ryan et al., 1983; Ryan et al., 1991). Second, given the inability of SDTs measurement device portfolio to capture the functional dimensions of extrinsic motivation, we capitalized on the similarities of voluntary actions and volunteering with wireless communities and collective action. Wireless community literature acknowledges their close association (Sandvig, 2004), while wireless community members interviewed during the exploratory phase of this research described themselves as volunteers and the community movement as an exemplar of voluntary action (e.g. ... because I find the volunteering process very interesting 31; the importance of this voluntary action for the countrys technological advancement 32). In addition, the review on collective action has shown that the social dilemmas associated with it are closely related to the dilemmas faced by volunteers (Diekmann, 1985; Murningham et al., 1993) and are represented and scrutinized through similar game-theoretic formulations (e.g. Axelrod, 1984; Busch & Reinhardt, 1993, Rapoport, 1998). Voluntary action is an everyday essential for effective informal organizational action spanning over diverse economic, social, or political activities including the work of task forces or special interest groups in both the private and the public sector (Katz, 1964; Murningham et al., 1993). Evolutionary work on the drivers behind volunteers willingness to invest personal resources to a commonly-held endeavor or project originates from a number of fields, like psychology, sociology, and economics, and has shown that the motivation portfolio of the volunteer is quite broad to include altruism (Smith, 1983), reciprocity (Axelrod, 1984), skill improvement and employability (Stinson & Stam, 1976), or companionship (Sharp, 1978) as potential incentives. Clary and Snyder (1999) along with Esmond and Dunlop (2004) offer a more systematic treatment on the issue through the introduction and validation of two research instruments, the Volunteer Functions Inventory (VFI) and the Volunteer Motivation Inventory (VMI) respectively, both of which summarize in a condense and measurable manner the most salient motives behind the emergence and

102

sustained existence of voluntary actions irrespective of their reference area. Since the motives that have appeared in the literature on volunteering heavily resemble the ones delineated for wireless community participants, several items from VFI and VMI were applied to operationalize constructs like relatedness, introjected and identified regulation. Finally, to complement and refine extant items, we brought into play theoretical insights on the conceptual territory of reciprocity, reputation, and the employment of externally imposed rewards in non-coercive actions (e.g. Gachter & Fehr, 1999; Fehr & Gachter, 2000; Klandermans, 1987), items tested in empirical studies that interpreted concepts, like altruism, external regulation, and costs, in practically identical fashion (e.g. Kankanhalli et al., 2005; Hars & Ou, 2001; Malhotra & Galletta, 2003; Ryan & Connell, 1989), as well as input from the literature review and the interviews with wireless community participants to capitalize on the anticipated qualitative-quantitative synergies (premature empirical knowledge was especially valuable for quantifying the cost side of the model and fine tuning altruism and reciprocity as manifestations of wireless communities unique nature). Table 5.1 provides an overview of the items measuring motivation and cost constructs as well as respective sources.

103

Table 5.1: Motivation / Cost Constructs, Items, and Operationalization Sources Construct Enjoyment Item I enjoy my involvement in the wireless community. (ENJ1) I would describe participating in the wireless community as very interesting. (ENJ2) I consider my participation in the wireless community to be fun. (ENJ3) Participating in the wireless community allows me to experience the community spirit of sharing. (AL1) I enjoy sharing and helping through my involvement in the wireless community. (AL2) The social opportunities provided by the wireless community are important to me. (RE1) I feel close to the people involved in the wireless community. (RE2) My involvement in the wireless community provides me with a way to make new friends. (RE3) I really like the people in the wireless community. (RE4) Joining the wireless community is required by my job. (EXT1) I receive some form of explicit compensation (e.g salary) for my participation in the wireless community. (EXT2) I believe that it is important to receive some sort of payment for participating in the wireless community. (EXT3) Joining the wireless community is something that I am supposed to do. (EXT4) Introjected Regulation Being appreciated by other people in the wireless community is important to me. (INTR1) It would have been inconvenient for me to be considered by others in the wireless community as a person who is not actively involved. (INTR2) My participation in the wireless community makes me feel needed. (INTR3) My participation in the wireless community makes me feel better about myself. (INTR4) My involvement in the wireless community can help me explore different career options. (ID1) Participating in the wireless community will look good on my resume. (ID2) Source adapted from the Interest/Enjoyment sub-scale of the IMI adapted from the Interest/Enjoyment sub-scale of the IMI adapted from the Interest/Enjoyment sub-scale of the IMI synthesized from wireless community literature on motivation (Sandvig, 2004; Schmidt and Townsend, 2003; Auray et al, 2003) adapted from Kankanhalli et al (2005) synthesized based on the Social Interaction sub-scale of the VMI and interviews adapted from the Relatedness sub-scale of the IMI synthesized based on the Social Interaction sub-scale of the VMI and interviews adapted from the Relatedness sub-scale of the IMI adapted from Ryan and Connell (1989) and Malhotra and Galletta (2003) adapted from Hars and Ou (2001) synthesized from Klandermans (1997) Reward Motive adapted from Ryan and Connell (1989) and Malhotra and Galletta (2003) adapted from the Recognition sub-scale of the VMI synthesized from Gachter and Fehr (1999) on social exchanges adapted from the Enhancement sub-scale of the VFI adapted from the Enhancement sub-scale of the VFI adapted from the Career-sub-scale of the VFI adapted from the Career-sub-scale of the VFI

Altruism

Relatedness

External Regulation

Identified Regulation

104

Reciprocity

Tangible costs Ongoing intangible costs

Set-up costs

I can make new contacts that might help my career through my involvement in the wireless community. (ID3) My participation in the wireless community allows me to explore my capabilities. (ID4) My participation in the wireless community can help me learn how to work within a group of people. (ID5) I can learn new skills from direct, hands-on experience through my involvement in the wireless community. (ID6) When I contribute to the wireless community, I expect that others will contribute too in the future. (REC1) I have been helped by other people in the wireless community, so I desire to help back. (REC2) I consider the money I have spent for my involvement in the wireless community well spent. (MON) I cannot always find the time to contribute to the wireless community. (RC1) I consider the effort for participating in the wireless community (e.g. money, time) to be high for me. (RC2) I think I could do more important things with my time than participating in the wireless community. (RC3) I did not put a lot of effort (e.g. money, time) when I first joined the wireless community. (STC)

adapted from the Career-sub-scale of the VFI adapted from the Understanding sub-scale of the VFI synthesized based on interviews and the Understanding sub-scale of the VMI adapted from the Understanding sub-scale of the VFI adapted from Kankanhalli et al (2005) and Fehr and Gacther (2000) synthesized based on interviews synthesized based on interviews adapted from Kankanhalli et al (2005) adapted from Kankanhalli et al (2005) synthesized based on interviews adapted from the Effort/Importance sub-scale of the IMI

105

5.2.2

Questionnaire Instrumentation and Proof-testing

The questionnaire instrument applied for the survey part of the study addressed wireless community members and was structured to elicit answers on the hypotheses formulated in section 5.1.4. In particular, survey informants were requested to evaluate their frequency of engaging in a number of activities taking place within a wireless community, all of which were extrapolated from community website documentation and interview findings. To assess the effect of time, two relevant questions were included: How long have you actually been involved with a wireless community network? and How do you imagine your future participation in the wireless community? with the last question mapping participants prospective involvement potential to one of the following choices: I will become more / less / to the same extent involved with the wireless community. The core of the questionnaire consisted of the items measuring motivation and costs (see Table 5.1) where respondents were asked to indicate how true each of the statements was using a 7-Likert scale (not at all true to very true). To reduce common method bias, occurring when data are collected via only one method or via the same method but only at one point in time (Straub et al., 2004), questionnaire items were organized in a randomized presentation pattern (Cook & Campbell, 1979). Deciding on the operationalization of the constructs and the additional elements that are of value to the research and should be asked within the research instrument does not ensure that the questionnaire will serve its purpose and provide meaningful answers to the research questions. Once again, content validity issues emerge with respect to the reduction of measurement error (Dillman, 2000) or, in other words, with assuring that the questions are clear, non-confusing, unbiased and expressive of the underlying concepts (Boudreau et al., 2001; Straub et al., 2004). Following the research design schedule described in section 4.3 for proof-testing of the research instrument, the questionnaire was evaluated prior to its launching through pre-testing and pilot-testing procedures (Babbie, 1998). In particular, a pre-test was administered to three academic experts and two renowned community members who were invited to complete an early version of the questionnaire and provide comments focusing on wording and conceptual issues alike. Drawing on their comments, the research instrument was revised and pilot tested with seven members and three non-members, though interested in participating in the future. This process served also as a rehearsal for the web-based delivery of the survey. Following the pilot study, the research instrument was eventually finalized (see Appendix B of this essay).

106

The refined instrument was addressed to respondents through a web-based survey that took place in Greece in November 2005. Since the sampling frame could not be known beforehand (there are no data documenting the distribution of wireless community participants among the Greek population), responses were sought through email invitations to all Greek wireless communities with the request to post the invitation on their sites and discussion forums. Furthermore, the acquaintances with wireless community participants during the exploratory phase of the research and the finalization of the research instrument served for gaining legitimacy of the survey and fired a word-of-mouth campaign that helped increase the response rate. Ultimately, 106 responses from wireless community members were collected and submitted to further statistical analyses. To wrap up the steps taken for the collection of the empirical data, Figure 5.3 depicts the process leading to the conduct of the survey.

Literature Review

Interviews (N=5)

Instrumentation

Survey (N=106)

Pretest (N=5)

Pilot test (N=10)

Figure 5.3: Steps towards Conducting the Survey

5.2.3

Reliability and Construct Validity

After the conduct of the survey, the instrument is validated once again, only this time the researcher is interested in extrapolating adequate levels of reliability (i.e. do constructs show stability across the items of observation? (Straub, 1989)) and construct validity (i.e. are the data a reflection of true scores or artifacts of the kind of instrument chosen? (Straub, 1989)). Combined with content validity tested prior to applying the questionnaire, these processes enable the researcher to be confident about the overall validity of the research instrument and, thus, its capacity to provide compelling answers to the latent research questions. This validation procedure is particularly critical in our case for an additional reason, the fact that

107

construct operationalization relied on multiple sources resulting to a collection of items never before tested altogether in an empirical study. Reliability is a statement about measurement accuracy (Cronbach, 1951) and reflects the extent to which a constructs items separately correlate or move together (Straub et al., 2004). To assess reliability, a number of techniques are proposed (Boudreau et al., 2001; Straub et al., 2004), among which internal consistency testing through Cronbachs a is the most frequently applied method (Boudreau et al., 2001). Applying this technique in our data resulted in deriving satisfactory reliability levels for five of the eight multi-item constructs, whereas ongoing intangible costs, reciprocity, and enjoyment scored below the typically accepted level of 0.70 (Nunnally, 1978). Poor reliability performance for these three constructs can be attributed to the exploratory nature of the research, since there has been no previous measurement of these concepts in a wireless community context and the inclusion of items developed from scratch to fit the unique research setting. Nunnally (1978) points out that reliability values as low as 0.60 are acceptable for exploratory research, thus making the respective constructs eligible for the rest of the analysis. Construct validity is an issue of operationalization or measurement between constructs (Straub et al., 2004). The focus in construct validity is on whether the selected items fit in such a way that they can be considered as an intellectual whole (Boudreau et al., 2001), thus capturing the essence of the construct (Straub et al., 2004). Convergent and discriminant validity are both constituents of construct validity. Convergent validity is evidenced when items thought to reflect a construct converge, or show significant, high correlations with one another (Straub et al., 2004), whereas discriminant validity is determined by demonstrating that a construct does not correlate highly with another construct with which it should differ (Peter, 1981). Both components of construct validity were assessed by applying Principal Components Factor Analysis with a Varimax rotation. To test convergent validity, item loadings were checked to see if items within the same construct were highly correlated (loadings of more than 0.45 were considered significant), whereas for discriminant validity testing, item loadings were checked to see if they load higher on their intended constructs than on other constructs (significant loadings on more than one constructs were considered inadequate) (Hair et al., 1998). Factor analytic results offered a significant implication to the initial model since one of the items measuring identified regulation (I can learn new skills from direct, hands-on experience through my involvement in the wireless community) loaded significantly with the items measuring altruism. This modification results to a new component that groups together

108

additional sources of intrinsic satisfaction, beyond the sheer enjoyment from working with an exciting technology. Nonetheless, intrinsic motivation is the prototypic manifestation of the human tendency toward learning and creativity (Ryan & Deci, 2000b) and this facet of intrinsic satisfaction was highlighted earlier in this chapter. The new component was labeled warm-glow intrinsic motivation (the term warm-glow is attributed to Andreoni (1990)) to denote that, beyond enjoyment as a source of intrinsic value from engaging in an interesting activity, there are peripheral, equally satisfactory aspects in performing the activity. Detailed results of reliability and validity testing using the SPSS 13.0 software package are provided in Table 5.2.

109

Table 5.2: Factor Analysis Results 1 0.852 0.516 0.462 0.054 0.091 0.384 -0.031 0.319 0.084 0.160 -0.031 -0.093 -0.151 0.091 -0.081 -0.090 0.157 0.247 -0.059 0.041 0.043 0.214 -0.050 0.011 0.041 0.129 -0.049 -0.013 2 0.101 0.497 0.215 0.736 0.676 0.564 0.150 -0.124 0.300 0.382 -0.142 -0.013 -0.137 0.040 0.119 0.204 -0.073 0.191 0.074 0.053 0.069 0.212 0.301 -0.091 0.462 -0.075 0.038 0.164 3 0.096 0.303 0.308 0.117 0.200 0.114 0.763 0.744 0.716 0.637 0.094 0.031 0.085 -0.002 0.155 0.070 0.179 0.196 0.074 -0.079 0.222 0.136 0.381 0.172 0.068 -0.091 0.083 0.064 4 -0.138 0.000 0.049 -0.233 -0.003 -0.173 0.144 -0.135 0.128 0.139 0.864 0.859 0.778 0.682 0.079 0.122 0.090 -0.001 0.229 0.268 0.025 -0.101 0.061 0.098 -0.058 -0.002 -0.183 -0.399 5 0.037 0.011 -0.073 0.036 0.242 0.179 0.235 0.151 0.195 0.048 0.079 0.064 -0.021 0.161 0.837 0.829 0.817 0.631 0.067 0.179 0.206 0.226 0.051 0.274 0.145 0.006 -0.201 0.180 6 -0.022 0.040 0.244 0.176 0.295 0.185 0.211 0.064 0.268 0.045 0.113 0.073 0.123 0.078 0.171 0.050 0.227 0.446 0.779 0.745 0.731 0.729 0.673 0.113 -0.034 0.007 -0.073 0.088 7 -0.003 -0.153 0.193 0.165 -0.054 0.155 0.141 0.113 -0.032 0.092 -0.010 -0.001 0.001 0.054 0.149 0.084 0.097 0.143 0.121 -0.178 0.005 0.188 0.007 0.756 0.755 0.149 -0.126 -0.233 8 0.019 -0.044 0.200 -0.070 0.134 0.063 -0.026 -0.084 -0.007 0.218 -0.051 -0.051 -0.079 -0.175 0.004 -0.084 -0.021 -0.001 0.033 0.072 -0.183 0.160 -0.101 -0.041 -0.059 0.818 0.698 0.660

Enjoyment (a = 0.589) Warm-Glow Intrinsic Motivation (a = 0.731) Relatedness (a = 0.807)

External Regulation (a = 0.836)

Introjected Regulation (a = 0.874)

Identified Regulation (a = 0.843)

Reciprocity (a = 0.601) Ongoing intangible costs (a = 0.660)

ENJ1 ENJ2 ENJ3 ID6 AL1 AL2 RE1 RE2 RE3 RE4 EXT1 EXT2 EXT3 EXT4 INTR1 INTR2 INTR3 INTR4 ID1 ID2 ID3 ID4 ID5 REC1 REC2 RC1 RC2 RC3

110

5.3 Statistical Analyses

5.3.1 Sample Descriptive Statistics and Demographics

Sample descriptive statistics (Table 5.3) indicate that the wireless community movement in Greece practically coevolved with its counterparts in other countries since the majority of respondents stated that they have been familiar with it since its early development in 2002. It is interesting to note that at that time wireless networking enthusiasts faced difficulties not only in finding one another but also in getting access to the required equipment; these impediments were eventually overcome and the movement expanded in an accelerating rate in the following years, as depicted in communities statistical tracking of their members. Furthermore, nearly half of our respondents have joined the wireless community more than 2 years ago; while newcomers account for a small portion of the sample (10% have joined within the last 6 months at the time of the survey). Sample distribution among nodes and clients follows a 6-to-4 ratio. Sample demographics (Table 5.3) point out the male domination of the wireless community phenomenon this bias was somewhat expected, albeit not to this extent. They are also indicative of a moderate bias to young (18-35) and educated individuals suggesting that the wireless community movement penetrates active parts of the population, who, in turn, can make a difference in its capacity to create positive spillovers in the outer environment.
Table 5.3: Sample Descriptives and Demographics Gender Age Men Women <18 18-24 25-34 35-50 >50 < 6 months ago 6-12 months ago > 1 year ago > 2 years ago 98.1% 1.9% 1.0% 33.7% 51.9% 12.5% 1.0% 5.6% 8.8% 16.9% 68.8% Education Junior High/Middle School High School Vocational/Trade School Bachelors degree Masters degree Doctorate Degree (Ph.D) < 3 months Between 3 to 6 months Between 6 to12 months > 1 year > 2 years Client (connect to others Access Points) 1.0% 14.4% 11.5% 41.3% 26.9% 4.8% 9.4% 0.9% 10.4% 28.3% 50.9% 40.6%

Awareness of wireless communities

Membership status

Node (backbone link and/or operate an Access Point)

Time-span of involvement with a wireless community 59.4%

111

5.3.2

Motivation and Cost Descriptive Statistics (Mean Values & Correlations)

Table 5.4 presents mean values, standard deviations (SD), and correlations for motivation and cost constructs. Mean values for motivation indicate that wireless community participants are strongly intrinsically motivated, with enjoyment and warm-glow intrinsic motivation achieving the highest scores, followed by reciprocity and relatedness. Amongst extrinsic motives, identified regulation scores higher, with external regulation valued the least of all. This ranking was somewhat expected based on interview findings where human capital development concerns were valued higher than ego-gratification anticipations, while the low score for external regulation confirms the low importance of coercion or monetary compensation in participants incentive structure. Hence, Schmidt and Townsends (2003) predictions on the effect of reputation mechanisms as incentives for wireless community enthusiasts are disputed, further implying the lack of a corresponding reputation-based organization schema and the absence of emergent authorities with powerful influence over the rest of participants. Furthermore, when decomposing identified regulation to its indices, human capital development (i.e. exploring ones capabilities and learning to work within a group of people) appears as more influencing than career concerns, albeit all reflective items score above 4.00, to suggest that direct professional amelioration is not explicitly awaited by wireless community participants. Individuals participating in wireless communities feel less strongly about its instrumentality because they receive intrinsic satisfaction from the activity itself, due to its challenging nature the thrill from working with an emergent technology (Sahwney, 2003) as well as its capacity to accommodate the expression of altruistic and creative learning tendencies as part of individuals identities and personal value systems. This motive bias corresponds to Huizingas (1986) homo ludens: participants receive some sort of benefit solely from entailing in the technical challenge of building a wireless infrastructure. The domination of intrinsic motivation is further explained if we consider how wireless communities afford opportunities for creative, peer-based, socially-facilitated, and hands-on learning for techsavvy individuals in ways sharply different than what takes place in educational institutions or job training courses, in particular without time or external pressure (Amabile et al., 2002; Deci et al., 1999). In fact, wireless communities exemplify the opposite of the pay-for-performance incentive system, which is heavily employed by firms to motivate their employees (e.g. Gibbons, 1998), by spurring intrinsic satisfaction instead of remuneration as the most salient reward for

112

engaging in an intellectually demanding task. The achievements of intrinsic motivation in producing high quality intellectual products, like the wireless community network, have triggered researchers to study and accordingly encourage the integration of intrinsic motives in employees incentive portfolios (Amabile, 1993; Gagn & Deci, 2005), especially for firms operating in knowledge-intensive business environments (Osterloh et al., 2002). Thus, individuals participating in endeavors like wireless communities are capable of producing shifts in work motivation patterns either directly (by requesting intrinsic satisfaction as part of their day jobs) or indirectly (through drawing the attention of constituents, managers and work motivation researchers alike, to the importance of intrinsic motives at the workplace). Moving on to other aspects of intrinsic motivation, it is interesting to note the nature and direction of its interplay with reciprocity and extrinsic motives. Juxtaposing the intrinsic against the extrinsic side of the motivation continuum (through examining the sign and significance of the correlation coefficients) indicates the presence of crowding-in effects, or, in other words, the arrangement of intrinsic and extrinsic motives in an additive relationship (Frey & Jegen, 2001). Since participation in wireless communities is practically free of tangible (monetary) rewards, this sort of crowding is rather expected (Deci et al., 1999). Juxtaposing reciprocity against intrinsic (as well as extrinsic) motives shows significant positive correlations with relatedness and warm-glow intrinsic motivation (as well as with introjected regulation, consistent with our previous theorization on the interplay between reciprocity and reputation effects), a relationship that is indicative of the way reciprocal norms are enforced due to the existence of intrinsically-motivated participants. Under this effect, reciprocity enables the development of conditional cooperation (Osterloh & Rota, 2004; Frey & Meier, 2004) and further diffuses its appeal as the outcome of friendship and relational bonds among participants (Organ & Konovsky, 1989). Hence, reciprocity under conditions of strong intrinsic motivation produces positive influences to the wireless community collective action to be discussed in the following paragraphs of this chapter. Nevertheless, intrinsic motivation, especially in its pure, enjoyment-based form, can have certain pitfalls. It is less manageable in that it rests within the individual or in the relationship between the individual and the activity and is contingent upon certain environmental conditions having to do with the persistence of the individuals sense of autonomy and competence (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Frey & Jegen, 2001). Intrinsic motivation can be exhausted over time when the activity seizes to be regarded as challenging and participants have completed mastering their skills and exercising their creativity from participating. The gradual exhaustion of intrinsic motivation of wireless community participants has eloquently been described by one of the interviewees: However, I am still in the beginning and there is

113

certain excitement... the main reason for leaving the community is the gradual loss of interest 33 In sum, observing motivation mean values indicates that wireless community participants exhibit strong intrinsically-driven behaviors, which can have both advantages and disadvantages for the course of the wireless community collective action; albeit the former appear graver than the latter. Further statistical analyses are considered necessary for investigating whether extrinsically-oriented individuals can be elucidated from this sample or not and how their presence (or absence) affects, in its turn, the action processes within a wireless community. Shifting to the cost side of Table 5.4, we observe an escalation in importance from tangible costs to recurring and, finally, to set-up costs (higher mean values translate to lower costs) suggesting that the major impediment to participation occurs at early stages. The low significance of monetary costs is in line with current market trends showing diminishing prices for wireless equipment that are now accessible to a larger audience. In addition, offthe-shelf solutions, like the famous Pringles can antenna (Flickenger, 2003), further depreciate the tangible costs demanded for wireless community participation. This particularity leverages member retention once connected the problems associated with participation are less important and does not allow for cost underestimation at early stages of involvement, as is often the case with other social structures (Butler, 2001). Overall, participation in a wireless community does not imply high costs on behalf of participants, thus confirming the blurring of private-public boundaries in technology-augmented collective action (Bimber et al., 2005) due to never fully transferring resource ownership from the individual to the collective. This low-cost situation (motives are generally more valued than costs) can also be attributed to the domination of intrinsic motivation, the high levels of which lower individuals perceptions of effort (Venkatesh, 2000) and lead to willingness to spend more time on the task (Deci, 1975).

114

Table 5.4: Mean Values, SD, and Correlations for Motivation and Costs (**Correlation significant at the 0.01 level, *Correlation significant at the 0.05 level) 1 1 0.507** 0.496** -0.071 0.212* 0.283* 0.164 0.205* 0.137 -0.017 2 1 0.465** -0.186 0.395** 0.433** 0.305** 0.278** 0.137 -0.046 1 0.163 0.459** 0.451** 0.314** 0.124 0.002 -0.178 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Enjoyment Warm-Glow Intrinsic Relatedness External Regulation Introjected Regulation Identified Regulation Reciprocity Tangible costs Ongoing intangible costs Set-up Costs

Mean 6.27 5.87 4.78 1.89 4.29 4.62 5.25 5.76 4.38 3.60

SD 0.764 1.006 1.295 1.337 1.692 1.458 1.375 1.550 1.262 2.069

1 0.193* 0.252** 0.071 -0.211* -0.327** 0.162 1 0.490** 0.419** 0.030 -0.069 0.092 1 0.209* 0.180 -0.027 0.088 1 -0.050 -0.124 0.029

1 -0.101 0.124

1 0.025 1

115

5.3.3

Participation Descriptive Statistics (Mean Values & Factor Analysis)

Mean values of the frequency of engaging in the activity portfolio afforded through the community network demonstrate the multi-dimensional properties of the wireless community good (Table 5.5). Top-scoring activities include reading forum postings (mean value = 6.27), using file sharing services (mean value = 5.99), communicating via digital means (mean value = 5.67), offering technical assistance to other members (mean value = 5.21), and posting comments on the forum or uploading content to the network (mean value = 5.08). It is notable that these activities range from communication and usage of network facilities to helping others to reflect both consuming and contributing participation perspectives. Hence, they underline the heterogeneity of the good produced through wireless community collective action (discussed in a previous chapter), the necessity to perform heterogeneous tasks for its production, and the ambiguity in distinguishing contributors from consumers, which collectively converge to making the detection of free-riders problematic in modern collective action (Lupia & Sin, 2003; Bimber et al., 2005; Flanagin et al., 2006). To safely conclude on the absence of pure free-riders, further statistical analyses are warranted and will be presented in the following paragraphs of this chapter. To produce a more parsimonious description of participation, Principal Components Factor Analysis with a Varimax rotation was applied on the eleven variables measuring frequency of engagement in respective activities (Hair et al., 1998). Table 5.5 presents the results of the analysis and denotes a four component structure (including a single-item component) derived on the same requirements for factor loadings as those applied for construct validity testing in section 5.2.3. Component 1 includes community administration activities that are supportive of the varied dimensions of the community good (services, social connectivity, knowledge exchange); component 2 relates to service consumption activities; component 3 distinguishes forum as a special communication tool, and, finally, using digital communication media (e.g. VoIP, IRC) is considered a component of its own. The resulting participation pattern showcases the capacity of wireless communities to host multiple modes of social interaction, thus underlining communication as an essential part of wireless community participation that acts as a facilitator for the actions success (Marwell & Oliver, 1993; Kalman et al., 2002), and separates contribution from consumption. Table 5.6 provides mean values (Mean), standard deviations (SD), and correlations for the four participation components. We observe that, although contribution is generally less preferred than consumption, detecting free-riders, through examining the sign and significance of the correlation coefficients, remains problematic even for this thick participation pattern.

116

Furthermore, it is interesting to see how nodes (n = 63) and clients (n = 43) (Table 5.3) differentiate in terms of mean values for each component. Applying the t-test statistical procedure resulted to nodes being more frequent participants in community administration activities (the difference is significant at the 0.001 level) and communication over digital media (the difference is significant at the 0.01 level) than clients, whereas clients are frequent service consumers (albeit, the difference is not significant). Hence, nodes incur not only the burden of providing the community network infrastructure but also actively support the communitys day-to-day operation. This finding supports the idea of a layered structure for wireless communities with nodes forming a core of active and resourceful participants, whereas clients are positioned within the periphery of nodes and are less influential for the resource-to-benefit transformation process.

117

Table 5.5: Mean Values, SD, and Factor Analysis results for Participation 1 0.778 0.767 0.710 0.661 0.637 -0.053 0.190 0.447 -0.018 0.397 0.422 2 0.031 -0.133 0.223 0.333 0.294 0.817 0.703 0.527 0.166 0.009 0.404 3 0.072 0.245 0.145 0.187 -0.051 0.034 0.068 0.226 0.905 0.740 0.043

Community administration (a = 0.801)

Service consumption (a = 0.605)

Forum (a = 0.621) Using digital communication media

Offering technical assistance to other community members Participating in physical meetings with other community members Actively supporting the community (forum moderation, website maintenance and update, etc.) Creating content for the network Using network management services Using the networks file sharing services Using gaming, multimedia and/or other web services available on the network Uploading content onto the network Reading comments that others have posted on the communitys forum Posting comments on the communitys forum Using the networks communication services (e.g. VoIP, IRC)

Table 5.6: Mean Values, SD, and Correlations for Participation Components (** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level, * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level) Mean 5.67 4.42 5.25 5.67 SD 1.758 1.458 1.261 1.298 1 1 0.407** 0.352** 0.214* 2 1 0.470** 0.419** 3 4

1 2 3 4

Using digital communication media Community administration Service consumption Forum

1 0.267**

118

5.3.4

Wireless Community Member Segmentation

The scope of this section is to investigate Hypotheses 1 and 2 by segmenting survey responses on the basis of similarities in motivation and participation preferences. In doing so, cluster analysis was selected as the most appropriate statistical method. The following paragraphs detail the mechanics of the method, its application on the survey dataset, and the findings shedding light on the validity of the Hypotheses under scrutiny.

5.3.4.1

Cluster Analysis Mechanics

Cluster Analysis is a statistical method for classification that groups a sample of cases in such way that the variance among cases within the same group is minimized (within-cluster homogeneity) while the variance between groups is maximized (between-cluster heterogeneity) (Hair et al., 1998). By applying cluster analytic techniques, meaningful clusters that segment survey responses on the basis of similarities in motivation and participation preferences were constructed two different applications of the method are presented, one regarding motivation and another one regarding participation to provide empirical support for Hypotheses 1 and 2 postulated in section 5.1.4. Both clustering processes were performed in consistency with experts guidelines who recommend the stepwise application of the cluster analytic technique (Hair et al., 1998; Punj & Stewart, 1983; Ketchen & Shook, 1996): i. Selection of the clustering variables based on an inductive (exploratory), deductive (tied to theory) or cognitive (relying on perceptions from expert informants) approach. To investigate the validity of Proposition 1, all seven motivation constructs were selected as clustering variables following the deductive approach, whereas the same approach led to the inclusion of all eleven participation dimensions with regards to Proposition 2a. ii. Standardization of the clustering variables when they are appreciated in varying ranges. This is not an issue for this research design since both motivation and participation variables were measured using identical Likert scale for all their reflective items. iii. Evaluation of assumptions, namely sample representativeness, multicollinearity among clustering variables, and absence of outliers. Sample representativeness can be assumed only with caution due to sample particularities (there are no objective data regarding the Greek populations awareness of wireless

119

communities), the effect of multicollinearity (through examining the correlation matrix between clustering variables, the tolerance value, and the variance inflation index) was found negligible, whereas no outliers were detected (using the Mahalanobis D2 technique) to deteriorate cluster analysis performance. The last two procedures were performed twice (once for motivation and once for participation) and yielded identical outcomes regarding the legitimacy of applying the method to the sample. iv. Extraction of a suitable number of clusters after selecting the appropriate clustering algorithm (hierarchical or non-hierarchical) and similarity measure. To increase the methods performance capacity in providing a meaningful cluster solution, a two-stage clustering tactic, combining both genres of clustering algorithms, was employed (hierarchical methods were very popular in the past due to their advantage of being fast, whereas non-hierarchical methods are less impacted by outliers and provide more stable solutions). In particular, an initial cluster solution for motivation was obtained through a hierarchical clustering technique (Wards method with squared Euclidean distance as the similarity measure) where the suitable number of clusters was derived by visually inspecting the generated dendrogram and searching for large increases in the average within cluster distance in the agglomerative schedule (both the dendrogram and the agglomerative schedule are outputs of the SPSS 13.0 Cluster Analysis Procedure). Candidate solutions were profiled on the motivation variables to allow their interpretation from both a conceptual and a practical standpoint. A four-cluster solution was considered ideal input to a nonhierarchical clustering technique, namely k-means cluster analysis which, in turn, generated the final cluster solution delineating four distinct motivation profiles. The process described above was replicated for participation and yielded four distinct participation profiles as well. v. Validation of the derived cluster solution. Solutions validity in both cases was tested against alternative clustering techniques (k-means clustering without initial input, hierarchical clustering with other than Wards methods) and produced comparable cluster densities and structures, thus providing with confidence for further interpreting and analyzing clusters properties.

5.3.4.2

Motivation Profiles

The four-cluster solution derived through the application of cluster analytic techniques on motivation variables corroborates Hypothesis 1 in that wireless community participants can

120

be grouped to four distinct motivation profiles. To elaborate on this finding, cluster centers (mean values) were examined and cross-compared with motivation overall mean values. At the end of this process, a unique label describing each clusters motivation configuration was assigned to every grouping (Premkumar et al., 2005). Table 5.7 summarizes cluster centers and labels each cluster based on its performance against overall means.
Table 5.7: Motivation Cluster Analysis Results (** p < 0.001, similar to the ANOVA results were also obtained through the Kruskal-Wallis test, which caters for deviations from normality) Variable (overall mean/SD) Enjoyment (6.27/0.764) Warm-glow intrinsic motivation (5.87/1.006) Relatedness (4.78/1.295) Reciprocity (5.25/1.375) Identified Regulation (4.62/1.458) Introjected Regulation (4.29/1.692) External Regulation (1.89/1.337) Cluster label Cluster Centers Cluster 2 Cluster 3 (n = 30) (n = 27) 6.26 6.85

Cluster 1 (n =33) 5.92

Cluster 4 (n =16) 6.00

F value (sig) 10.405 (**) 20.855 (**) 27.109 (**) 10.788 (**) 31.189 (**) 63.110 (**) 86.334 (**)

5.25

6.07

6.75

5.28

3.80 4.33 3.44 2.30 1.31

4.52 5.72 4.30 4.71 1.50

6.01 5.94 5.94 5.78 1.41 The Privileged Group

5.23 5.06 5.45 4.83 4.53

Dispassionates

Lukewarms

Materialists

Amongst the four different motivation structures, there is a highly motivated cluster characterized as the Privileged Group, a moderately motivated cluster of Lukewarm community participants, a group of respondents with below average motivation performance described as Dispassionates, while participants with a noticeable expectation for separable rewards are grouped under the Materialists label. The Privileged Group, Lukewarms, and Dispassionates exhibit somewhat similar motivation patterns and cluster densities (sizes): preferences gradually increase from extrinsic to intrinsic motives (traversing Deci and Ryans taxonomy from left to right). However, the Privileged Group appears more stable across the motivation spectrum (except for external regulation), Lukewarms exhibit fluctuations, and Dispassionates show a steep increase from the extrinsic to the intrinsic end. Materialists, the

121

least populated cluster, differentiate from all the others due to their high score in external regulation (significantly higher than the overall mean) and their stable preferences across motives. Hence, cluster profiles support the intrinsic-bias conjecture postulated in the previous section; nonetheless, this bias does not shrink the heterogeneity of the motivation portfolio of the wireless community enthusiast. Motivation profiles in Table 5.7 depict the absence of pure extrinsically-oriented participants valuing extrinsic motives higher than intrinsic ones; possibly, under conditions of strong intrinsic motivation, wireless community participants have internalized extrinsic motives. Since both motivation forms can have advantages as well as disadvantages, this absence places much more emphasis on the pitfalls of intrinsic motivation, especially its potential exhaustion over time. The importance of blending intrinsically as well as extrinsicallyoriented individuals has been scrutinized by researchers inquiring the success of Open Source Software. A number of relevant studies conclude that the key success factor for Open Source Software projects is the symbiotic relationship and cooperation between individuals with potentially diverse motivation systems (Markus et al., 2000; Franck & Jungwirth, 2003; Lakhani & Wolf, 2003 Osterloh & Rota, 2004; Shah, 2006). In many of these studies, intrinsically motivated individuals are considered essential for the initiation of an Open Source Software project, whereas extrinsically motivated individuals contribute in the production of high quality software and promote the project to the outer world. Hence, it can be argued that the momentum gained by the Open Source Software movement, which created a pivotal shift within the software industry, is related to the coexistence of both types of software developers; albeit, this conjecture has not reached unanimous agreement on scholars behalf. Originating from this viewpoint, it would be interesting to investigate whether wireless communities will eventually manage to influence their surrounding environment under the effect of strongly intrinsically-motivated member behaviors. To gain more knowledge on cluster members actual behaviors within the community, clusters were profiled on additional variables referring to costs incurred from participation and time spent within the wireless community. Analyzing clusters in terms of time spent within the community showed a more or less equal distribution of members with less than 2year time involvement and members with more than 2-year time involvement, while the Privileged Group distinguishes in that mature members outweigh novices by a factor of 1.5 to 1. However, concluding on potential motive transformation in orientation and extremity due to time spent with the community should be regarded with caution (the chi-square value was not found significant).

122

Profiling on the three cost variables (Table 5.8) showed that the Privileged Group, Lukewarms, and Dispassionates accrue more or less the same effort from their participation: tangible costs are the least important cost component, followed by ongoing intangible costs and, finally, by set-up costs, indicating that the major impediment for participation occurs at the early stages. Materialists do not differentiate much in terms of mean cost values; however, they are less troubled at their first time with the community and more challenged by ongoing intangible costs. Inter-cluster mean comparisons, however, are not significant (ANOVA F test), whereas overall cost levels imply a rather low cost situation characterizing wireless community collective action.
Table 5.8: Motivation Clusters Additional Profiling Variable (mean/SD) Tangible costs (5.76/1.550) Ongoing intangible costs (4.38/1.262) Set-up costs (3.60/2.069) The Privileged Group 6.15 4.55 3.23

Dispassionates 5.90 4.51 3.65

Lukewarms 5.50 4.44 3.53

Materialists 5.31 3.73 4.38

5.3.4.3

Participation Profiles

The four-cluster solution derived through the application of cluster analytic techniques on participation variables corroborates Hypothesis 2 in that wireless community participants can be grouped to four distinct participation profiles. To elaborate on this finding, cluster centers (mean values) were examined and cross-compared with participation variables overall mean values. At the end of this process, a unique label describing each clusters participation configuration was assigned to every grouping (Premkumar et al., 2005). Table 5.9 summarizes cluster centers and labels each cluster based on its performance against overall means.

123

Table 5.9: Participation Cluster Analysis Results (** p < 0.001, * p < 0.05, similar to the ANOVA results were also obtained through the Kruskal-Wallis test, which caters for deviations from normality) Variable (overall mean/SD) Digital communication services e.g. VoIP (5.67/1.758) File sharing services (6.00/1.418) Network management services (4.88/1.913) Gaming, multimedia, etc. (4.66/1.856) Uploading content (5.09/1.757) Creating content (4.06/2.065) Reading forum comments (6.27/1.219) Posting comments on forum (5.09/1.784) Participation in physical meetings (4.51/1.892) Offering technical assistance to other members (5.21/1.572) Supporting community activities (3.49/2.209) Cluster label Cluster Centers Cluster 3 (n =18) 6.00

Cluster 1 (n =34) 6.44

Cluster 2 (n = 23) 3.39

Cluster 4 (n =31) 6.33

F value (sig) 31.297 (**) 5.665 (*) 18.271 (**) 22.018 (**) 28.243 (**) 36.261 (**) 4.535 (*) 13.685 (**) 30.871 (**) 16.032 (**) 83.732 (**)

6.50

5.61

5.06

6.26

4.94

3.00

4.76

6.23

5.68 5.50 3.82 6.21

3.61 3.70 2.41 5.57

2.78 3.67 2.83 6.65

5.42 6.48 6.19 6.65

4.94

3.52

5.50

6.16

4.21

2.43

5.33

5.97

4.91

4.09

5.00

6.48

2.74

1.73

2.24

6.33

Consumers

Detached

Socializers

Enthusiasts

Table 5.9 defines four well demarcated community member groupings: a cluster of highly activated community members who are eager contributors as well as consumers of the activities afforded through the community network (Enthusiasts), a likewise energized cluster the members of which exhibit relative reluctance towards activities like content creation, participation in physical meetings, offering technical assistance and supporting the community (Consumers), a cluster distinguishing community participants with a focused interest in activities involving social interaction like digital communication services, physical

124

meetings, and offering of technical assistance (Socializers), and a cluster of less enthusiastic participants with non-peaked preferences across the eleven activities (Detached). The majority of the sample audience falls within Enthusiasts and Consumers clusters suggesting a relatively high level of involvement on behalf of wireless community members followed by Detached, whereas Socializers are the least populated cluster. The co-existence of these participation configurations is yet another demonstration of the extant heterogeneity in wireless community collective action, especially in terms of interests (community activities are not uniformly appreciated or performed) and resources (unequal contribution levels are extracted on the basis of participants capabilities and interests). It also shows how collective action can be induced under both strong (e.g. Enthusiasts and Socializers) and weak (e.g. Detached) social ties among participants (Fulk et al., 1996; Constant et al., 1996). The participation profiles delivered through cluster analysis provide additional evidence regarding the transformation of the pure free-rider image to an obsolete representation (Lupia & Sin, 2003; Bimber et al., 2005; Flanagin et al., 2006); even less enthusiastic cluster members, e.g. Detached, do not resent the idea of contribution though they perform it less intensively than Enthusiasts or Socializers. The alleviation of the free-rider dilemma is consistent with the strong interdependencies created among wireless community participants for the production and delivery of the wireless community good; personal utilities, e.g. consuming of file sharing or web-like services, are at a constant interplay with the greater community interest that requires from individuals to commit personal resources so that they can be aggregated and transformed to beneficial services available to the entirety of the community, including themselves. Cluster members have endorsed this role interchangeability (contributor as well as consumer), which assures the provision of a valuable community good. Hence, the irrelevance or inapplicability of the concept of pure loafing for wireless community collective action is once again confirmed. In addition, motives and costs cannot be assumed as uniformly distributed across participation profiles, as implied by interview findings and theoretical predictions regarding the effect of motivation on an individuals choice for the intensity and the orientation of his involvement (Locke & Latham, 2004). To elaborate on this assumption as well as further investigate the free-riding issue, clusters were profiled in terms of their motivation/cost agenda (Table 5.10), members time within the community, as well as their node or client membership flag. The node-client distribution across clusters clearly separates them into two larger groupings (Pearson chi-square value = 27.503, p < 0.001): Enthusiasts and Socializers are more likely to be nodes (90% and 78% of their respective members are nodes), while Consumers and Detached are more likely to be clients (59% and 70% of their respective members are clients).

125

This finding is in line with an earlier conclusion regarding the core-periphery structure of the wireless community network that considers nodes as essentials for the existence of the community network infrastructure and services and assigns to clients a less influential role. Depending on their level of involvement, clients can be positioned within varying distances from the core (e.g. Consumer clients are closer than Detached ones). In addition, the nodeclient arrangement can be unintentional since it is occasionally subject to physical constraints (e.g. location or coverage issues) and network requirements over and above personal preferences and capabilities (set-up costs). Analyzing cluster members distribution in terms of time spent within the community through the chi-square statistic indicated that each of the four participation profiles can be associated with either novice (with less than 2-year involvement with the community) or mature (with more than 2-year involvement with the community) community members (Pearson chi-square value = 13.870, p < 0.05). In particular, Enthusiasts are clearly mature members (77% against 23% of novices), Socializers are equally distributed (50-50), whereas Consumers and Detached are dominated by novice members (59% and 70% respectively), thus rationalizing their relative lack of commitment as an adaptive strategy for getting better acquainted with the community and its norms. The distribution of novice and mature members across the four participation profiles corroborates the timely transformation of consuming to contributing behaviors hypothesized earlier, based on the observation that use of a collective good is capable of stimulating contribution due to its experiential nature, peoples perceptions that others will find the contribution valuable and emergent attitudes towards working for the good of the community (Kalman et al., 2002; Fulk et al., 2004). Data presented in Table 5.10 partly confirm the assumption regarding the discriminatory power of motivation across participation profiles. To support this conjecture, a series of univariate and multivariate analyses of variance (ANOVA / MANOVA) were performed and indicated that enjoyment, warm-glow intrinsic motivation, relatedness, introjected and identified regulation (along with tangible costs and ongoing intangible costs) can serve as independent predictors of the delineated participation clusters; furthermore, post-hoc comparisons showed that Socializers are separated from all others based on the aforementioned set of motivation predictors (detailed results from ANOVA and MANOVA are presented in Appendix C). In sum, it can be concluded that the benefits associated with participants motives tend to augment with the level of involvement, whereas all four profiles exhibit similar cost hierarchies that follow the overall, low-cost, trend (i.e. set up costs are more important than ongoing intangible costs, which, in their turn, are more important than tangible costs). Hence, participation profiles are not adequately discriminated on the basis of

126

costs. Under such conditions, latent free-riders are not able to reap any benefits at all and thus they are discouraged, whereas active participants concerns on them are deteriorated because the delivery of benefits to them is further enhanced (von Hippel & von Krogh, 2003). Thus, wireless communities are founded on the premise that, once involved, an individual finds himself in a better position to receive benefits overwhelming his original anticipations and is intrigued to modify the orientation of his participation from consumption to contribution. Aggregating individual participation patterns eliminates the free-riding threat and creates prospects for long-term prosperity (to be further scrutinized in the following section).
Table 5.10: Participation Clusters Additional Profiling Variable (mean/SD) Enjoyment (6.27/0.764) Warm-glow intrinsic motivation (5.87/1.006) Relatedness (4.78/1.295) Reciprocity (5.25/1.375) Identified Regulation (4.62/1.458) Introjected Regulation (4.29/1.692) External Regulation (1.89/1.337) Tangible costs (5.76/1.550) Ongoing intangible costs (4.38/1.262) Set-up costs (3.60/2.069)

Consumers 6.47 6.21 4.78 5.46 4.81 4.63 1.75 5.97 4.54 4.09

Detached 5.97 5.62 4.33 4.85 4.38 4.05 1.99 6.27 3.77 3.77

Socializers 6.00 5.41 4.46 5.25 3.77 3.21 1.47 4.72 4.26 2.83

Enthusiasts 6.42 5.96 5.31 5.31 5.10 4.73 2.22 5.76 4.72 3.37

5.3.5

Predicting Wireless Community Sustainability

As postulated in Hypotheses 3a, 3b, and 3c motivation, cost and participation preferences are expected to impact on wireless community sustainability as expressed by members selfevaluation of their level of prospective involvement. To investigate these assumptions, logistic regression was considered the most suitable statistical method. Logistic regression is a multi-variate statistical technique that is qualified in assessing the predictive power of a set of independent variables on a dichotomous or ordinal dependent variable (Hosmer & Lemeshow, 1989). It is preferred over discriminant analysis due to its looser assumptions, especially with regard to the normality of variables, and the possibility to include both metric and categorical independent variables as predictors. In this research, the dependent variable (prospective involvement), although measured by three values (more, same extent, or less involvement),

127

was transformed to a binary one (1: more vs. 0: same extent or less) to achieve a certain balance in the distribution of responses based on frequency statistic results indicating that 65 respondents expected to get more involved with the wireless community, 34 expected to be involved to the same extent, while only four respondents stated that they would be less involved. According to this evidence, the wireless community movement has achieved considerable dynamics in sustaining its extant members zeal. To elaborate on the components of collective action that induce increased levels of involvement following the model representation in Figure 5.2, three separate logistic regression models were tested each one using a different set of predictors, motives, costs, and participation preferences to correspond to the three respective hypotheses formulated earlier (Figure 5.4). Results of the three models informed a final model inquiring into the relative importance of motivation against participation as the most salient predictors of increased prospective involvement (Figure 5.4). To this end, a stepwise procedure (forward enter and backwards elimination of predictors) was applied to assure that only the variables with a significant impact on the dependent variable were appraised in the final model. For evaluation purposes, several measures were used (the log-likelihood test or model chi-square, the Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test, and the Nagelkerke R Square for effect size), models discriminating power in terms of correctly classifying cases to the dependent variable calculated, while the significance of each of the independent variables was assessed using the Wald statistic with odds ratios indicating the direction of their relationship with the dependent variable (Menard, 2002). All statistical procedures were performed using the SPSS 13.0 software package. Table 5.11 presents the results of logistic regression analyses.

128

Tangible costs Enjoyment Set-up costs Altruism Relatedness External Regulation Introjected Regulation Identified Regulation Obligationbased intrinsic Model 1 Participation/ Involvement Extrinsic Activities Model 3 Prospective Involvement Intrinsic Ongoing intangible costs Model 2 Motivation Node/Client Participation/ Involvement Prospective Involvement Costs Prospective Involvement

Reciprocity

Motivation Prospective Involvement Overall Model

Figure 5.4: Logistic Regression Model Configurations

129

Table 5.11: Logistic Regression Results (** significance at the 0.001 level, * significance at the 0.05 level) Variable Enjoyment Warm-Glow Intrinsic Relatedness External Regulation Introjected Regulation Identified Regulation Reciprocity Tangible costs Ongoing intangible costs Set-up Costs Node (client: reference category) Using digital communication media Community administration Service consumption Forum -2 Log Likelihood Log Likelihood chi-square (p value) Hosmer - Lemeshow chisquare (p value) Nagelkerke R Square Model 1 Wald (sig) Odds ratio 6.907 (**) 2.023 0.464 3.201 0.939 0.017 0.697 2.870 0.607 1.174 1.569 1.183 0.975 1.161 0.026 0.902 1.603 0.978 1.171 1.139 Model 2 Wald (sig) Odds ratio Model 3 Wald (sig) Odds ratio Overall Model Wald (sig) Odds ratio 2.2821 7.227 (**)1 2 5.277 (**) 2.4932 2 3.594 0.5202 2 4.423 (*) 1.6222

9.958 (**)1 11.130 (**)2 4.123 (*) 0.210 6.360 (*) 0.427 124.276 10.236 (0.037) 0.726 0.916 1.703 1.155

0.2021 0.1622

115.4451 108.8622 20.183 (**)1 26.766 (**)2 6.638 (0.576) 4.674 (0.792) 2.565 (0.959) 3.833 (0.799) 1 4.419 (0.818) 2 0.253 0.035 0.130 0.2431 0.3132 72.8% (> 63.1%, chance) 62.7% (> 62.7%, chance) 68% (> 64.1%, chance) 74.8% (> 63.1%, chance)1 Discriminating power 73.8% (> 63.1%, chance)2 1 stepwise method: forward entry, method terminated in two steps, variable entered on step 1: node, variable entered on step 2: perceived enjoyment. 114.515 21.114 (0.004) 132.088 2.613 (0.455)
2

stepwise method: backward elimination, method terminated in 8 steps, 4 variables retained

130

Amongst motives, enjoyment was the only significant variable partly confirming Hypothesis 3a; thus, the decision to increase ones level of involvement with the community is tied to the amount of enjoyment delivered to him during participation. Amongst costs, neither component was found to be significant (the model was not significant as shown by its p-value that is greater than 0.05); therefore, costs have no impact on the decision to increase the level of prospective involvement, thus rejecting Hypothesis 3b. Amongst participation preferences, services consumption was found a positive predictor of increased prospective involvement, while using digital communication media was found a negative predictor; thus, Hypothesis 3c is confirmed for certain participation preferences and rejected for others. To complement these findings, a chi-square procedure was performed to determine whether nodes or clients are more biased towards increasing their level of involvement; the test was significant indicating that clients are heavily biased towards increased involvement (only 7 out of 42 stated that they will decrease their level of involvement, while nodes are equally distributed between the two states). Results from running the overall model in a stepwise manner confirmed that clients and participants with genuine intrinsic motivation are the principal agents sustaining wireless community collective action. Drawing on the findings above, the sustainability of wireless communities stems from two different sources: participants perceiving their experience as highly joyful and network periphery members (i.e. clients) who exhibit strong willingness to shrink their distance from the core. Hence, two critical constituents for wireless communities sustainability emerge that prolong the transformation of resources to benefits: intrinsic motivation, as a catalyst for the emergence and growth of wireless communities, and the establishment of a community environment stimulating contribution from usage (i.e. clients, typically oriented to using network resources, gradually transform their preferences to becoming nodes) and tailored to accommodate members preferences for receiving intrinsic satisfaction (i.e. not crowding-out intrinsic motivation). Both constituents influence takes place under a low-cost situation given that individuals do not perceive their participation in the wireless community as a costly endeavor and, thus, do not consider it as an influential component in their decision making process. Overall, the statistical analyses conducted so far have offered a comprehensive outlook on the synergies between wireless communities micro and macro-level properties. At the microlevel, intrinsic motivation, including its obligation-based dimension, is the most influential factor over and above extrinsic motives and costs diminishing effort perceptions and allowing the development and flourishing of reciprocity through the incorporation of feelings of solidarity, fairness, and altruism into individual utilities. At the macro-level, the interplay

131

between intrinsic motivation and reciprocity determines the terms of cooperation among community members: the affluence of intrinsically-motivated individuals detaches the social dilemmas associated with participation in a collective action from the prisoners dilemma game domain, where the action is deemed to failure, and transforms them to a coordination game (e.g. an assurance game), which allows intra-group cooperation and prevents the collective from dissolution (Kollock, 1998; Fehr & Schmidt, 2000; Rabin, 1993). This kind of coordination, stimulated by the motivational properties of wireless community collective action, is further facilitated by the processes pursued by and the interdependencies developed among community members. In particular, empirical evidence has shown that wireless community members heavily communicate with each other through multiple communication channels beyond physical meetings and face-to-face dialogues. These technology-augmented communication mechanisms function effectively even for large community sizes and catalyze the development of the habit of cooperation (Marwell et al., 1988). Furthermore, free-riding tendencies are eliminated to suggest that the interdependencies developed do not reside on exploitation but on mutual cooperation. Hence, coercion or any kind of structural solution involving the imposition of authorities, organizational hierarchies, or monitoring-sanctioning systems (Kollock, 1998) is considered irrelevant, since it crowds-out individuals perceptions of intrinsic satisfaction as well as their feelings of autonomy and control over their work product. There is also a time element affecting the emergence of coordination, the fact that contributory behaviors are not only elicited by the existence of suitable incentive systems but also surface naturally after having experienced the community good. Under these effects, wireless communities appear selfsufficient and sustainable beyond size considerations. Furthermore, intrinsic motivation and coordination based on reciprocal cooperation are tightly knitted together so that they are ineffectual for the sustainability of the wireless community when standing on their own (Figure 5.5).

132

Intrinsic Motivation low-cost situation Coordination (reciprocal cooperation) autonomy supportive community environment Sustainability

Figure 5.5: Micro and Macro-level Properties of Wireless Community Collective Action

5.4 Summary of Findings

Till now, the research presented in this essay has strived to provide theoretically-supported and empirically-validated arguments that clarify how the wireless community movement has emerged and developed to exemplify a case of modern collective action. The debate originated from the nature of the wireless community good as an emergent, highly heterogeneous, information and communication artifact. The study of its multiple dimensions indicated the remarkable ways it deviates not only from physical goods but also from similar interactive technological systems in a number of dimensions, i.e. tangibility, divisibility, transferability of ownership, and public good properties (see Chapter 3). Furthermore, this investigation concluded that, to understand the production model of the wireless community good, a closer look at its collective action components is warranted through the compilation of empirical data regarding micro (motivation, costs, participation preferences) as well as macro-level (free-riding, coordination, and, eventually, sustainability) properties of wireless communities. To this end, qualitative and quantitative data were collected, analyzed, and interpreted following a methodically organized research design detailed in previous paragraphs. The following points outline the main findings of the empirical research with regards to the augmented capacities of technology-induced collective action towards achieving self-efficiency and, consequently, long-term viability and address the research questions postulated in Chapter 3 (Table 3.2). Motivation systems triggering individual participation and sustained involvement with collective action compose of diverse motives, including both intrinsic as well as extrinsic dimensions, arranged in a symbiotic relationship; nevertheless, intrinsic gratification emerges as a universal motivator endorsed by practically all interested individuals.

133

 Costs, by including non-fungible components that cannot be easily appraised such as time, energy, and value trade-offs, introduce complexity to individual costbenefit calculations; however, they are not perceived as seriously influencing an individuals decision to participate in collective action. Participation cannot be treated as a uniform process across all interested individuals: it encompasses multiple dimensions spanning over the connectivitycommunality constituents of the collective good and embodies both use and contribution dynamics. In addition, participation is an evolutionary process, contingent upon the experiential nature of the good, and as such, it is in constant interplay with motives to ensure that resources are transformed to benefits, valuable to all participants. The interaction between participation, motivation, and costs pinpoints to a tentative rule describing the dynamics of involvement over the course of collective action: the more involved an individual becomes with the collective, the more benefits are accrued to him, further enhancing his willingness to contribute his resources. The aggregation of similar courses of behavior ensures that the collective action is effectively coordinated and, thus, self-sustained. Coordination is achieved through a roughly sketched pattern of reciprocal ties developed among intrinsicallymotivated individuals; intrinsic motivation is necessary to attribute to it normative traits, which are then communicated via the goods numerous interaction channels irrespective of the strength of individuals social ties or the size of the collective. The emergence of self-sustainable collective actions following the mechanics described above diminishes two of its typical, though most compelling, threats: free-riding and the need for coercion. Free-riding becomes obsolete not only because of the nature of the collective good, which is produced on the premise of equivalence between use and contribution, but also because increasing involvement with the action renders it an unattractive choice for participants. In addition, the inducement and governance of collective action on the basis of intrinsic motivation implies that coercion or any kind of tight, hierarchy-based organizational scheme are unsuitable, or even undesirable, due to their thinning effect on individual autonomy and self-determination perceptions as well as their self-allocation to the activities and tasks within the community. In sum, collective action built over and above modern information and communication technologies, as is the case with wireless communities, can be initiated, coordinated, and, finally, self-sustained under the guidance and interest of strongly intrinsically-motivated individuals and their mastering of the multiple capabilities of the produced collective good.

134

Though this illustration is highly optimistic and underpins the power delivered to individuals by modern technologies, these interpretations imply a rather introverted nature for wireless communities that leaves their potential to positively spillover their hosting environment unaccountable. Do wireless communities bear the capacity to create pivotal shifts in technological, business, economic, or social domains or are they solely targeted towards satisfying members private needs within a hobbyist related context that resides outside formal production processes? These concerns are not unfamiliar to researchers of wireless communities, as shown in Chapter 2, and are topical for understanding the essence of the phenomenon. To this end, further empirical evidence were sought following the qualitative research perspective and taking into account the conjectures reached up to here. The following chapter details the process undertaken and offers the final insights on the wireless community phenomenon.

135

6 Empirical Research Part II: Confirmatory Qualitative Research Design and Findings
The conduct of a second round of interviews with wireless community members was organized with a two-fold objective: first, to provide further validation on the findings reached through the survey and, second, to enlighten some of the issues pinpointed by wireless community researchers that were not fairly treated in the first part of the empirical research. The following paragraphs detail the orchestration of the interviews as well as the analysis and interpretation of the data collected. Hence, the chapter is organized in the following way: First, it introduces the research questions that guide the qualitative research through combining insights from the literature review process and the empirical findings presented in Chapters 2 and 5 respectively (section 6.1). Second, it details the mechanics for the conduct of the interviews by addressing interview protocol development and sampling issues (section 6.2). Third, it presents the analysis of the qualitative data against the research questions postulated in the first section of this chapter (section 6.3). Finally, it offers a comprehensive discussion wrapping up the defining characteristics of wireless communities (section 6.4).

6.1 Re-introducing Wireless Communities

Wireless communities are a novel organizational form grouping together common-minded individuals who build their own wireless metropolitan network infrastructure, share services, exchange knowledge, and enjoy social connectivity. Beyond the stimulus created by the way individual incentive systems interact to produce a valuable shared good and, hence, shape their inner characteristics, wireless communities emerge, grow, and potentially flourish within a broader technological and socio-economic environment. In fact, environmental conditions cannot be left unaccounted for two reasons. First, early evidence from this research as well as prior relevant documentations attest that there is strong association between environmental conditions and the spurring of the wireless community movement, a cause-effect relationship that is explained under the umbrella of collective action by suggesting that user-driven initiatives are established as an answer to the markets or the states inability to satisfy latent consumer demand (Hardin, 1982). Second and during the movements growth, the interest is focused on investigating its capacity to create paradigmatic shifts within its application field

136

the telecommunications network grid that would allow the building of a legacy for usercentric development of communications systems over and above earlier similar initiatives. Hence, re-introducing wireless communities by taking into consideration how well they fit (or misfit) to their environment is essential for understanding the true impact of the phenomenon. To this end, combining evidence from the literature review on the wireless community phenomenon with the findings of the first part of the empirical research (including the exploratory interviews with wireless community enthusiasts) pinpoints to three cases of direct spillover effects that wireless communities can produce on their surrounding environment. First, participation in a wireless community as a means for acquiring knowledge and expertise on the wireless realm is not solely pursued for the excitement generated through learning and experimentation. It is also viewed as improving ones human capital, an asset that can be exploited for professional amelioration purposes: for signaling ones abilities to the business community or launching relevant entrepreneurial initiatives. In addition, professional opportunities are created through the social connectivity dimension implied in wireless communities. Insofar, the investigation of wireless communities capacity to produce positive spillovers on participants professional lives and hence, to revitalize the wireless industry with fresh experts and novel business ideas has yielded controversial results. On one hand, interview findings support the parallel between participation in a wireless community and professional advancement; on the other hand, survey results contest this conjecture since identification is not highly valued in respondents motivation portfolio. Thus, it becomes topical to re-examine the professionalization hypothesis (Auray et al., 2003) by getting into more depth on wireless community participants perceptions on the career possibilities afforded through the community and how these perceptions possibly transform over the course of ones involvement with the community. Second, much of the momentum credited to the wireless community movement was attributed to its initiators being technologically-savvy individuals stimulated by their desire to experiment with an emerging technology (Wi-Fi) and tailor its capabilities to their own needs beyond unsatisfying or over-priced commercial offerings. This view of wireless communities pinpoints to their latent capacity to facilitate or encourage the development of user-driven innovation initiatives within the wireless realm. Potential domains for innovative achievements include the configuration of original routing protocols, the establishment and testing of mesh network topologies, the construction of out-of-the-shelf antenna installations, or the introduction of novel ways for treating security, roaming, or spectrum management issues. Innovation produced by user communities is not something new. Allen (1983) describes collective invention as an inventive institution formed when economic actors reveal

137

their innovations to an interested public so that others can learn and develop the innovations further. Von Hippel (1988) introduces the lead user concept to illustrate how users transform to rich innovation sources and elaborates (2001) on its significance under the light of digital technologies and resulting products, namely Open Source Software projects. Nevertheless, wireless communities positioning towards user-driven innovation remains ambiguous. Beyond the establishment of the community network per se, which has been considered an innovation on its own, prior research has attested that the movements potential contribution to technical innovation is limited (Auray et al., 2003; Sandvig, 2004) and sporadic to include solutions tailored to local needs, e.g. configuring a network topology to specific geographies and node-client distributions or creating off-the-shelf hardware solutions like the famous Pringles can antenna (Flickenger, 2003). Overcoming their skepticism, researchers have focused on the experimentation mentality of wireless community members and the knowledge transfer procedure from experts to novices as facilitating conditions for the emergence of user-driven innovation initiatives (Schmidt & Townsend, 2003; Meinrath, 2005; Rao & Parikh, 2003b; Bar & Galperin, 2004). Their observations were further underpinned by the empirical findings of this research, suggesting that individuals are heavily driven by the excitement generated when working and experimenting with a new technology and exhibit willingness to cooperate with other members. To further explore the potential portrayal of wireless communities as innovation institutions, additional information is needed with regards to the delivery of genuine products or services tied to a community environment favorable towards experimentation, knowledge creation and exchange. Third, wireless communities are part of a larger eco-system of socio-economic actors all of which operate with a common agenda: to promote and exploit the uptake of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in peoples everyday lives. To evaluate wireless communities fit (or misfit) within this broad system of actors, earlier research has elaborated on their role for the development of large socio-technical systems and communication infrastructures and concluded that their decentralized production model is only suitable at the early stages during which incumbents find it unbeneficial to invest for updating the infrastructural grid (Sawhney, 2003; Bar & Galperin, 2004; Sandvig, 2004). Nevertheless, the self-sustainability capacity of wireless communities, as derived from survey findings, challenges these assumptions and invigorates the discussion regarding their integration to the existing eco-system. In particular, evidence from the interviews confronts early hypotheses on the potential fading away of communities vis--vis for-profit business models (Rao & Parikh, 2003a; Camponovo

138

et al., 2003; Herslow et al., 2002; Lehr & McKnight, 2003) by implying that over the years the level of direct competition with them has diminished. Nevertheless, the latter assumption remains tentative and further confirmation is warranted as the empirical findings pinpointed to a lack of ideological homogeneity regarding the movements outlook against industry players. Furthermore, our findings corroborate prior propositions on the introverted nature of wireless communities and their focus on satisfying members inherent needs and desires (Auray et al., 2003; Sandvig, 2004). This view of wireless communities casts doubts on their capacity to accommodate and serve larger societal goals, including objectives for social enlargement and welfare through the promotion of broadband communication technologies, all of which have been much promulgated (Schmidt & Townsend, 2003; Meinrath, 2005). Hence, it is requisite to update our knowledge with regards the current positioning of wireless communities within their surrounding eco-system, especially under the light of sprouting technologies and unsettling socio-economic actors, and investigate their members shared commitment to large societal goals. To wrap up, the discussion presented in the previous paragraphs combined empirical and theoretical evidence to conclude that there are three dimensions along which wireless communities can influence the broader environment within which they operate. Table 6.1 summarizes these dimensions and provides research questions that outline the territory of the upcoming qualitative research following a confirmatory frame of inquiry.
Table 6.1: Research Questions for the Confirmatory Qualitative Research Dimension Professionalization opportunities Research Questions How influential are the opportunities for professional amelioration over the course of an individuals involvement with a wireless community? Can wireless communities be portrayed as innovation institutions under the user-driven innovation model? Has there been a shift in the relationship between wireless communities and for-profit business models over the lifespan of the community movement till now? Do wireless communities bear the capacity to accommodate larger societal goals, i.e. act as vehicles for the dissemination of broadband communication technologies?

User Innovation Community Positioning within the surrounding eco-system

6.2 Design Issues: Interview Protocol and Sampling

The decision to apply the qualitative tactic as a means for validating, clarifying, and extending survey findings is aligned with triangulation the mechanics of which capitalize on

139

the synergies between quantitative and qualitative methods (Sieber, 1978; Denzin, 1978; Jick, 1979). As already posited in this essay, triangulation is an appropriate technique for the study of wireless communities due to its ability to provide a holistic description on a recently emerged and under-explored phenomenon. In this research, triangulation was applied in three steps. The first step targeted at uncovering hidden dimensions of wireless communities, which were not already included in scholarly documentations, under an exploratory qualitative perspective. Building on the knowledge generated through this process, the second step of triangulation systematized the research questions postulated in Chapter 3 by offering a model of motivation, effort, and participation that was validated through the means of a survey addressing wireless community members. Finally, the third step designated the collection of additional qualitative data to complement the recounting of wireless communities defining elements under a confirmatory perspective. Prior to delving into the information conveyed by the interviewees who participated in this part of the empirical research, it is important to take a closer look on interview protocol development and sampling issues. The use of an interview protocol is needed to help improve the reliability of qualitative studies (Yin, 1994). It is developed using prior theory (McCracken, 1988) and can include interview schedules and loosely structured interview questions to serve as a means for gently probing for information about the research questions and objectives (Alam, 2005). Major input for the interview protocol was derived by the research objectives discussed in the previous section; thus, interview items were developed with the aim to deconstruct the four research questions presented in Table 6.1 and extrapolate interesting reactions from interviewees. In addition, these questions served to structure the interview questionnaire in four sections. The first section of the questionnaire includes opening, non-directive questions, also named grand-tour questions (McCracken, 1988), where the interviewer introduces himself and the purpose of his study. Suitable grand-tour questions include asking the interviewee about his participation in the wireless community in terms of longevity, status (node-client), and possible evolution, either in terms of status or heaviness of involvement, over the years. The greater aim is to collect background information on the interviewee and the nature of his participation with a wireless community that would be of value when reflecting on his perspective on the phenomenon. The second section urges the interviewee to summarize his agenda of reasons for participating in a wireless community as a means for corroborating survey findings regarding individual incentives. In doing so, planned prompts (repeating key terms from the survey questionnaire) (McCracken, 1988) are applied so that findings are directly comparable and assure an adequate level of reliability for the cross-analysis.

140

The third section of the questionnaire is intended to go into more depth with the issues guiding this research by including category questions aiming at investigating interviewees standpoints regarding wireless communities capacity to produce the three spillovers described above (effect on professional life, user-driven innovation, and socio-technical enlargement). To this end, the questions included are specific to the issues under investigation but also flexible enough to accommodate interviewees potential openness to speak out about their experience and opinions on them. Finally, the questionnaire ends with a planned prompting procedure called auto-driving (McCracken, 1988) where the interviewee is presented with a stimulus prepared by the interviewer and is asked to provide his account. Accordingly, four potential descriptions of wireless communities have been sketched based on earlier accounts of the phenomenon (discussed in Chapter 2) and its portrayal as a heterogeneous collective good (provided in Chapter 3). These descriptions were presented to the interviewees for selecting the one they think fits best the wireless community case: The Sociality. The wireless community acts as a hub for people sharing ideas and opinions regarding the use of new technologies and encourages the development of a social connectivity network over and beyond the wireless network infrastructure. The wireless Network of Practice. The community mainly consists of information and communication professionals seeking to expand their human capital and network of professional contacts; as such, the community favors expertise exchange and knowhow transfer among its members both of which are considered pivotal elements of its operation mechanics. The Technology Aficionado. The wireless community is built around individuals with notable interest on sprouting technologies, lack of commitment to the telecommunications industry, and, thus, increased willingness to experiment with emerging technological trends, test their application boundaries, and adjust them to their particular needs. The Philanthropist: The wireless community operates under a shared vision for the dissemination of wireless broadband technologies, including the possibility for cooperation with other agents, as a means for increasing social welfare. Appendix D of the essay lists all the questions in the designated interview protocol. As it can be seen from above, the interview questionnaire configured for this part of the research is considerably tighter than the one employed in the first qualitative study. This approach stems

141

directly from the objective of the research tied to answering specific questions regarding wireless communities under a confirmatory perspective. Nevertheless, such configuration requisites the avoidance of any kind of phrasing bias to warrant the validity of the data to be collected and assure that the interviewees would not be directed to desired answers. To this end, besides insisting on neutral question phrasing, two additional tactics were employed: conduction of a pre-test and use of an alternative researcher who was not exposed to the conduct of the first qualitative study (Eisenhardt, 1989). Overall, this approach enhances the creative potential of the research as well as our confidence in the findings. Sampling for the research suffers from the same challenges as already discussed in previous chapters, namely difficulty in reaching the population of interest and unavailability of beforehand information regarding wireless community participants distribution in the general population. Selecting informants for the interviews was based on the principles of theoretical sampling, described earlier in this chapter, but relied on a different pool of wireless community enthusiasts than the one employed during the first phase of the research. Furthermore, to increase confidence on the outcome of the research, evolving sampling followed a reputational case or snowball or chain selection tactic that involves selecting interviewees based on other informants recommendations and in relation to the objectives of the research (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Recommendations were made based on research objectives and each interviewee was requested to pinpoint to another community member with potentially deviating opinions or interesting thoughts on the community movement, i.e. identify someone who has been benefited in his profession by his involvement in the wireless community, someone who has developed something unique or is testing hardware or software solutions, someone who is more visionary than the rest in his expectations from the wireless community movement. Note, however, that such identification may fail (participants fitting the desired profile are non-existent) so that theoretical saturation is achieved at the early stages of the process. Saturation was achieved with five interviews conducted in a two-month period (December 2006 January 2007), a number that is in line with experts suggestions (McCracken, 1988; Eisenhardt, 1989).

6.3 Data Analysis and Interpretation

6.3.1 Introducing the Informants

Following the sampling tactic described in the previous section resulted to the conduction of five interviews with corresponding key informants members of a wireless community. All

142

of the interviewees exhibit ample familiarity with the wireless community phenomenon with their time-span of involvement being no less than 2 years. In addition, they all operate their own nodes; two of them started their involvement as nodes, another two first connected as clients only to upgrade their status within a few months period, while one of them is the administrator of a community node that is located within the premises of the Athens University of Economics and Business. It is also worth noting that the application of the snowball tactic achieved to identify one of the very few women participating in the wireless community movement; in fact, according to her, there are no more than 20 women actively involved of whom only 2 or three are node owners. Appendix D of the essay lists all participants in the interview process. Following the designated interview protocol, a series of planned prompting questions were asked to examine individual incentives for becoming involved with the wireless community as a means for associating this part of the research to earlier findings. Scrutinizing the answers provided by the interviewees largely confirms the motivation hierarchy derived through the survey data analysis in the previous chapter (see Table 5.4). In particular, all interviewees opinions converged that the most salient motive for participation resides on the enjoyment aspect of the activity that is further reinforced by the opportunity for creative hands-on learning (Enjoyment). Additional strong motives include the desire to unconditionally share knowledge and expertise as well as get involved in cooperative practices for the development of the network founded on the premise of reciprocity (WarmGlow Intrinsic Motivation, Reciprocity). Social connectivity and professional amelioration (through advances in human capital and business contacts) aspirations received mixed reactions on behalf of the interviewees (opinions were practically split in two sides), thus confirming their mediocre impact on the motivation portfolio of wireless community participants (Relatedness, Identified Regulation). Finally, esteem and recognition considerations generated controversial responses with one interviewee stating that (receiving others esteem) is an important motive, not for first time involvement but for the communitys growth 34, while another refuted this comment by saying that ... I am not interested in winning other peoples appreciation and thats for sure 35, an attitude shared by the remaining three interviewees in their evaluation of the respective motive (Introjected Regulation). This outcome enhances the credibility of the findings reached at through the quantitative part of the research and, hence, the legitimacy of the conclusions discussed in the final section of Chapter 5.

143

6.3.2

Coding

Analysis and interpretation of the data collected through the interview process were conducted following the coding approach (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Strauss & Corbin, 1998), according to which coding categories, emergent or pre-selected, are assigned to extracts from the interview transcripts in such a way that a common meaning is created to capture the essence of multiple observations (Locke, 2001). Since the research objective for this part of the empirical research falls within a confirmatory frame of analysis and the interviews were conducted following a tight questionnaire protocol, the coding categories used were pre-selected to match the research questions presented in Table 6.1 and their conceptual foundation. Nevertheless, the analysis was flexible enough to accommodate the potential refinement of their content under the light of new information. Table 6.2 summarizes the coding categories along which the qualitative data were scrutinized. To facilitate the analysis procedure, the N6 Software Tool for Qualitative Data Analysis was applied.
Table 6.2: Coding Categories and Content Coding Category Human capital development Content Knowledge acquisition in the realm of wireless networking Expertise crafting from hands-on experience Relationships created due to participating in the community that can be of professional value Participation in a wireless community strengthens ones resume Business ideas formed during involvement with the wireless community Member mentality: testing the boundaries of existing wireless hardware and software technologies as a pre-requisite (albeit, not the only one) for user-driven innovation Addressing local geographies and topology requirements Specific products or services that can be considered innovative Symbiotic or competitive relationship Possible transformation over the years

Professionalization opportunities

Professional networking Signaling of abilities Nurturing of wireless entrepreneurs

User Innovation Community

Experimentation / Customization

Innovative outcomes Positioning within the surrounding eco-system Vis--vis the telecommunications industry

144

Social welfare

Dissemination of broadband technologies to larger audiences as part of the movements objectives Cooperation with academic institutions, policy-making bodies, municipal authorities or other government agencies

6.3.3

Findings

Data analysis following the coding approach offered comprehensive insights on the nature and extent of the spillover effects that wireless communities can produce on their surrounding environment. In general, our interviewees reached consensus regarding the first two issues under investigation (professionalization opportunities and user-driven innovation), while the third issue generated less aligned opinions that reflect the difficulty in articulating beyond personal welfare objectives for the community movement, an issue that was also raised during the exploratory phase of the research and was picked up in survey design. Findings from applying the coding procedure are detailed in the following paragraphs.

Finding 1. Professionalization opportunities are limited to being side-effects of wireless community participation When elaborating on the nature and the magnitude of the impact that participation in a wireless community can exert on members professional activities, nearly all interviewees arrived at the same conclusion: though professional amelioration may be found within individual motivation agendas, it can by no means considered a prominent outcome of the wireless community movement: - We are not involved to benefit on a professional level, we regard our involvement as a hobbyist-like activity 36 (Interview 1) - There are people pursuing (professional amelioration objectives) participating 100% for this I do not see it happening. 37 (Interview 2) - It is not AWMN 18s particular feature I dont think that someone would get involved just for finding a job. 38 (Interview 3) - Even if someone becomes involved with this objective in mind (professional opportunities), I believe that he will be overwhelmed by the (other) things that overwhelmed me as well, such as direct communication and the human factor. 39 (Interview 4)
18

See supra note 17

145

Nevertheless, it is common ground among the interviewees that the acquisition of new, practical knowledge and the opportunity for professional networking can have a positive effect on members professional activities, including their own: - Those interested have built up their knowledge and contact base and, perhaps, have even benefited (professionally)(Participating in the wireless community) has helped me in my job because I have learnt a lot of things 40 (Interview 1) - There are people who have benefited in their professional lives either because they have made useful acquaintances or have learnt things applicable (to their jobs), in other words, they have gained knowledge 41 (Interview 2) - indirectly through knowledge acquisition perhaps even through making acquaintances there is some truth in that participation can help you in your professional life 42 (Interview 3) - I am aware of a lot of people who have benefited because they gained knowledge applicable to their job or/and made acquaintances it is clear-cut that everyone can gain something applicable to his job but I think that there are a lot of people who also benefited from finding a job because you get in contact with lots of people I benefited in such way 43 (Interview 5) Furthermore, two of the interviewees stated that participating in a wireless community is an activity the visibility of which can be used for signaling purposes: - include it in their resume I can understand how this can intrigue someone (Interview 3) 44 - for whomever deserves it (in terms of knowledge and expertise), AWMN is a good way of showing it to others 45 (Interview 5) Community-inspired wireless entrepreneurship is not flourishing since only one interviewee informed us about the set-up of companies importing wireless equipment as a result of their owners involvement with the wireless community. Such initiatives, however, need to clearly state that their business objectives are detached from the community and that, by no means, community resources would be exploited for profit-making activities. In the words of one of our interviewees:

146

-if someone attempts something like that (i.e. exploit community resources for personal profit) and gets noticed by others, he would become socially isolated from the community, but not from network links 46 (Interview 4). In sum, human capital development and professional networking are the main vehicles for professional amelioration, albeit they are not viewed as standalone pursuits when participating in a wireless community, rather they emerge during the process (you dont realize it from the beginning, it surfaces during involvement 47 Interview 5). Hence, the size of the externality created between wireless community involvement and professional life advancement is trivial and produced through knowledge transfer to members day jobs and business contact network revitalization. Nevertheless, wireless community members do not solely include individuals occupied in technology-related fields but encompass a wide variety of occupational backgrounds to whom professional advancement aspirations are irrelevant. In general, professionalization emerges as an interesting side-effect of participation in a wireless community, an activity that is primarily shaped by members hobbyist-like mentality.

Finding 2. Beyond experimentation, wireless communities capacity to foster user-driven innovation is relatively narrow Beyond knowledge exchange, which is one of the fundamental characteristics of wireless communities as discussed earlier in the essay, experimentation and customization can be regarded as processes enabling the delivery of potentially innovative outcomes. Evidence from the interviews pinpoint to a shared moto among wireless community members, if you want something done right, do it yourself, a saying that describes the development of user innovation communities (von Hippel, 2001). Taking the saying into practice, experimentation with regards to testing novel commercial products or configuring alternative network links, topologies, and routing schemes is an activity pursued by all community members: - New things are constantly tested... every new product that may potentially be better, its tested... someone who has expertise on the physical layer tests cards, antennas, and anything else, someone who has expertise on the network layer tests protocols... 48 (Interview 2) - ... new things are tested... people who can afford it buy a card that has recently been marketed and test it... in addition, there is interest in finding computer systems of small size so that they can be placed in boxes on the rooftops 49 (Interview 4) - New things are tested with great enthusiasm due to curiosity or as a result of the battle of who gets the chance to bring out (to the community) the most novel product...there is some

147

interest in wireless links... there are so many wireless links under differing circumstances due to Athens topology 50 (Interview 5) Nevertheless, when asked about the potential of these activities to generate genuine products or services that can be considered innovations in their domain, our interviewees were skeptical, albeit agreeing that the true innovation lies in the network itself and its capacity to cover the connectivity needs of metropolitan areas and overcome physical constrains imposed by urban architectures and large distances between neighboring nodes: - The idea was quite innovative at the time of its conception... the services are traditional Internet-like services 51 (Interview 3) - In general, the idea as a whole is innovative... the services are not unique all of these exist on the Internet as well its just the way they are being delivered on a volunteer basis 52 (Interview 4) Our interviewees also identified a limited set of innovative services including the set-up of SIG servers for member communication (Interview 1) and the streaming of digital television content through the network (Interview 2). Finally, one of the interviewees noted that there is innovation potential in the routing and security domains: -... perhaps some new knowledge concerning routing and security can be generated since these two areas are not catered for satisfactorily within AWMN and AWMN is something new in these terms ... perhaps it might be of little practical importance because it is too specific to AWMN particularities 53 (Interview 5) Overall, the findings from the interviews are in line with earlier accounts on the innovation capacity of wireless communities being limited to tailoring hardware and software to specific needs and requirements that cannot trespass the boundaries of the community and become industry standards or products. Nevertheless, combining findings on innovation and professionalization opportunities indicates an alternative mechanism, not explicitly mentioned in the interviews, potentially accommodating the production of wireless community related innovation. This mechanism builds on the knowledge transfer procedure occurring from communities to members day jobs and its ability to generate or become integrated into private investment innovation processes hosted within corporate boundaries, where innovators earn private returns for their developments and are protected by efficient regimes of intellectual property protection (von Hippel & von Krogh, 2003). Hence, wireless

148

communities can be portrayed as innovative institutions, but the reach of their innovation capabilities remains restrained to satisfying local needs and requirements.

Finding 3. Wireless community versus industry dynamics have shifted from filling a gap in the market to being symbiotic with commercial providers Extrapolating answers about wireless communities positioning within their surrounding environment offered interesting contributions to the discussion regarding their evolving role in shaping the socio-technical characteristics of the telecommunications grid. In particular, practically all interviewees reached agreement in their assessment of the initial interplay between wireless communities and commercial providers and confirmed that the emergence of the wireless community phenomenon was tightly linked to the lack of adequate infrastructures and compelling market offerings: -People were disappointed with the service provisioning in Greece 54 (Interview 1) - The difference in the cost-to-speed ratio between commercial and community offerings was the initial driver ... at that time, telecommunications companies were not able to offer what the community offered ... the goal was not to fight the industry 55 (Interview 2) - There were no DSL connections, access to the Internet was expensive, it was a relatively inexpensive solution for peer communication 56 (Interview 4) - People were eager seeing that in the European Union Internet was widely accessible, while we were still accessing it through dial-up connections or we were paying enormous amounts of money for ADSL 57 (Interview 5) When asked to describe the nature of the current relationship between wireless communities and telecommunications companies, our interviewees pictured the wireless community movement as an alternative mechanism for the provision of communication services that differentiates from the methods of the telecommunications industry by promoting end-user autonomy. However, not all interviewees reported equally strong fight the industry ideological orientations: - The vision... is to interconnect all houses, to bypass connecting through providers networks this is my vision, finding everyone inexpensively through incurring only the cost for (buying) your equipment and not for using it 58 (Interview 2) - We are showing to providers that if you pressure us in terms of prices we can build our own (infrastructure) ... achieve autarky ... these grassroots movements are initiated by people who want more freedom, dont want to commit to powerful providers but to freely

149

communicate with each other... in parallel to the Internet but independent from it... in general, they believe in free access to information 59 (Interview 3) - I believe that a lot of people join the community to bypass the providers because they do not match their needs 60 (Interview 5) In sum, the opinions communicated through the interviews indicate that there has been a shift in the relationship between wireless communities and commercial providers over the years. In particular, empirical evidence confirms the proposition that wireless communities emerged to satisfy an unfilled end-user need for broadband connectivity that could not be otherwise catered for; thus, wireless communities assumed an active role in building up the wireless infrastructure grid something that positioned them, at that time, as complementary to commercial providers. However, their role was gradually adjusted as telecommunications companies set up their own wireless networks and marketed attractive service access offerings. Wireless communities are currently centered on sophisticated users wanting to engage in more autonomous, self-adapting and unconstrained forms of technology-mediated communication. Hence, their current positioning within the telecommunications industry addresses the needs of a niche grouping together those users whose needs cannot be efficiently addressed by conventional service offerings. In addition, their potential rivalry against for-profit providers appears diminished, since fighting the industry visions are not overwhelming members perceptions and targeting respective users is based on different priorities, to suggest that a non-competitive relationship between the two models is in fact plausible. Furthermore, the wireless eco-system extends beyond telecommunications companies to include actors such as government agencies, policy-making bodies, municipal authorities, and academic or research institutions. According to our interviewees, there is room for cooperation with these actors especially in terms of transferring knowhow and expertise: - AWMN communicates very often with the National Regulatory Authority... 61 (Interview 1) - I think wireless communities could cooperate with universities and municipalities... they can transfer their knowhow to those developing municipal networks 62 (Interview 3) - Wireless communities work with universities... 63 (Interview 4) - Municipal authorities and universities can make use of AWMN... It would be very interesting for a university to work with AWMN... mobilize towards cooperating with other communities to offer them our knowhow or with universities, even companies if we could, to share their knowhow 64 (Interview 5)

150

Finding 4. Wireless communities are a hub for technology aficionados communicating with each other and to the society at large the benefits of wireless broadband technologies. To further explore wireless communities extroversion, our interviewees were questioned regarding their commitment to larger societal objectives focused on raising public awareness on the use, adoption, and exploitation of broadband technologies. Evidence from the interviews suggests that wireless communities are in fact in pursuit of goals related to the promotion of broadband and the provision of broadband connectivity to underserved areas; however, these goals are not received with the same level of enthusiasm by all interviewees: - What wireless communities are pursuing in Greece... to promote broadband and the need for broadband... communicate ideas and propositions for the promotion of broadband in Greece (to the National Regulatory Authority) 65 (Interview 1) - These networks can be used for educational purposes... for developing broadband communications in distant or under-populated areas... in my opinion, (wireless communities) represent an alternative for offering access to broadband services in underserved areas... there is an altruistic mentality, we want to help diffuse knowledge 66 (Interview 3) - I think wireless communities can help disseminate new technologies... (through) organizing tutorials, workshops 67 (Interview 5) To wrap up the interview procedure, participants were requested to evaluate the degree of matching of four narratives (the Sociality, the wireless Network of Practice, the Technology Aficionado, and the Philanthropist) to their perceptions on the defining characteristics of wireless communities. Table 6.3 summarizes our interviewees evaluations by placing them in a hierarchy depicting their preferences on the descriptions better matching the particularities of wireless communities.
Table 6.3: Wireless Community Profile Evaluation Interviewee 1 1. the Technology Aficionado 2. the Philanthropist 3. the Sociality 4. the wireless Network of Practice Interviewee 2 1. the Technology Aficionado 2. the Philanthropist 3. the Sociality 4. the wireless Network of Practice Interviewee 3 1. the Technology Aficionado, the Philanthropist 2. the Sociality 3. the wireless Network of Practice Interviewee 4 1. the Philanthropist, the Sociality 2. the wireless Network of Practice 3. the Technology Aficionado Interviewee 5 1. the Technology Aficionado 2. the Sociality 3. the wireless Network of Practice, the Philanthropist

151

As it can be seen from Table 6.3, nearly all interviewees (with only one exception) concur that wireless communities operate as a hub for technologically-savvy, sophisticated users wanting to stretch the capabilities of wireless networking beyond conventional, commercial offerings (the Technology Aficionado). This illustration further supports our previous conjecture that wireless communities address the particular needs of a niche, thus filling a gap in the market that is not catered for by telecommunications companies as this does not fit their strategic planning and service offering models. Furthermore, it indicates a certain level of continuity from the movements early days and its emergence as a complement to the industrys inability to efficiently cover end-user connectivity needs. It also highlights the innovative outlook of wireless communities, albeit member experimentation with the community network does not assure the production of specific innovations. Nevertheless, this niche of sophisticated users cannot be considered restrained within the boundaries of the community; instead, practically all our interviewees (again with only one exception) suggest that wireless community members reach out to the society through agreeing to contribute to the dissemination of broadband technologies or partnering with other agencies and organizations (the Philanthropist). Moreover, the social opportunities afforded through the community are valued by our interviewees (the Sociality), though only one of them reckons them as the most defining characteristic of the movement. Finally, the view of wireless communities as a supplementary source of knowledge and expertise targeting wireless professionals received less attention from the interviewees to be considered a minor factor shaping the characteristics of the phenomenon (the wireless Network of Practice). The discussion presented above offers three important contributions to the inquiry regarding the characteristics of wireless communities. First of all, the four descriptives correspond to four different metaphors for the wireless community movement that co-exist to illustrate its diverse aspects and dimensions. The four portrayals are overlapping and organized in a nonexcluding symbiotic arrangement capturing the whole breadth and value wireless communities can deliver to their members and other interested constituents alike. Second, they reflect the introvert-extrovert dynamic of the wireless community movement and suggest that the latter one is in fact existent and potentially influential. In fact, the extroversion of the wireless community movement is mainly attributed to its capacity to serve social welfare objectives related to the dissemination of broadband technologies and the transfer of knowledge through the establishment of cooperative relationships with actors including government agencies, municipal authorities and academic institutions. Finally, the evidence presented in Table 6.3 implies that not all members share the same perceptions on the wireless community movement. This observation underpins our earlier finding regarding the

152

lack of ideological homogeneity amongst wireless community members and pinpoint to potentially dissimilar aspirations for the evolution of the movement in the years to come. Should this divergence dynamic strengthen, it will challenge wireless communities selfsustainability capacity as deriving from the empirical insights on their collective action properties presented in Chapter 5.

6.4 Unfolding the Characteristics of Wireless Communities

The research presented in this essay has focused on a novel phenomenon the sprouting of which has swayed the dynamics of urban telecommunications grids in many parts of the world. In doing so, it pictured wireless communities as a modern case of collective action and attempted to re-introduce the four pillars of collective action within the wireless community context. The method adopted designated a suitable theoretical framework, which was then translated to a model showcasing wireless communities fundamental elements: motivation, cost, participation processes, and sustainability. Empirical validation of the proposed model, through the combination of both qualitative (interviews) and quantitative (survey) research tactics, informed our knowledge on the mechanics behind wireless communities mobilization, organization, and operation, as well as provided with a consistent view on the phenomenons self-sustainability capacity. To expand the scope of the research beyond individual and group behavior, both of which are treated under the lens of collective action, and scrutinize its interplay with its surrounding environment, the empirical study was complemented with a set of interviews offering a confirmatory outlook on the findings reached at through the survey as well as on the predictions articulated in early documentations of the phenomenon. The following paragraphs summarize the main outcomes from the second round of qualitative research under the light of the self-sustainability conjecture reached at in the previous chapter (Chapter 5). Wireless communities represent an innovative, user-driven, bottom-up model building up wireless network infrastructures on a grassroots basis to cover the connectivity, service, and content needs of users in urban areas around the globe. Wireless communities were conceived and deployed as an answer to markets deficiency and inability to cater for latent consumer demand for broadband connectivity in an efficient way and were further facilitated by a combination of events resulting from the flexibility of the wireless technology employed (WiFi). Their emergence showcases yet another example of the power that modern Information and Communication Technologies can convey to end-users being technologically-savvy to assume a more active role in satisfying their needs. This power is

153

particularly effective at the early days of a technology when its full capacity is not fully understood by the industry to ignite methodic action in terms of top-down infrastructure building and service offering. Building on the empirical evidence collected in this research, wireless community enthusiasts offer a portrayal of the concept of user autonomy developed by Fischer (1992) to describe a situation where users constrained by income, price, industry action, and regulation, become relatively resistant to pressure from providers, are not subject to a technological imperative, and work to adapt a technology to their own ends. Though the concept was developed to fit the cooperative action undertaken during the first era of telephony in USA, it holds its validity in similar posterior cases of user-driven initiatives for the development of large socio-technical systems. Furthermore, our analysis has brought into light empirical support to earlier observations on the importance of user-driven initiatives, taking the form of loosely organized institutions, such as wireless communities, at the early stages of the development of large socio-technical systems, including the wireless telecommunications grid (Bar & Galperin, 2004; Sawhney, 2003; Sandvig, 2004). Thus, at the first days of their development, wireless communities assumed an important role in shaping the wireless grid and acted in a synergetic, complementary fashion to the industrys reluctance to invest in upgrading infrastructures and service models. Nevertheless, recent evolutions in the telecommunications industry have created shifts in the arrangement of actors that eventually diminished the impact presumed by the wireless community movement at its early days. Wireless community networks, though in many cases achieving wide-area coverage capabilities, have not been assimilated in the wireless grid, but operate in parallel with other wireless infrastructures to target the connectivity needs of a niche user segment with particular and sophisticated requirements. In fact, their focus on those users who willingly strive to stretch their self-efficacy and independence from the industry casts to the phenomenon a fairly introvert orientation. This introvert nature is further strengthened by the domination of intrinsic enjoyment as the catalyst for user involvement with the wireless community and the predominance of a hobbyist mentality amongst members. Following the discussion presented in the previous section, it can be argued that inwardlooking wireless communities, by remaining focused on a niche user segment, jeopardize their chances to gain momentum and create a paradigmatic shift in the telecommunications industry. To further elaborate on this prediction, it is topical to scrutinize the introvertextrovert dynamics of the wireless community phenomenon that are shaped by three factors: the magnitude and uptake of any professionalization opportunities resulting from becoming involved with the community, the capacity to accommodate a user-driven innovation model,

154

and the adherence to goals aiming at social enlargement. Amongst the three factors, the innovation dimension is the least influential of all; it is downgraded to equipment or protocol experimentation and the production of customized hardware or software solutions covering specific needs of local significance. Professional advancement was found to occur only as a side-effect of an individuals involvement with a wireless community, something that diminishes the visibility of the movement as a pool of wireless expert professionals. Nevertheless, opportunities for professional advancement are existent and relevant aspirations on behalf of members potentially grow with time spent within the community. Hence, the impact of this factor invigorates the extrovert dynamics of wireless communities, albeit to a moderate extent. Wireless communities exhibit a certain degree of extroversion when it comes to their members attachment to objectives aligned to promoting social welfare and enlargement through the dissemination of broadband technologies, the serving of under-served areas, and knowledge diffusion. They also appear open to cooperation with other actors preferably of the non-profit sector, including policy-making bodies, municipal authorities, and academic institutions. The discussions with wireless community enthusiasts have shown that although commitment to such goals is not equally spread amongst them, it can be reflected in their choices with regards to network building and node administration strategies being supportive to the communitys extroversion. Indicative examples of such strategic decisions include members choosing between a closed or open node access policy, providing Internet or not, directing antennas towards nearby public places, and be willing to participate in and support activities marketing the wireless community movement to the outer world. In addition, network expansion based on setting up linkages among scattered constituents supports introversion, while building the infrastructure with the aim to complement existing local communication grids, including the possibility to cover under-served areas, is suggestive of a more extroverted community. Overall, our analysis has pointed out that there are three interrelated characteristics that define the current positioning of the wireless community movement as well as its timely evolution. Wireless communities are introvert and self-sustainable organizations with mediocre capacity to influence their surrounding environment, in terms of indirectly supporting members professional activities and raising public awareness on broadband technologies. Introversion and self-sustainability co-exist in an ambidextrous relationship: introversion emerges from wireless community members motivation agenda, while self-sustainability is achieved and reinforced under the effect of reciprocal exchanges, which emerge as normative rules of behaviour among intrinsically-motivated individuals, fading free-riding and a low-

155

cost autonomy-supportive community environment, as discussed in Chapter 5. Nevertheless, potential shifts in members incentive systems can introduce adjustments to the introvertextrovert dynamics of wireless communities, which, in turn, mediate the relationship between introversion and self-sustainability. To be of impact, such shifts transform members hierarchy of incentives in two possible ways: through upgrading the importance of the currently less valued extrinsic motives (thus, increasing the influence of professionalization opportunities), or through restructuring member preferences towards adhering to a shared goal reflecting social welfare objectives over and above all (so that all members receive equal gratification from pursuing social welfare oriented goals). Both shifts, however, need to be introduced in a symbiotic manner to the dominant intrinsic side so that self-sustainability, as well as its antecedents (reciprocity, fading free-riding, autonomy), is not jeopardized. Hence, although extroversion is requisite to give momentum to the wireless community movement and strengthen its positioning with the surrounding eco-system, it can constitute a genuine hazard to its current arrangement envisaging longevity and survivability. To better illustrate the empirical findings of our research, Figure 6.1 unfolds the characteristics of wireless communities. In doing so, it follows a layered approach: at the core, it places individual motivations for participating in a wireless community; then, it adds on the building blocks mirroring the micro- and macro-level of properties of wireless community collective action; finally, it draws the connecting lines to the surrounding sociotechnical environment that map the spillover effects discussed earlier in this chapter.

156

Low-cost situation (tangible / intangible) Coordination based on reciprocity Intrinsic Gratification v Motivation Self-sustainability Free-riding threat eliminated

Indirect effect

Professionalization opportunities User-driven innovation Commitment to social welfare Differentiation from commercial providers

limited

mediocre

Wireless Community: micro- and macro-properties

Serving a niche

Spillovers to the hosting socio-technical environment

Figure 6.1: Wireless Community Characteristics

157

7 Conclusions, Limitations, and Further Research

The preceding chapters have offered a comprehensive overview of the theorization and research design of our study, including a thorough discussion of the empirical findings on the inherent characteristics of wireless community collective action. This chapter concludes the study by highlighting the core contributions that emerge from the theoretical and empirical treatment of wireless communities. In addition, it specifies the limitations of the research and evaluates their level of significance. Finally, it discusses the outcome of the study as a stimulus generating ideas for further research to address additionally intriguing aspects of the wireless community phenomenon. Hence, the chapter is organized in the following way: First, it recapitulates the findings presented in the preceding chapters by elaborating on the theoretical and practical contributions of the study and matching them to the research objectives formulated in Chapter 1 (section 7.1). Second, it discusses the limitations of the study and their impact on the generalizability and appeal of the research findings (section 7.2). Third, it proposes further research directions grounded on the theorization, design, and final outcome of this study (section 7.3). Finally, the chapter (and the essay) concludes with a brief synopsis on how the motivation firing this study has evolved over the course of the research to produce gains in more than one direction (section 7.4).

7.1 Contribution
The study of wireless communities set off after observing the worldwide burst of the phenomenon that took place in parallel with the market introduction of WiFi products and commercial network access schemes. The initial inspiration is attributed to the correlation of wireless communities with likewise user-driven initiatives aiming at augmenting the capabilities of a newly emerged or discovered technology beyond conventional or commercial uses. The impetus was further reinforced by the lack of comprehensive reviews on the phenomenon on behalf of the research community, since the latter was primarily focused on investigating the fit (or misfit) of wireless communities within their surrounding, technical, social, business, and economic, environment. Picking up on this, our study followed an inward approach with the aim to shed light on the inherent particularities of wireless communities through portraying them as a multi-dimensional phenomenon that is best explained under the umbrella of collective action theory. The collective action perspective

158

was considered suitable as the theory affords the capacity to explain individual within-group behavior in a variety of settings. In addition, the wireless community context offered a novel application domain for the theory that can be subversive of its fundamental premises. To structure the inquiry, a multi-method research strategy was designed and implemented including both qualitative (in the form of two rounds of interviews with wireless community participants and prospects) and quantitative (in the form of a survey collecting responses from wireless community members all over Greece) research tactics. The empirical data collected were scrutinized and interpreted under the light of a series of germane research questions deriving from the theorization of the phenomenon under the collective action approach. Table 7.1 summarizes the research questions, which served as the basis for both parts of the empirical research, and maps them to the research objectives postulated in Chapter 1.
Table 7.1: Research Questions, Objectives, and Methods Research Questions What are the motivation profiles of wireless community members? What are the cost structures of wireless community members? What participatory preferences are exhibited by wireless community members with regards to the processes supporting the operation of a wireless community? Is free-riding a compelling threat? If not, how is it overcome? How is coordination among wireless community members achieved? Under what combination of individual and group characteristics as well as action process, is the wireless community sustainable in the longterm (if any)? Research Objectives Understand the inherent particularities of wireless communities, or, in other words, the what, the why, and the how behind their emergence, operation, and possible proliferation Investigate the degree of the applicability and explanatory capacity of collective action theory within the wireless community context and elaborate on the requirement for possible modifications when applying the theory in cases of technologyinduced collective actions similar to the phenomenon under study How influential are the opportunities for professional amelioration over the course of an individuals involvement with a wireless community? Can wireless communities be portrayed as innovation institutions under the user-driven innovation model? Has there been a shift in the relationship between wireless communities and for-profit business models over the lifespan of the community movement till now? Identify the conditions under which user-driven initiatives become influential to produce paradigmatic shifts within their application domain

Confirmatory Interviews

Exploratory Interviews and Survey Research

159

Do wireless communities bear the capacity to accommodate larger societal goals, i.e. act as vehicles for the dissemination of broadband communication technologies?

The following paragraphs detail the contributions of the study with respect to the three research objectives by elaborating on the discussion of the research questions presented in Chapters 5 and 6.

7.1.1

Contribution 1: A Detailed Empirics-based Exposition of Wireless Communities

The first and most important objective of this research was to delve into the particular features of wireless communities and understand the mechanics employed for the mobilization and organization of their members. To accomplish this goal, the inquiry differentiated from prior research endeavors in that it was markedly focused on addressing the structural details shaping the wireless community phenomenon. In doing so, the scope of the research remained largely constrained within the boundaries of communities and separated them as a distinct organizational entity that deserves special attention on its own, beyond correlating them with a broader ecosystem of actors within which they emerge, flourish, and casually interact with. Structuring the research on the properties of wireless communities resided on a carefully planned research strategy capitalizing on the combination of two genres of empirical methods for data collection in what is described as triangulation (Chapter 4). However, the decision to orchestrate, implement, and, ultimately, exploit the outcome of a large-scale survey on wireless community members separates this study from extant scholarly works, where attempts to understand the particularities of the wireless community phenomenon are either grounded on the qualitative research tactic or built on constructive theoretically-driven argumentation. Hence, the study contributes to this emerging research avenue by being the first to exploit large-scale quantitative data for understanding the characteristics of wireless communities. The quantitative approach is valuable to overcome much of the idiosyncrasy surrounding extant research in the area, either due to its reliance on qualitative data or researchers own experience with wireless communities as already discussed in previous chapters. Backed up by a combination of theoretical and experiential evidence with the first originating from a thorough literature review process and the latter produced through interviewing selected informants as part of the triangulation research design strategy the

160

survey on the motivation, cost, and participation patterns of wireless community members yielded significant results, the interpretation of which under the context of the first research objective updated our initial hypotheses. In particular, the results pinpoint to the intrinsic bias in wireless community member motivation structures, the low-cost dimension in participation, as well as the self-organization capacity of wireless communities deriving by a combination of facts, including the domination of intrinsic motivation, reciprocity norms, and diminishing free-riding tendencies. All the aforementioned observations cast an inwardlooking quality on the phenomenon that is further accentuated by the existence of a latent ambiguity in the introvert versus extrovert dynamics of wireless communities. More specifically, an extrovert orientation can be beneficial for the visibility of a wireless community project and elevates its potential to leave an influential legacy, while, at the same time, jeopardizes its self-sustainability by tampering the relationship between intrinsic motivation and reciprocity as the collaboration principle. To wind up, our research advances extant scholarly work on wireless communities by producing new knowledge regarding the characteristics of this novel phenomenon that spans over diverse aspects of the telecommunications industry and the ICT sector in general. The potential influence of the study of the what, the why, and the how behind the emergence, operation, and possible proliferation of wireless communities stems from its focus on the inner characteristics of the phenomenon only exploring a few hints about its spillover capabilities to the outer environment and its commitment to the orchestration of a largescale survey as part of a multi-method research design for the collection of empirical evidence addressing the postulated research questions. As such, our study paves the way for future endeavors within the same thematic area and informs researchers interested in wireless communities on their properties. In addition, the research shows that wireless communities stand at a research crossroad by holding roots to more than one research fields, since domains like telecommunications policy and information systems both have interests in exploring them under their perspective. In particular, telecommunications policy regards wireless communities as an alternative means configuring the wireless communications grid and as such, the phenomenon needs to be scrutinized under the effect of all other actors involved in the same domain. Nevertheless, the issues appears topical for the information systems discipline since it portrays a novel way for user interaction via computers through the establishment of alternative to physical community forms. Thus, this study contributes to extant community-related inquiries in both strands by asserting the self-sustainability of the phenomenon as challenging for the telecommunications multi-actor landscape and by framing a new medium for computer supported user collaboration to be considered an evolution of the various electronic community flavors that have infused the IS world.

161

Beyond its implications for the cross-disciplinary nature of the wireless community research topic, the study offers significant insight to the individuals actually involved in wireless community projects. In particular, it offers a holistic description of the wireless community movement by highlighting aspects that would have not been visible otherwise. One such aspect that is of particular value for wireless community advocates refers to juxtaposing the advantages and disadvantages of intrinsic motivation. In other words, wireless communities need to devise ways for capitalizing on the impetus of intrinsic motivation as a salient ingredient of every wireless community project by assuring the existence of a tolerant community environment, which fosters self-autonomy and self-competence perceptions, and by re-engineering the tasks afforded through the community network so that they preserve their intrinsically challenging appeal. Furthermore, our findings prompt wireless communities to open up to their surrounding environment through allowing for some extrinsic pursuits to percolate individual motivation structures, such as professionalization intents and societal goals. This allowance not only increases the visibility of the phenomenon to the outer world, and, thus, the potential to create a paradigmatic legacy, but also caters for the intrinsic motivation contingency of sustainability, in case intrinsic motives wear off with time. Thus, the research shows that wireless communities should act in a proactive way to ensure that they are resilient to potential changes, either by keeping up with their intrinsic appeal or by introducing extrinsic motivation genres, and blend all of them in symbiosis. Finally, this survey can be considered a source of informative observations of interest to the entities belonging to the environment that hosts the wireless community phenomenon. For example, for industry constituents, it is important to assess the true impact of the movement with regards to commercial business models for WLAN access and broadband connectivity. Our research shows that the industry should not view wireless communities as a competitive threat, but rather as a complementary model serving a niche that would not be otherwise (i.e. with commercial offerings) satisfied. Should this view prevail, a number of interesting possibilities for collaboration emerge, primarily related to knowledge and expertise transfer from the community to the business domain and vice versa. The same opportunities for collaboration are also true and even more compelling for not-for-profit entities, including public bodies, municipal authorities, and academic institutions, to produce synergies for the delivery of advanced communication systems to specific population subgroups and their education with regards to the capabilities of modern technologies. Since we witnessed certain openness to such possibilities on behalf of wireless community members, their exploitation is a promising course of action for public policy makers in their pursuit to uplift societies technological profile.

162

Summing up, the research on the inherent particularities of wireless communities can have important implications for both theory and practice. The wireless community movement is a fresh phenomenon that is now beginning to capture the attention of researchers and industry constituents alike. Researchers find themselves with a novel and intriguing object for inquiry crossing over research strands like telecommunications policy and information systems, while industry constituents, including both for-profit and not-for-profit organizations, are presented with opportunities for synergetic action with an emergent entity, the power of which to reconfigure the telecommunications landscape is gradually increasing.

7.1.2

Contribution 2: Advancing the Application Domain of Collective Action Theory

Early on in this research, we portrayed wireless communities as a multi-layered phenomenon understanding the full dimensions of which brings together a number of different perspectives, including a technical, a social, a political, and an economic one (see Chapter 1, section 1.4). This portrayal suggests that if we want to regard wireless communities as something more than an outburst of events and circumstances within the telecommunications and information systems fields, we are in need for a different anchor, particularly a more generic one to percolate these two domains and possess explanatory capacity over and above their specificities. A prime candidate to provide such theoretical framing is collective action theory. Collective action was exploited in this research under the demand for more light on the inherent particularities of wireless communities, and especially for investigating the blending of individual and group behavior and its impact on the projects longevity and proliferation. In doing so, the study built upon prior research outcomes asserting the applicability and explanatory capacity of collective action in technology-augmented fields that can be considered similar to the wireless community context. Furthermore, the research tested the already stretched application boundaries of collective action by delineating a novel genre of good to the provision of which it can be associated and by scrutinizing on the alleviating effect of modern technologies on its fundamental premises. Thus, our findings offer two insights to collective action researchers entailed into understanding the peculiarities witnessed in contemporary forms of the action taking place in technology-related fields. First, wireless communities provide an exemplary setting showcasing the transformation of private resources to a novel (impure) public good with information and communication dimensions. Although similar goods have already been identified and investigated in the literature (e.g. interactive communication systems in (Fulk et al., 1996); organizational

163

information commons in (Fulk et al., 2004); database-mediated collaboration in (Kalman et al., 2002); discretionary databases in (Connoly & Thorn, 1990)), the wireless community good differentiates in that it is highly complex and heterogeneous, including two classes of goods (physical connectivity / digital service commons and social connectivity / knowledge commons, see Chapter 3, Figure 3.3) both of which are peer-provided. In fact, even the physical connectivity dimension is provided by individual contributions, something that constitutes a novelty with regards to previously studied good genres where connectivity was realized on top of existing infrastructures. The complexity involved in the wireless community good is further accentuated by the blending of tangible, as well as intangible, elements in a way that they are not always distinguishable. The same holds true for its physical versus digital properties, since some of its functions are operative in both dimensions, e.g. social connectivity. Furthermore, this good portrayal introduces a significant deviation from traditional collective action assumptions suggesting that individuals forego their property rights on the resources contributed to the common cause. This assumption has already been challenged for digital goods, but the wireless community context further extends it by implying that individuals do not relinquish control and power even for the tangible resources contributed to the network, because the community affords them the right to remain in control of their equipment, modify or upgrade it on their own volition, including the possibility to withdraw it at any time and for any reason. In sum, our account of the wireless community good adds to the evolutionary inquiry into the premises of collective action with regards to its role in the private provision of public goods by delineating yet another technological artifact, even more complex than the ones already scrutinized by the research community, that can be collectively produced by the aggregation of individual contributions. Second, our findings stipulate an alternative terrain extending and validating recent propositions regarding the alleviation of the menace originating from two of the main challenges presented in the course of every collective action project: free-riding and the need for coercion to induce collaboration (Lupia & Sin, 2003; Bimber et al., 2005; Flanagin et al., 2006). The organization details of wireless communities suggest that free-riding is not a compelling choice for community members, while, when it is present, it is difficult to detect due to the nature of the wireless community good. Furthermore, one could argue that freeriders are far from unwelcome, so long as they do not burden the traffic load of the community network and exhaust its bandwidth capacity, since they provide a means for advertising the movement to potential community prospects and to the outer world as well. In addition, our analysis of the cooperation mode implemented in wireless communities implies that there is hardly need for multi-layered administrative hierarchies, because individual members tend to self-organize and comply for their interactions with others to norms of

164

reciprocity. The mitigation of both threats is heavily tied to the proliferation of intrinsic motivation as the primary driver behind individual involvement with a wireless community collective action project. Hence, the findings of our study shift the attention of collective action researchers towards individual motivations (or, selective incentives in Olsons theorization), especially pinpointing the importance of the intrinsic side of the motivation spectrum, as key enablers of successful and sustainable collective action projects in technology-related domains. To wind up, wireless communities stretch the ever-expanding application domain of collective action theory to a novel pursuit, namely the collective establishment and utilization of a heterogeneous information and communication good. Empirically informing the four pillars of collective action (good characteristics, individual characteristics, group characteristics, and action processes) exemplifies the applicability of collective action in contemporary technology-augmented settings. It also corroborates prior research findings regarding the capabilities of technology to host successful and free of free-riding or coercion threats collective actions. Our standpoint is that individual characteristics, particularly widespread intrinsic motivation inclinations, are far more significant than group characteristics and action processes, in that they ensure individual mobilization to set off the project, active involvement to provide the collective good for the group, and efficient cooperation to secure the chances for success and longevity. Bear in mind that intrinsic motivation has its shortcomings and solely relying onto it for effective collective actions is not tolerable on its own, as explained in the previous sub-section; nonetheless, our explanation elevates motivation as the most important aspect of modern collective actions.

7.1.3

Contribution 3: Marking the Ground for Effective End-user Empowerment

The third research objective was inspired by contemporary trends in the ICT sector manifesting the swath of possibilities for user-driven initiatives promoting the active involvement of end-users in shaping the capabilities and applications of a technology beyond what was originally conceived or actually deployed. These trends have in some cases created paradigmatic shifts, in that their influence was so overwhelming that it burst out from its direct beneficiaries to draw academic and industry attention alike (e.g. the open source software movement as explicated in previous chapters). Hence, we were interested to see whether our study could provide any hints regarding this new era of end-user empowerment by questioning the ability of wireless communities, considered an intriguing example showcasing a situation where users claimed their power to reconfigure wireless access

165

models, to mark their terrain and stand as an influential paradigm within their application field. In doing so, we questioned the capabilities of wireless communities to produce positive spillover effects on their surrounding environment drawing from the knowledge accumulated through the literature review process and empirical results on the motivation patterns of wireless community members. Findings from this part of the research suggest that wireless communities possess little capacity to influence their surrounding environment in terms of members professionalization opportunities, innovation capacity, and commitment to social welfare objectives (see Chapter 6, section 6.3.3). Our evidence further denotes that community members being driven out of the intrinsic need to creatively experiment with a new technology do not view themselves as bearers of change and regard the community project outside the scope of formal production models, thus their legacy to be left appears doubtful. This assertion is somewhat pessimistic for the wireless community movement, suggesting that its niche positioning will probably remain in the years to come, with few bridges to the outside world and slim chances for creating a paradigmatic shift influencing other than its direct beneficiaries. Nevertheless, it does not diminish the magnitude of its final outcome, a wireless communication system built entirely out of peer collaboration and private resource contributions. The wireless community movement has achieved in showcasing that when individuals are properly motivated, they can streamline their efforts to create an intricate information and communication system spanning all network layers, from infrastructure to application. Hence, no matter how the trajectory for wireless communities would evolve, the movement undeniably contributes to the diversity of user-driven technology-augmented initiatives. This contribution underpins the claim that user empowerment can result to appealing outcomes from both a theoretical and practical perspective, with the first one referring to challenging traditional theoretical frameworks and the latter addressing possibilities for disturbances, albeit not necessarily annoying.

7.2 Limitations
The practice of research is not free of limitations influencing the way research outcomes should be interpreted and evaluated. Limitations emerge during the research procedure at numerous stages and reflect issues having to do with the circumstantial nature of the empirical part of the study, including both its spatial and temporal dimensions, the biasing

166

effect introduced by the researchers perceptions on how to organize and perform the study best, and the particularities of the phenomenon under study, especially in terms of its earlier treatment by the research community. Hence, we should be very careful with the interpretation of our findings and treat them within a proper context recognizing the limitations that marked the conduct of our study. In doing so, we ensure that the studys contributions are properly appraised in terms of their generalizability and appeal. In particular, the limitations percolating this research are primarily related to two factors, the newness of the phenomenon under study and the scarcity of extant knowledge addressing specificities with regards to the wireless community movement that could be used to provide an upfront understanding of the research tactics that are more suitable for tackling with it. Nevertheless, these two factors are also accountable for the stimulus prompting wireless communities to become an interesting research topic. In other words, the challenges surrounding the wireless community phenomenon not only invigorate scholarly research to illuminate its latent properties, but also cast a great amount of difficulty on the attempt since the latter falls within an exploratory frame of thinking. Hence, the freshness of the research topic warrants the need for cautious interpretation of the findings over and above the orchestration of a methodic research strategy, as discussed in Chapter 4. The following paragraphs detail the limitations of the research, by organizing them into three groups, and discuss their implications on the final outcome of this study. The first group of limitations directly relates to the specific context within which the research has been carried out. In particular, the setting framing both the qualitative and quantitative parts of the study is geographically restrained to one country, Greece; nonetheless, it is inclusive of all the communities that are active within it. This single-country setting imposes certain bias to our results, by implying that the latter are reflective of the local particularities nurturing the wireless community movement in Greece. These particularities refer to several environmental conditions, the impact of which on the emergence and flourishing of the wireless community movement is potentially influential. For example, Greece exhibits one of the lowest broadband penetration rates in the European Union, something that has been a major driver behind the establishment of wireless communities in Greek cities. A number of factors account for this broadband lag, including market inefficiencies in terms of streamlining compelling broadband access offerings, infrastructure backhauls, and end-user inertia towards advanced information technologies and services. As a result, sophisticated, tech-savvy individuals found alternative ways to realize their common pursuits for broadband connectivity through the creation and operation of wireless community networks. Furthermore, it has to be noted that although the movement in Greece picked up similar

167

paradigms spotted abroad, its evolution is shaped by local peculiarities, such as the populations tradition with social movements, civic organizing, and digital communication habits, just to name a few. Hence, contextual limitations affect the generalizability of our findings by introducing a certain amount of idiosyncrasy to the resulting observations, something that potentially hinders their transferability to other geographical settings. The second group of limitations encompasses all biases introduced to our findings due to the choice of research methods and their conduct mechanics. The most important limitation stems from the fact that the empirical data were collected through the means of crosssectional instead of longitudinal research, or, in other words, at one point in time rather than at multiple time intervals (Babbie, 1998). Cross-sectional studies impact the investigation of causality among concepts of interest in that relationships are inferred rather than proven. Furthermore, they do not allow the study of the effect of time on participants perceptions and behaviors, something that could be of significant value for the wireless community research context given the fact that there are a number of circumstantial contingencies shaping the emergence and evolution of the phenomenon. Nonetheless, spanning the two parts of the empirical research over a two-year period ensures that the effect of time is treated, though not too fairly. Further limitations are imposed due to sample particularities and characteristics. As already discussed in previous chapters (4 and 5), getting access to the study population in order to detract a suitable sampling frame was challenging due to the fact that there are no documented or objective information regarding the actual number, the geographic distribution, and the contact details of wireless community members. In fact, sampling had to rely on non-probability techniques and address all possible respondents to ensure maximum response rates. At the end, 106 respondents completed the survey questionnaire to produce a small sample over which statistical analyses were performed. A larger sample would have been more preferable since it would increase the statistical power of the findings and, thus, our confidence on their validity. Interview informants for both qualitative studies reached up to 12 7 for the exploratory part and 5 for the confirmatory numbers that fall within experts guidelines, as discussed earlier. There are two additional concerns regarding the effect of sample characteristics on our findings. First, there is the self-selection bias of the respondents against those who did not participate in the empirical research. Apparently, not all community members exhibit the same reluctance, availability, or openness to express their feelings and perceptions regarding their involvement with the wireless community movement. Individuals who did not take part

168

in the research possibly possess interesting opinions that were not conveyed to us but could have been useful for the studys purposes. Second, the demographic composition of the sample implies heavy gender bias. Though this bias was somewhat expected, its heaviness remains puzzling as to whether the research could have been more effective in tracking down female community members or not. In sum, the inadequacy of extant information regarding the characteristics and distribution of wireless community members hinders the orchestration of an efficient sampling tactic, something that creates problems to the interpretation of the findings in terms of them being representative of the entire wireless community member population. Additional limitations are introduced with regards to the reliability and validity of the survey instrument. Reliability and validity were extensively discussed in Chapter 5 (section 5.2). Common-method bias remains a plausible threat though we have taken preventive steps against it by mixing up the items in the questionnaire the approach, however, is not tolerable on its own to totally alleviate the implications of this bias. Furthermore, the instrumentation procedure resulted to building up each construct based on a selection of items from multiple sources. This tactic was considered suitable due to the freshness of the phenomenon under study and the lack of previous similar empirical studies to rely upon. Nonetheless, it was a precarious approach that resulted in low reliability scores for some of the constructs (see section 5.2.3). Hence, the interpretation of findings needs to take into account this element as well. The third group of limitations refers to the general approach with which this research was theorized, designed, and executed. From the very beginning, the focus of the study has been the individual wireless community member or, in other words, individual perceptions, opinions, and behaviors with regards to ones involvement with a wireless community. Although this approach is considered relevant for investigating the individual characteristics of wireless community collective action, it might be disadvantageous for the remaining components of collective action, particularly action processes and interdependencies, as discussed in Chapter 3 (section 3.4). In addition, the empirical research was primarily focused on extrapolating information from active participants in the wireless community movement leaving aside those that are less active, and thus less visible to be tracked for research purposes, and, especially, those who are interested in becoming involved (who are even less visible than the less active ones). Active participants are inclined to more optimistic and positive views on their involvement, something that may roll down to our findings as well, especially the juxtaposition of motives against costs. Finally, the model developed to investigate the research questions postulated in Chapter 3 cannot be claimed to be all-

169

inclusive of the factors determining an individuals decision to participate in a wireless community. For example, motives relating to ideology were left unaccounted for because their effect was not found straightforward enough. Similarly, other factors may be missing in our analysis due to our consistency with the collective action approach that led us to possibly neglect other theoretical aspects, related to collective action, which could be worth investigating of. In sum, the limitations discussed above cast a certain amount of ambiguity regarding the extent to which our findings are generalizable and transferable to other wireless communities outside the Greek borders or to likewise technology-augmented community forms. Nevertheless, they open further research opportunities to a plethora of directions, either methodological or theoretical, that could help overcome the deficiencies of the current study, elaborate on its contributions, and advance scholar thinking on the role of end-users in determining the uses and applications of modern technologies.

7.3 Further Research Directions

The practice of scholarly research is an evolutionary process, a series of intertwined steps that build on top of each other and capitalize on extant knowledge to fabricate fresh research topics, design suitable ways for tackling with them, and produce intriguing observations on novel or extant phenomena under various perspectives. The continuity in research is advanced when research outcomes are extended to identify further issues that require additional explanation or clarification and explore alternative courses of action that complement or confirm extant findings. This evolutionary perspective ensures the advancement of our understanding of the phenomena shaping our world, being newly emerged or latent, and the stimulation of fresh ideas that challenge our mental abilities to get more out of ourselves and the environment hosting our actions. Hence, every research endeavor should align to this continuity principle not only in a backwards fashion, by fruitfully incorporating prior research outcomes to shape the current inquiry as this is traditionally performed in the literature review and theorization processes, but also in a forward manner, by suggesting further research directions. These directions usually address current shortcomings or puzzling findings requiring further investigation and highlight alternative perspectives that could be of value for broadening the understanding on the phenomenon under study as well as similar phenomena. Supporting the ever-expanding chain of research, this study sponsors several directions for further research, most of which relate to the freshness of the wireless community

170

phenomenon and the fact that its scholarly investigation is still at its infancy. Some of these research directions have been highlighted in Chapter 2 as part of a broader research agenda serving as a roadmap for researchers interested in this particular field. Additional ideas for further research surface from three sources: the limitations tied to the conduct of this research that challenge the appeal and generalizability of its conclusions, the need to further elaborate on the findings regarding the properties of wireless community collective action through alternative theoretical lenses, and, finally, the implications generated from this research with regards to understanding evolving phenomena sharing resemblances with the one on the spotlight in this essay. The following paragraphs outline several future research directions stemming from the findings accomplished in this research. First, it would be stimulating to replicate the study in other countries as well. This approach would provide the opportunity to explore the effect of local idiosyncrasies and environmental conditions on the characteristics of wireless community collective action. Cross-comparing results from different countries would provide a comprehensive view on the diverse flavors of wireless communities and would allow the formulation of ascertainments regarding the relationship between local factors and the emergence or flourishing of the wireless community movement. For example, it would be interesting to associate prospering wireless communities with specific aspects shaping local contexts, such as broadband penetration rates, regulatory policies, the existence of a population of tech-savvy individuals, perhaps due to the presence of a university or the existence of a vivid technology-related industry sector, or even local geographies impacting the deployment of advanced communication infrastructures, just to name a few. Furthermore, extending the scope of the research beyond the borders of a single country would help elaborate on the differences currently exhibited among wireless communities in terms of their mode of operation, internal structure, and scope of existence and update early taxonomies like the ones discussed in Chapter 1 (section 1.2). Hence, an interesting research query emerges: To what extent are the characteristics of the wireless community movement universal, in the sense that they apply in diverse geographical settings and to what extent are they tied to local idiosyncrasies, circumstances, and particularities including issues of culture, market situation, technological advancement, and regulation? Second, it would be interesting to adopt an alternative methodological approach to the one followed in this study to investigate the same research questions regarding the wireless community collective action properties. In particular, the merits of longitudinal versus crosssectional studies, as highlighted in the previous section, suggest that the timely replication of the research would provide updated information regarding the perceptions, attitudes, and

171

behaviors of wireless community members to allow more sophisticated appraisals on the sustainability and longevity of the movement. Furthermore, interesting results could be extrapolated by transferring the focus of attention from the individual to the community in its entirety. This approach could be especially valuable for investigating the group properties and action interdependencies of the wireless community collective action, both of which shift attention from the individual to his interactions with other group members. There are two methodological perspectives to realize this focus shift: either to organize a pure qualitative research residing on case studying, participant observation, and ethnographic-like investigation of the phenomenon, or to exploit a different genre of quantitative data, e.g. frequency of uploads or downloads, member social networking habits, number and timely evolution of nodes introduced to the network or clients upgrading to nodes, through mathematical modeling and simulation techniques that would help pinpoint the specificities of the actions performed within a wireless community, while also adopting a time-dependency aspect. In a similar and consistent with the collective action framing approach, game theoretic tools could be a challenging alternative for exploring the dilemmas associated with member behaviors and interactions within a wireless community and their strategic implications for the prosperity of the action. In addition, a third direction for future research could involve elaborating on the inherent characteristics of wireless communities by broadening the collective action scope to include additional concepts that could be both germane and valuable for this research context. In particular, earlier research has depicted that individuals engaged in collective actions forego the tendency to free-ride due to the influence of social capital (Wasko & Faraj, 2005; Coleman, 1990; Putnam, 1993). Social capital is typically defined as "resources embedded in a social structure that are accessed and/or mobilized in purposive action" (Lin, 2001) and differs from other forms of capital in that it resides on the fabric of relationships between individuals and on individuals' connections with their communities (Putnam, 1995). To elaborate on the properties of social capital, researchers distinguish between three forms of social capital, namely, structural (or, the structural links created through the social interactions between individuals in a network), cognitive (or, the resources that make possible shared interpretations and meanings within a collective) and relational (or, the affective nature of the relationships within a collective) (Wasko & Faraj, 2005; Putnam, 1995; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Examining the nature and effect of social capital on various collectives, including technology-mediated communities, researchers have pointed out that collectives characterized by high degrees of all three forms of social capital are more likely to sustain the action (Wasko & Faraj, 2005; Kankanhalli et al., 2005) and improve the quality in member activities and interactions (Kavanaugh et al., 2005). Hence, it would be interesting to

172

investigate the formation of social capital in the wireless community case and its relation to sustaining the action in the long-term. Drawing from our findings regarding the intrinsic-bias in the motivation structures of wireless community members and its correlation with reciprocity as the dominant mechanism ensuring effective collaboration, there is room for further exploring this association that juxtaposes individual against group benefit considerations. To elaborate on this interplay, useful insight can be deducted from earlier research on personal versus we-intention dynamics developed in digital collectives, with the former referring to individual motivations driving the exertion of effort for a particular cause and the latter encompassing the commitment of an individual to participate in joint action (Bagozzi & Dholakia, 2002). In doing so, it could be interesting to broaden the scope of obligation-based intrinsic motivation to include additional elements, such as the notions of identification (i.e. the condition where there is a fit between an individuals identity and that of the larger collective so that the individual renders oneself interchangeable with other group members and distinct from outsiders, (Hogg, 1992)) and trust (i.e. the belief that the intended action of others would be appropriate from our point of view, (Mistzal, 1996)). The incorporation of such concepts would produce elaborate model configurations exploring the associations amongst all three forms of motivation, as well as their relationship with the various participation dimensions and, ultimately, their impact on the sustainability of the wireless community collective action. Furthermore, since participation in a wireless community is an intensively communicative in nature activity that encompasses digital and physical channels enabling member communication and social interaction, it would be intriguing to deepen our knowledge on the nature of these interactions. This line of thinking is particularly useful given the fact that communication and underlying social networks have already been proposed as key enablers for sustainable and effective collective action, as discussed in earlier chapters. The research theme that emerges here questions the characteristics of the social ties found within wireless communities and targets at uncovering details on the blending of weak and social ties and the possibility for social interaction among strangers. To explore such research topic, social network theory emphasizing social processes and social milieu in understanding individual behavior (Granovetter, 1973; 1978) could provide a compelling theoretical framework, since it has already been applied to explain community phenomena in the digital world (e.g. Wellman & Gulia, 1999). Finally, this research sets off an interesting avenue for further thinking and consideration regarding the role modern ICTs have assumed in the late years, especially when it comes to

173

augmenting the power of the end-user to shape their uses. Wireless communities are amongst the numerous cases exemplifying such trend, which started with the nascence of virtual communities, culminated with Open Source Software developer and peer-to-peer communities, and finally shifted to a novel domain, that of user-generated content, that is said to transform the Web as we know it to its new configuration, the Web 2.0. The resemblances shared among wireless communities and other user-driven technology-augmented community forms have been pointed out early in this essay to underpin the emerging research opportunities in this area creating room for cross-fertilization between seemingly distant disciplines such as information systems, sociology, economics, or even psychology. Hence, researchers delving into understanding the social implications of modern technologies and the way they transform traditional modes of interacting and conducting business should be interested in cross-comparing the aforementioned initiatives to deepen the theoretical and practical knowledge on the issues identified above. There are two lines of thinking when considering wireless communities as an impetus to study other community forms. According to the first one, wireless communities are directly comparable to predecessors like Open Source Software communities, virtual communities or file sharing communities, all of which were, at some point, stated by wireless community members as sources of inspiration. So, juxtaposing the inner particularities of all these initiatives would shed light on the critical success factors that need to be put into place so that wireless communities would become able to mark the ICT terrain in a similar fashion to the other community forms, the proliferation of which has achieved significant changes in the respective industries or business environments. The second line of thinking is more preemptive and regards the knowledge accumulated with regards to the properties of wireless communities as a prime candidate for understanding contemporary phenomena revolving around end-users capitalizing on the Internet and communication networks to self-organize and self-procure the services and content of desire. In other words, it is worth examining the extent to which the theoretical framework presented in this research or the findings reached at are replicable to other technology-related communities. For example, what is the nature of the public good created in content sharing platforms like YouTube or what are the motives for setting up a profile at MySpace and how different are they from the drivers that have set up the wireless community movement? In sum, in light of the recent developments in the ICT environment illustrated in the gradual shift of power to the end-users side, this research implies a plethora of different research directions, targeting either its theoretical anchors or its methodological framing, and

174

extending its scope of reference to gradually encompass under a unified perspective all technology-nurtured community forms.

7.4 Concluding Thoughts

Looking back at the initial impetus firing this research, the way it was endorsed to produce a carefully planned research strategy, and the knowledge it brought to light on a fresh topic of particular interest, the lifecycle of a PhD proved to be an overwhelming and fulfilling experience. It was an experience that was marked by consequent critical junctures, since it progressed as a series of barriers that transformed to challenges and, eventually, to small victories (e.g. select a research topic, narrow it down to a set of research questions scrutinizing its unexplored dimensions, decide on the research method to tackle with it, and finally interpret its findings to produce contributions of value to the research community). Engaging in such process results to lessons learnt that could be of significance to anyone interested in the pursuit of further understanding on modern phenomena under a scientific frame of thinking. The most important lesson learnt during this three year involvement in researching wireless communities refers to the practice of research. Though it is an intriguing and attractive process, it has several caveats and requires methodic planning, allowing for reconsideration and change of mind over its course. This is especially true in modern knowledge-intensive environments where it is hardly possible for anyone to assemble the entirety of information relevant to an issue of interest. Reconsideration of the process and its evolutionary findings is also required under the light of constant developments in both theory and practice. Hence, the researcher should keep a proactive attitude and an open-minded approach, both of which will enable him to identify even the subtlest issues percolating the research process and ensure the plausibility of his arguments. Furthermore, the approach adopted in researching wireless communities as a multi-layered phenomenon proclaims that scientific inquiries addressing similar events and incidents in a technology-augmented domain should afford a certain degree of pliability, in the sense that they should allow the blending of perspectives, the combination of research methods, and the crossing of discipline boundaries. Wireless communities were described as a technological, social, political, and economic phenomenon occurring at the intersection of telecommunications and information systems. To understand it, it is necessary to combine elements from different schools of thinking through creating synergies across different

175

research strands. This requirement is expected to augment in the years to come with the emergence of similar complex phenomena surfacing from the diverse impact that technologies exert on modern lifestyles, including all aspects, personal and professional alike. In essence, the phenomenon studied in this research, the apparent self-sustainable nature of which manipulates its undersized potential to create a monumental shift, sketches an unpredictable and exciting future for the ICT sector. Individuals are increasingly advancing their role and this happens at an impressive extent that cannot leave the research community indifferent to the emergent opportunities for scrutinizing on the nature and impact of this transformation on multiple fields. Hence, it is our belief that this research contributed in raising interest on the dynamics created when end-users are empowered to determine on their own volition how to endorse the capabilities afforded by modern technologies.

176

References
Agarwal, R., Karahanna, E. 2000. Time Flies when Youre Having Fun: Cognitive Absorption and Beliefs about Information Technology Usage. MIS Quarterly 24(4) 665695. Alam, I. 2005. Fieldwork and Data Collection in Qualitative Marketing Research. Qualitative Marketing Research: an International Journal 8(1) 97-112. Alexander, P.J. 2002. Digital Distribution, Free Riders, and Market Structure: The Case of the Musicrecording Industry. Review of Industrial Organization 20(2) 151161. Allen, R. C. 1983. Collective Invention. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organisation 4(1) 1- 24. Amabile, T.M, Hadley, C.N., Kramer, S.J. 2002. Creativity under the Gun. Harvard Business Review 80 52-61. Amabile, T.M. 1993. Motivational Synergy: Toward New Conceptualizations of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation in the Workplace. Human Resource Management Review 33 185-201. Andreoni, J. 1990. Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving. The Economic Journal 100(June 1990) 464-477. Auray, N., Beauvallet, G., Charbit, C., Fernandez, V. 2002. Wi-Fi: An Emerging Information Society Infrastructure. STAR Issue Report N. 40. Axelrod R. 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books, New York, USA. Babbie, E. 1998. The Practice of Social Research. Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont, California, USA. Bagozzi, R.P., Dholakia, U.M. 2002. Intentional Social Action in Virtual Communities. Journal of Interactive Marketing 16(2) 2-21. Balasubramanian, S., Mahajan, V. 2001. The Economic Leverage of the Virtual Community. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 5(3) 103-138. Bandura, A. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. PrenticeHall, Englewood Cliffs, UK. Bar, F., Galperin, H. 2004a. Building the Wireless Internet Infrastructure: From Cordless Ethernet Archipelagos to Wireless Grids. Communications & Strategies 54(2nd quarter) 45-68. Bar, F., Galperin, H. 2004b. Building the Wireless Infrastructure: Alternative Models. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Wireless Communication Policies and Prospects: A Global Perspective. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA. Baumeister, R.F. 1982. A Self-Presentational View of Social Phenomena. Psychological Bulletin 91(1) 3-26. Becker, G.S. 1962. Investment in Human Capital: A Theoretical Analysis. Journal of Political Economy 70(5) 9-49. Bendahan, S., Camponovo, G., Monzani, J-M., Pigneur, Y. 2005. Negotiation in Technology Landscapes: An Actor-Issue Analysis. Journal of Management Information Systems 21(4) 137-172. Benkler, Y. 1998. Overcoming Agoraphobia: Building the Commons of the Digitally Networked Environment. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 11(2) 287-400.

177

Benkler, Y. 2002. Some Economics of Wireless Communications. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 16(1) 25-83. Benkler, Y. 2004. "Sharing Nicely": On Shareable Goods and the Emergence of Sharing as a Modality of Economic Production. The Yale Law Journal 114 273-358. Bimber, B., Flanagin, A.J., Stohl, S. 2005. Reconceptualizing Collective Action in the Contemporary Media Environment. Communication Theory 15(4) 365-388. Bonaccorsi, A., Rossi, C. 2003. Why OSS Can Suceed? Research Policy 32 1243-1258. Boudreau, M.C., Gefen, D., Straub, D.W. 2001. Validation in Information Systems Research: A Stateof-the-Art Assessment. MIS Quarterly 25(1) 1-16. Bowles, S., Gintis, H. 2002. Social Capital and Community Governance. Economic Journal 112(483) 419-436. Brown, J. S. Duguid, P. 1991. Organizational Learning and Communities of Practice. Organization Science 2(1) 40-57. Busch, M.L., Reinhardt, E.R. 1993. Nice Strategies in a World of Relative Gains. Journal of Conflict Resolution 37 (September) 427-445. Butler, B.S. 2001. Membership Size, Communication Activity, and Sustainability: A Resource-based Model of Online Social Structures. Information Systems Research 12(4) 346-362. Cabrera, A., Cabrera, E.F. 2002. Knowledge-Sharing Dilemmas. Organization Studies 23(5) 687-710. Camponovo, G., Heitmann, M., Stanoevska-Slabeva, K., Pigneur, Y. 2003. Exploring the WISP Industry Swiss Case Study. Proceedings of the 16th Bled Electronic Commerce Conference, Bled, Slovenia. Chamberlin, J. 1974. Provision of Collective Goods as a Function of Group Size. Political Science Review 68 707-713. Clary, E.G., Snyder, M. 1999. The Motivations to Volunteer: Theoretical and Practical Considerations. Current Directions in Psychological Science 85 156-259. Coleman. J. S. 1990. Foundations of Sociai Theory, Belknap Press, Cambridge. Massachusetts, USA. Connolly, T., Thorn, B.K. 1990. Discretionary Databases: Theory, Data, and Implications. In Fulk, J., Steinfield, C., eds. Organizations and Communication Technology. Sage, Newbury Park, USA, 219-233. Constant, D., Sproull, L., Kiesler, S. 1996. The Kindness of Strangers: The Usefulness of Electronic Weak Ties for Technical Advice. Organization Science 7 119135. Cook, T.D., Campbell, D.T. 1979. Quasi Experimentation: Design and Analytical Issues for Field Settings. Rand McNally, Chicago. Cornes, R., Sandler, T. 1996. The Theory of Externalities, Public Goods and Club Goods. (2nd edition.). Cambridge University Press, London. Cronbach, L.J. 1951. Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests. Psychometrika 16(September) 297-334. Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1975. Beyond Boredom and Anxiety: The Experience of Play in Work and Games. Jossey-Bass, Inc., San Francisco, USA.

178

Cunningham, B.M., Alexander, P.J., Adilov, N. 2004. Peer-to-peer File Sharing Communities. Information Economics and Policy 16(2) 197-213. Dalle, J-M., David, P.A. 2005. Simulating Code Growth in Libre (Open-Source) Software. In Brousseau, E., Curien, N., eds. Internet and Digital Economics. Cambridge University Press. Dalle, J-M., Jullien, N. 2003. Libre Software: Turning Fads into Institutions? Research Policy 32(1) 1-11. Damsgaard, J., Parikh, M., Rao, B. 2004. Wi-Fi Community Networks: A Common Good Analysis. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Mobile Business (ICMB), New York City, USA. Damsgaard, J., Parikh, M.A., Rao, B. 2006. Wireless Commons: Perils in the Common Good. Communications of the ACM 49(2) 105-109. Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R. 1992. Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the Workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2214 1111-1132. Deci, E.L. 1975. Intrinsic motivation. Plenum, New York, USA. Deci, E.L., Koestner, R., Ryan, R.M. 1999. A Meta-analytic Review of Experiments Examining the Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation. Psychological Bulletin 125 627-668. Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M. 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human Behavior. Plenum, New York, USA. Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M. 2000. The What and Why of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the SelfDetermination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry 114 227-268. Dellarocas, C. 2003. The Digitization of Word-of-Mouth: Promises and Challenges of Online Feedback Mechanisms. Management Science 49(10) 1407-1424. Denzin, N.K. 1978. The Research Act (2nd edition.). McGraw Hill, New York, USA. Diekmann, A. 1985. Volunteers Dilemma. Journal of Conflict Resolution 29 605-610. Dillman, D.A. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Wiley and Sons, New York, USA. Douglas, S.J. 1989. Inventing American broadcasting, 18991922. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, USA. Dutton, W.H., Gillet, S.E., McKnight, L.W., Peltu, M. 2003. Broadband Internet: The Power to Reconfigure Access. Discussion Paper, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford. Dutton, W.H., Gillet, S.E., McKnight, L.W., Peltu, M. 2004. Bridging broadband Internet divides: reconfiguring access to enhance communicative power. Journal of Information Technology 19 28-38. Eisenhardt, K.M. 1989. Building Theories from Case Studies. Academy of Management Review 14(4) 532-50. Esmond, J., Dunlop, P. 2004. Developing the Volunteer Motivation Inventory To Assess the Underlying Motivational Drives of Volunteers in Western Australia. Report of a research project funded by Lotterywest Social Research Grant and undertaken by CLAN WA Inc. Fehr, E., Gachter, S. 2000. Fairness and Retaliation: The Economics of Reciprocity. Journal of Economic Perspectives 14 159-181

179

Fehr, E., Schmidt, K.M. 2000. Theories of Fairness and Reciprocity: Evidence and Economic Applications. Prepared for the invited lecture session on Behavioral Economics at the 8th World Congress of the Econometric Society in Seattle. Fischer, C.S. 1992. America Calling: A Social History of the Telephone to 1940. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Flanagin, A.J., Stohl, S., Bimber, B. 2006. Modelling the Structure of Collective Action. Communication Monographs 73(1) 29-54. Flickenger, R. 2003. Building Wireless Community Networks (2nd ed.). OReilly, Sebastopol, CA. Franck, E., Jungwith, C. 2003. Reconciling Rent-Seekers and Donators The Governance Structure of Open Source. Journal of Management and Governance 7 401-421. Frey, B.S. 1997. Not Just for the Money: An Economic Theory of Personal Motivation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK and Brookfield, USA. Frey, B.S., Benz, M. 2002. From Imperialism to Inspiration. A Survey of Economics and Psychology. Zurich Institute of Empirical Research in Economics Working Paper No. 118. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=316681 Frey, B.S., Jegen, R. 2001. Motivation Crowding Theory: A Survey of Empirical Evidence. Journal of Economic Surveys 15(5) 589-611. Frey, B.S., Meier, S. 2004. Pro-Social Behavior in a Natural Setting. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 54 65-88. Fuentes-Bautista, M., Inagaki, N. 2005. Wi-Fis Promise and Broadband Divides: Reconfiguring Public Internet Access in Austin, Texas. Proceedings of the 2005 Telecommunications and Research Policy Conference, Arlington, VA, USA. Fulk, J., Flanagin, A.J., Kalman, M.E., Monge, P.R., Ryan, T. 1996. Connective and Communal Public Goods in Interactive Communication Systems. Communication Theory 6(1) 60-87. Fulk, J., Heino, R., Flanagin, A.J., Monge, P.R., & Bar, F. 2004. A Test of the Individual Action Model for Organizational Information Commons. Organization Science 15(5) 569-585. Gachter, S., Fehr, E. 1999. Collective Action as a Social Exchange. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 39 341-369. Gagne, M., Deci, E.L. 2005. Self-Determination Theory and Work Motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior 26 331-362. Gaved, M., Mulholland, P. 2005. Grassroots Initiated Networked Communities: A Study of Hybrid Physical/Virtual Communities. Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos. Gibbons, R. 1988. Incentives in Organizations. Journal of Economic Perspectives 12 115-132. Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Publishing, New York, USA. Granovetter, M. 1973. The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology 78(6) 1360-1380. Granovetter, M. 1978. Threshold Models of Collective Behavior. American Journal of Sociology 83(6) 14201443.

180

Gupta, D.K., Hofstetter, C.R., Buss, T.F. 1997. Group Utility in the Micro-motivation Model of Collective Action: The Case of Membership in the AARP. Journal of Economics Behavior & Organization 32 301-320. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C. 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs. Hardin, G. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science (162) 1243-1248. Hardin, R. 1982. Collective Action. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, USA. Hars, A., Ou, S. 2001. Working for Free? Motivations for Participating in Open Source Projects. Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Science, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos. Herslow, L., Navarro, C-J. Scholander, J. 2002. Exploring the WISP Industry. Master Thesis, Lund University, Sweden. Hirshleifer, J. 1985. The Expanding Domain of Economics. The American Economic Review 756 5368. Hogg, M.A. 1992. The Social Psychology of Group Cohesiveness: From Attraction to Social Identity. NYU Press, New York, USA. Hosmer, D.W., Lemeshow, S. 1989. Applied Logistic Regression. Wiley Interscience, New York, USA. Howard, D. 2002. Its a Wi-Fi World Wireless broadband may finally be ready for prime time. ACM netWorker 6(3) 26-30. Hughes, T.P. 1983. Networks of power: Electrification in Western society, 18801930.Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, USA. Huizinga, J. 1986. Homo Ludens. Beacon Press. Igbaria, M., Parasuraman, S. Baroudi, J.J. 1996. A Motivational Model of Microcomputer Usage. Journal of Management Information Systems 131 127-143. Jick, T.D. 1979. Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action. Administrative Science Quarterly 24(4) 602-611. Kalman, M.E., Monge, P., Fulk, J., Heino, R. 2002. Motivations to Resolve Communication Dilemmas in Database-mediated Collaboration. Communication Research 29(2) 125-154. Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B.C.Y., Wei, K.K. 2005. Contributing Knowledge to Electronic Network Repositories: An Empirical Investigation. MIS Quarterly 29(1) 113-143. Katz, D. 1964. The Motivational Basis of Organizational Behavior. Behavioral Science 9 131-146. Katz, M.L., Shapiro, L. 1985. Network Externalities, Competition and Compatibility. American Economic Review 75 424-440. Kavanaugh, A.L., Reese, D.D., Caroll, J.M., Rosson, M.B. 2005. Weak Ties in Networked Communities. The Information Society 21 119-131. Ketchen, D.J., Shook 1996. The Application of Cluster Analysis in Strategic Management Research: an Analysis and Critique. Strategic Management Journal 17 441-458. Klandermans, B. 1997. The Social Psychology of Protest Basil Blackwell, Oxford, UK. Kollock, P. 1998. Social Dilemmas: the Anatomy of Cooperation. Annual Review of Sociology 24 183214.

181

Kollock, P. 1999. The economies of Online Cooperation: Gifts, and Public Goods in Cyberspace. In A. Smith, M., Kollock, P. eds. Communities in Cyberspace.Routledge, London, 220-239. Lakhani, K.R., Wolf, R.G. 2005. Why Hackers Do What They Do: Understanding Motivation and Effort in Free/Open Source Software Projects. In Feller, J., Fitzgerald, B., Hissam, S., Lakhani, K.R., eds. Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software. MIT Press. Lazarsfeld, P.F., Wagner, T. 1958. The Academic Mind. Free Press, Glencoe, IL, USA. Lehr, W., McKnight, L.W. 2003. Wireless Internet Access: 3G vs WiFi? Telecommunications Policy 27(5-6) 351-370. Lepper, M.R., Greene, D. (eds.) 1978. The Hidden Costs of Reward: New Perspectives on the Psychology of Human Motivation. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NY, USA. Lessig, L. 2002. The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World. Vintage Books, New York, USA. Lin, N. 2001. Social Capital. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. UK, Lindenberg, S. 2001. Intrinsic Motivation in a New Light. Kyklos 54(2/3) 317-342. Locke, K. 2001. Grounded Theory in Management Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA. Locke, E.A., Latham, G.P. 2004. What Should We Do About Motivation Theory? Six Recommendations for the Twenty-First Century. Academy of Management Review 29(3) 388403. Lupia, A., Sin, G. 2003. Which Public Goods are Endangered?: How Evolving Communication Technologies Affect The logic of collective action. Public Choice 117 315-331. Macy, M.W. 1990. Learning Theory and the Logic of Critical Mass. American Sociological Review 55, 809-826. Malhotra, Y., Galletta, D. F. 1999. Extending the Technology Acceptance Model to Account for Social Influence: Theoretical Bases and Empirical Validation. Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Science, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos. Mansell, R. 1993. The New Telecommunications: A Political Economy of Network Evolution. Sage, London. Markus, M.L. 1990. Toward a Critical Mass Theory of Interactive Media. In Fulk, J., Steinfield, C.W., eds. Organizations and Communication Technology. Sage, Newbury Park, USA, 194-218. Markus, M.L., Manville, B., Agres, C.E. 2000. What Makes a Virtual Organization Work. Sloan Management Review Fall 2000 13-26. Marwell, G., Oliver, P. 1993. The Critical Mass in Collective Action: A Micro-Social Theory. Cambridge University Press, New York, USA. Marwell, G., Oliver, P., Prahl, R. 1988. Social Networks and Collective Action: A Theory of the Critical Mass III. The American Journal of Sociology 94(3) 502-534. Marwell, O. 1982. Altruism and the Problem of Collective Action. In Valerian J. D., Janusz, G., eds. Cooperation and Helping Behavior. Academic Press, New York, USA, 207-226. Marwell, G., Oliver, P., Prahl, R. 1988. Social Networks and Collective Action: A Theory of the Critical Mass III. The American Journal of Sociology 94(3) 502-534.

182

Mauss, M. 1950/1999. The Gift. The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. Routledge, London, UK. McCracken, G. 1988. The Long Interview. Sage, Newbury Park, California, USA.. McDonald, D. 2002. Social Issues in Self-Provisioned Metropolitan Area Networks. Proceedings of the Workshop on Mobile Ad Hoc Collaboration at the ACM 2002 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. Meinrath, S. 2005. Wirelessing the World: The Battle Over (Community) Wireless Networks. In McChesney, R., Newman, R., Scott, B. eds. The Future of the Media: Resistance and Reform in the 21st Century, Seven Stories Press, NY, USA, 219-242. Melucci, A. 1996. Challenging Codes Collective Action in the Information Age. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Menard, S. 2002. Applied Logistic Regression. Sage Publications, Newbury Park. Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis A Source Book of New Methods. Sage, Newbury Park, California, USA. Mistzal, B. A.1996. Trust in Modern Societies. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK. Monge, P.R., Fulk, J., Kalman, M.E., Flanagin, A.J., Parnassa, C., Rumsey. S. 1998. Production of Collective Action in Alliance-based Interorganizational Communication and Information Systems. Organization Science 9(3) 411-433. Murnighan, J.K., Kim, J-W., Metzger, A.R. 1993. The Volunteer Dilemma. Administrative Science Quarterly 38 515-538. Myatt, D.P., Wallace, C. 2002. Equilibrium Selection and Public Good Provision: the Development of Open Source Software. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 18(4) 446-461. Myles, G.D. 1995. Public Economics. Cambridge University Press, London. Nahapiet. J., Ghoshal. S. 1998. Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage. Academy of Management Review 23(2) pp. 242-266. Negroponte, N. 2002. Being Wireless: Nicholas Negroponte explains why Wi-Fi lily pads and frogs will transform the future of telecom. Wired Magazine 10.10, available at http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.10/wireless_pr.html. Nunnally, J.C. 1978. Psychometric Theory (2nd edition).McGraw-Hill, New York, USA. Oliver, P.E. 1993. Formal Models of Collective Action. Annual Review of Sociology 19 271-300. Oliver, P. Marwell, G. 1988. The Paradox of Group Size in Collective Action: A Theory of the Critical Mass II. American Sociological Review 53(1) 1-8. Oliver, P. Marwell, G. 1993. Whatever Happened to Critical Mass Theory? A Retrospective and Assessment. Sociological Theory 19(3) 292-311. Oliver, P., Marwell, G., Teixeira, R. 1985. A Theory of the Critical Mass. I. Interdependence, Group Heterogeneity, and the Production of Collective Action. The American Journal of Sociology 91(3) 522-556. Olson, M. 1965. The logic of Collective Action. Harvard University Press, USA. Organ, D.W., Konovsky, M. 1989. Cognitive versus Affective Determinants of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology 74(1) 157-164.

183

Osterloh, M., Frost, J., Frey, B.S. 2002. The Dynamics of Motivation in New Organizational Forms. International Journal on the Economics of Business 91 61-77. Osterloh, M., Rota, S. 2004. Trust and Community in Open Source Software. In Bourmann, M., Leist, A., Latino, B., Matzat, U., eds. Trust and Community on the Internet: Opportunities and Restrictions for Online Cooperation. Lucius & Lucius, Stuttgart, Germany. Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, New York. Ostrom E, Gardner R, Walker J.M. 1994. Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources. University Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Peter, J.P. 1981. Construct Validity: A Review of Basic Issues and Marketing Practices. Journal of Marketing Research XVIII(May) 133-145. Premkumar, G., Ramamurthy, K., Saunders, C.S. 2005. Information Processing View of Organizations: An Exploratory Examination of Fit in the Context of Interorganizational Relationships. Journal of Management Information Systems 22(1) 257-294. Punj, G., Stewart, D.W. 1983. Cluster Analysis in Marketing Research: Review and Suggestions for Application. Journal of Marketing Research XX 134-148. Putnam, R. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Transitions in Modern Italy. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA. Putnam, R. 1995. Tuning in. Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in America. Political Science and Politics December 664-683. Rabin, M. 1993. Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics. The American Economic Review 83(5) 1281-1302. Rao, B., Parikh, M. 2003a. Wireless Broadband Networks: the US Experience. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 8(1) 37-53. Rao, B., Parikh, M. 2003b. Wireless Broadband Drivers and their Social Implications. Technology in Society 25(4) 477-489. Rapoport, A. 1998. Experiments with N-Person Social Traps I: Prisoners Dilemma, Weak Prisoners Dilemma, Volunteers Dilemma and Largest Number. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 32(3) 457-472. Raymond, R.S. 2001. The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolution. OReilly, Sebastopol, CA, USA. Resnick, P. 2005. Impersonal Sociotechnical Capital, ICTs, and Collective Action among Strangers. In Dutton, W., Kahin, B., OCallaghan, R., Wyckoff, A., eds. Transforming Enterprise. MIT Press, Boston, USA, 486-499. Rheingold, H. 1993. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. Harper Collins, New York, NY, USA. Rheingold, H. 2002. Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution. Perseus Books. Rose-Ackerman, S. 1998. Bribes and Gifts. In Ben-Ner, A., Putterman, L., eds. Economics, Values, and Organization. Cambridge University Press, New York, USA, 296-328.

184

Ryan, R.M., Connell, J.P. 1989. Perceived Locus of Causality and Internalization: Examining Reasons for Acting in Two Domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57(5) 749-761. Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L. 2000a. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25 54-67. Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L. 2000b. Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. American Psychologist 551 68-78. Ryan, R.M., Koestner, R., Deci, E.L. 1991. Varied Forms of Persistence: When Free-choice Behavior is not Intrinsically Motivated. Motivation and Emotion 15 185-205. Ryan, R.M., Mims, V., Koestner, R. 1983. Relation of Reward Contingency and Interpersonal Context to Intrinsic Motivation: A Review and Test Using Cognitive Evaluation Theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45 736-750. Samuelson, P. A. 1954. The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure. Review of Economics and Statistics 36 387-390. Sandvig, C. 2004. An Initial Assessment of Cooperative Action in WiFi Networking. Telecommunications Policy 28 579-602. Sandvig, C. 2005. The Return of the Broadcast War. Proceedings of the 33rd Research Conference on Communication, Information, and Internet Policy, Arlington, Virginia, USA. Sandvig, C., Young, D., Meinrath, S. 2004. Hidden Interfaces to Ownerless Networks. Proceedings of the 32nd Research Conference on Communication, Information, and Internet Policy, Washington, DC, USA. Sawhney, H. 1992. Public Telephone Network: Stages in Infrastructure Development. Telecommunications Policy 16(7) 538-52. Sawhney, H. 2003a. WiFi Networks and the Rerun of the Cycle. Info The Journal of policy, regulation and strategy for telecommunications 5(6) 25-33. Sawhney, H. 2003b. WiFi Networks and the Reorganization of Wireline-Wireless Relationship. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Telecommunications Policy and Research Conference (TPRC), Arlington, Virginia, USA, 12-27. Schmidt, T., Townsend, A. 2003. Why Wi-Fi Wants to be Free? Communications of the ACM 46(5) 47-52. Schon, D.A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: HowProfessionals Think in Action. Basic Books, New York, USA. Shah, S.K. 2006. Motivation, Governance, and the Viability of Hybrid Forms in Open Source Software Development. Management Science 52(7) 1000-1014. Sharp, E.B. 1978. Citizen Organizations on Policing Issues and Crime Prevention: Incentives for Participation. Journal of Voluntary Action Research 7 45-58. Shumaker, S., Brownell, A. 1984. Toward a Theory of Social Support: Closing Conceptual Gaps. Journal of Social Issues 40(4) 11-36. Sieber, S.D. 1978. The Integration of Fieldwork and Survey Methods. American Journal of Sociology 78(6) 1335-1359.

185

Smith, D.H. 1983. Altruism, Volunteers, and Volunteerism. Journal of Voluntary Action Research. 12 21-36. Spence, M. 1976. Competition in Salaries, Credentials, and Signaling Prerequisites for jobs. Quarterly Journal of Economics 90(1) 51-74. Stinson, T.F., Stam, J.M. 1976. Toward an Economic Model of Voluntarism: the Case of Participation in Local Government. Journal of Voluntary Action Research 5 52-60. Straub, D., Boudreau, M-C, Gefen, D. 2004. Validation Guidelines for IS Positivist Research. Communications of the AIS 13 380-427. Straub, D.W. 1989. Validating Instruments in MIS Research. MIS Quarterly 13(2) 147-16. Strauss, A., Corbin, J. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research (2nd edition). Sage Publications. Streeter, T. 1996. Selling the Air: A Critique of the Policy of Commercial Broadcasting in the United States. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Summers, J.O. 2001. Guidelines for Conducting Research and Publishing in Marketing: From Conceptualization Through the Review Process. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 29(4) 405-415. Vallerand, R.J. 2000. Deci and Ryans Self-Determination Theory: A View from the Hierarchical Model of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation. Psychological Inquiry 11(4) 312-319. Varshney, U. 2003. The Status and Future of 802.11 based WLANs. IEEE Computer 36(6) 102-105. Venkatesh, V. 1999. Creation of Favorable User Perceptions: Exploring the Role of Intrinsic Motivation. MIS Quarterly 232 239-260. Venkatesh, V. 2000. Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model. Information Systems Research 114 342365. Verma, S., Beckman, P. 2002. A Framework for Comparing Wireless Internet Service Providers with Neighborhood Area Networks. Proceedings of the Americas Conference of Information Systems, Dallas, Texas, USA. Verma, S., Beckman, P., Nickerson, R.C. 2002. Identification of Issues and Business Models for Wireless Internet Service Providers and Neighborhood Area Networks. Proceedings of the Workshop on Wireless Strategy in the Enterprise: An International Research Perspective, Berkeley, California. Von Hippel, E. 1988. The Sources of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York. Von Hippel, E. 2001. Innovation by User Communities: Learning from Open Source Software. MIT Sloan Management Review (Summer 2001) 82-86. Von Hippel, E., von Krogh, S. 2003. Open Source Software and the Private-Collective Innovation Model: Issues for Organization Science. Organization Science 14(2) 209-223. Wasko, M., Faraj. S. 2000. Is it what one does: Why People Participate and Help Others in Electronic Communities of Practice. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 9 155-173. Wasko, M., Faraj. S. 2005. Why Should I Share? Examining Social Capital and Knowledge Contribution in Electronic Networks of Practice. MIS Quarterly 29(1) 35-57.

186

Wasko, M., Faraj, S., Teigland, R. 2004. Collective Action and Knowledge Contribution in Electronic Networks of Practice. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 5(11-12) 493-513. Webb, E.J., Campbell, D.T., Schwartz, R.D., Sechrest, L. 1966. Unobtrusive Measures: Non-reactive research in the Social Sciences. Rand McNally, Chicago, USA. Weber, S. 2004. The Success of Open Source. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA and London, UK. Wellman, B., Gulia, M. 1999. Net-surfers Dont Ride Alone: Virtual Communities as Communities. In Wellman, B., ed. Networks in the Global Village. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, USA, 331366. Wellman, B., Salaff, J., Dimitrova, D., Garton, L., Gulia, M., Haythornwaite, C. 1996. Computer Networks as Social Networks: Collaborative Work, Telework, and Virtual Community. Annual Review of Sociology, 22 213-238. Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Yin, R.K. 1994. Case Study Research Design and Methods. Sage, Newbury Park, California, USA.

187

Appendix A
A1. The First Interview
Interview Details

Date October 17, 2004

Interviewee Name Damianos

Interview Guide (in Greek)

1. AWMN; a. b. c. d. e. 2. WiFi WiFi WiFi ; APs clients APs; 3. : , , ; ; 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. ; clients ; - - clients ; ; () ; ; ( AP / ); 10. APs ; . , ; 11. clients ; ; 12. clients;

188

13. APs clients ; log data ; 14. clients ; clients; ; ; 15. ; 16. ; clients APs; 17. APs ; ; 18. / 19. client session 20. ; log ; 21. : (gaming. file sharing); / ; ; 22. ; ; ; . ; ; 23. ; . ; . ; . ; 24. ; 25. ; clients; 26. . Internet / ; : ; 27. Internet ; 28. ; . ; 29. ; ; 30. ; ; ; 31. ; . . . ; 32. profile ; . . . 33. ; , -,

189

 ; 34. (web site. forums. wiki. mailing lists); ; . ; 35. / ; . ; 36. contributors; 37. ; 38. ; , ; 39. , ; . ; 40. providers (ISPs. MNOs) ; ; 41. ;

A2. The Second and Third Set of Interviews

Second Set Interview Details

Date March 21, 2005 April 9, 2005 April 9, 2005 April 9, 2005

Interviewee Name Argiris Alexandros Nikos Platon

Third Set Interview Details

Date June 14, 2005 June 14, 2005

Interviewee Name Serafim Stavros

Interview Guide (in Greek, same for both interview sets)

1. a. : ( . ), client ( ), node ( . )

190

b. c.

, , nternet access : forum, , events. , site, , forum. ..

2.

project , ,

, project, , . 3. / a. b. : . - , , c. : , OSS, d. hotspot , , e. , , , , ; 4. / a. b. 5. 6.

; : ; ; o project a. b. project. project. , ( )

191

Appendix B
The Survey Instrument Community Wireless LANs are metropolitan wireless networks (typically based on the IEEE 802.11 standard. commonly known as WiFi) created by users and for users. Such networks in Greece have been created in Athens. Thesaloniki and many other cities across the country. This survey focuses on the role played by individuals in the establishment and proliferation of such networks and seeks to inquire into their attitudes towards participation in a wireless community. Your responses are strictly confidential and will be used anonymously only for the purposes of this research. For any questions that you may have regarding this survey. please contact mbina@aueb.gr. 1. What is your current role in the wireless community?
I am a node (I have at least one backbone link and/or operate an Access Point) I am a client (I connect to others Access Points)

2. How long have you been involved with a wireless community network? (please. select one of the following)
Less than 3 months Between 3 and 6 months Between 6 and 12 months More than 1 year More than 2 years

3. Please. indicate how often you perform each of the following activities by selecting the appropriate scale from 1 to 7. where 1 is never and 7 is very often:

Never 1 Using the networks communication services (e.g.

Seldom 2 3

Sometimes 4 5

Often 6

Very often 7

192

VoIP, IRC) Using the networks file sharing services Using network management services Using gaming. multimedia and/or other web services available on the network Uploading content onto the network Creating content for the network Reading comments that others have posted on the communitys forum Posting comments on the communitys forum Participating in physical meetings with other community members Offering technical assistance to other community members Actively supporting the community with actions such as forum moderation, website maintenance and update, etc.

4. Do you host services on the community network (e.g file sharing. gaming. telephony. web services. etc)?
YES NO

5. Do you provide Internet access to other community members?

YES NO

6. Please indicate how true each of the following statements is for your involvement in a wireless community (please use the scale from 1 to 7. where 1 means not at all true and 7 means very true).

193

Not all true 1 I enjoy my involvement in the wireless community. I think I am pretty good at what I do within the wireless community. I believe I have some choice about what I do within the wireless community. I feel like I could trust other people in the wireless community. The more I participate in the wireless community. the more competent I feel I become. I would like a chance to interact with other people in the wireless community more often. I consider my participation in the wireless community to be fun. I have been able to learn new. interesting skills through my involvement in the wireless community. I participate in the wireless community because I want to. I feel like other people in the wireless community are not trustworthy. I think I do well compared to others in what I do within the wireless community. I feel close to the people involved in the wireless community. I think that being involved in the wireless community is boring. I am satisfied with my performance within the wireless

Somewhat true 4

Very true 7

194

community.

I am free to express my ideas and opinions within the wireless community. I really like the people in the wireless community. Participating in the wireless community is an activity I cant do very well. I would describe participating in the wireless community as very interesting. I feel a sense of accomplishment through my involvement in the wireless community. I feel like I can pretty much be myself in what I do within the wireless community. There are not many people in the wireless community I am close to. Participating in the wireless community gives me the satisfaction of seeing the results of my actions. Other people in the wireless community are friendly towards me. There is not much opportunity for me to decide for myself how to act within the wireless community. The social opportunities provided by the wireless community are important to me. My involvement in the wireless community provides me with a way to make new friends.

195

I identify with wireless community enthusiasts. Participating in the wireless community allows me to do something for a cause that is important to me. I enjoy sharing and helping through my involvement in the wireless community. I know that other people in the wireless community will help me. so its only fair to help them. Participating in the wireless community allows me to experience the community spirit of sharing. I am glad to be a wireless community enthusiast. I have been helped by other people in the wireless community. so I desire to help back. When I contribute to the wireless community. I expect that others will contribute too in the future. I see myself as a wireless community enthusiast. I believe that wireless communities are a promising alternative to commercial broadband networks. I wish to promote the use of WiFi through my involvement in the wireless community. I cannot find the things I find in the community network (e.g. content. services) anywhere else. I can learn new skills from direct. hands-on experience through my involvement in the wireless

196

community.

I can make new contacts that might help my career through my involvement in the wireless community. Participating in the wireless community allows me to find ways to adapt a new technology (WiFi) to my own needs. My participation in the wireless community allows me to explore my capabilities. Participating in the wireless community will look good on my resume. Having broadband connectivity through the community network is useful to me. My participation in the wireless community can help me learn how to work within a group of people. My involvement in the wireless community can help me explore different career options. I doubt if I will learn anything new or valuable from my involvement in the wireless community. Being appreciated by other people in the wireless community is important to me. My participation in the wireless community makes me feel needed. It would have been inconvenient for me to be considered by others in the wireless community as a person who is not actively

197

involved.

My participation in the wireless community enhances my status among my colleagues. My participation in the wireless community makes me feel better about myself. Friends and family do not think very positively about my involvement in the wireless community. I receive some form of explicit compensation (e.g salary) for my participation in the wireless community. Joining the wireless community is required by my job. I believe that it is important to receive some sort of payment for participating in the wireless community. Joining the wireless community is something that I am supposed to do. I consider the money I have spent for my involvement in the wireless community well spent. I think I could do more important things with my time than participating in the wireless community. I cannot always find the time to contribute to the wireless community. I consider the effort for participating in the wireless community (e.g. money. time) to be high for me.

198

I did not put a lot of effort (e.g. money. time) when I first joined the wireless community.

7. How do you imagine your future participation in the wireless community? (please select one of the following)
I will become more involved with the wireless community. I will become less involved with the wireless community. I will be more or less involved to the same extent.

199

Appendix C
C1. ANOVA Results
Variable (mean/SD) Enjoyment (6.27/0.764) Warm-glow intrinsic motivation (5.87/1.006) Relatedness (4.78/1.295) Reciprocity (5.25/1.375) Identified Regulation (4.62/1.458) Introjected Regulation (4.29/1.692) External Regulation (1.89/1.337) Tangible Consumers 6.47 Detached 5.97 Socializers 6.00 Enthusiasts 6.42 Sum of Squares 5.360 (between groups) 55.961 (within groups) 61.321 (total) 9.323 (between groups) 96.970 (within groups) 106.294 (total) 15.193 (between groups) 161.020 (within groups) 176.213 (total) 5.258 (between groups) 193.365 (within groups) 198.623 (total) 22.627 (between groups) 200.594 (within groups) 223.220 (total) 31.687 (between groups) 263.033 (within groups) 294.720 (total) 7.223 (between groups) 176.762 (within groups) 183.985 (total) 26.676 (between groups) df 3 102 105 3 102 105 3 102 105 3 102 105 3 102 105 3 100 103 3 100 103 3 Mean Square 1.787 .549 3.108 .951 5.064 1.579 1.753 1.896 7.542 1.967 10.562 2.630 2.408 1.768 8.892 F / Sig. 3.256 / 0.025

6.21

5.62

5.41

5.96

3.269 / 0.024

4.78 5.46 4.81 4.63 1.75 5.97

4.33 4.85 4.38 4.05 1.99 6.27

4.46 5.25 3.77 3.21 1.47 4.72

5.31 5.31 5.10 4.73 2.22 5.76

3.208 / 0.026 0.924 / 0.432 3.835 / 0.012 4.016 / 0.010 1.362 / 0.259 4.033 / 0.009

200

costs (5.76/1.550) Ongoing intangible costs (4.38/1.262) Set-up costs (3.60/2.069)

218.256 (within groups) 244.932 (total) 4.54 3.77 4.26 4.72 12.751 (between groups) 151.342 (within groups) 164.093 (total) 20.973 (between groups) 420.066 (within groups) 441.038 (total)

99 102 3 100 103 3 100 103

2.205 4.250 1.513 6.991 4.201

2.808 / 0.043

4.09

3.77

2.83

3.37

1.664 / 0.180

C2. ANOVA Post Hoc Comparisons (Scheffe)

(I) Cluster membership 1 (J) Cluster membership 2 3 4 1 3 4 1 2 4 1 2 3 2 3 4 Mean Difference (I-J) .42474 1.04069 -.28888 -.42474 .61594 -.71363 -1.04069 -.61594 -1.32957(*) .28888 .71363 1.32957(*) -.23864 .27778 -.46667 95% Confidence Interval Std. Error .37861 .40878 .34825 .37861 .44132 .38593 .40878 .44132 .41557 .34825 .38593 .41557 .36378 .38754 .33303 Sig. .739 .097 .876 .739 .585 .337 .097 .585 .020 .876 .337 .020 .934 .916 .582 -.6515 -.1214 -1.2789 -1.5010 -.6386 -1.8107 -2.2027 -1.8705 -2.5109 -.7011 -.3835 .1482 -1.2731 -.8243 -1.4137 1.5010 2.2027 .7011 .6515 1.8705 .3835 .1214 .6386 -.1482 1.2789 1.8107 2.5109 .7958 1.3798 .4804

Dependent Variable Identified Regulation

External Regulation

201

Introjected Regulation

Relatedness

1 3 4 1 2 4 1 2 3 2 3 4 1 3 4 1 2 4 1 2 3 2 3 4 1 3 4 1 2 4 1

.23864 .51641 -.22803 -.27778 -.51641 -.74444 .46667 .22803 .74444 .57955 1.41204(*) -.10000 -.57955 .83249 -.67955 -1.41204(*) -.83249 -1.51204(*) .10000 .67955 1.51204(*) .45332 .32108 -.52704 -.45332 -.13225 -.98036 -.32108 .13225 -.84812 .52704

.36378 .42255 .37319 .38754 .42255 .39639 .33303 .37319 .39639 .44376 .47275 .40625 .44376 .51545 .45523 .47275 .51545 .48354 .40625 .45523 .48354 .33921 .36624 .31202 .33921 .39540 .34577 .36624 .39540 .37232 .31202

.934 .685 .945 .916 .685 .323 .582 .945 .323 .637 .035 .996 .637 .460 .529 .035 .460 .025 .996 .529 .025 .619 .857 .419 .619 .990 .051 .857 .990 .166 .419

-.7958 -.6852 -1.2893 -1.3798 -1.7180 -1.8716 -.4804 -.8332 -.3828 -.6824 .0677 -1.2553 -1.8415 -.6333 -1.9741 -2.7564 -2.2983 -2.8871 -1.0553 -.6150 .1370 -.5110 -.7200 -1.4140 -1.4176 -1.2563 -1.9633 -1.3622 -.9918 -1.9065 -.3599

1.2731 1.7180 .8332 .8243 .6852 .3828 1.4137 1.2893 1.8716 1.8415 2.7564 1.0553 .6824 2.2983 .6150 -.0677 .6333 -.1370 1.2553 1.9741 2.8871 1.4176 1.3622 .3599 .5110 .9918 .0026 .7200 1.2563 .2103 1.4140

202

Warm-glow intrinsic motivation

Enjoyment

Reciprocity

2 3 2 3 4 1 3 4 1 2 4 1 2 3 2 3 4 1 3 4 1 2 4 1 2 3 2 3 4 1 3

.98036 .84812 .58269 .79847 .24889 -.58269 .21578 -.33380 -.79847 -.21578 -.54958 -.24889 .33380 .54958 .49467 .46569 .04633 -.49467 -.02899 -.44834 -.46569 .02899 -.41935 -.04633 .44834 .41935 .60806 .20588 .14943 -.60806 -.40217

.34577 .37232 .26324 .28421 .24213 .26324 .30684 .26833 .28421 .30684 .28894 .24213 .26833 .28894 .19998 .21591 .18394 .19998 .23310 .20384 .21591 .23310 .21949 .18394 .20384 .21949 .37173 .40134 .34192 .37173 .43329

.051 .166 .186 .054 .788 .186 .920 .672 .054 .920 .311 .788 .672 .311 .113 .206 .996 .113 .999 .191 .206 .999 .308 .996 .191 .308 .448 .967 .979 .448 .835

-.0026 -.2103 -.1656 -.0095 -.4394 -1.3310 -.6565 -1.0966 -1.6064 -1.0880 -1.3709 -.9372 -.4290 -.2718 -.0738 -.1481 -.4766 -1.0632 -.6916 -1.0278 -1.0795 -.6336 -1.0433 -.5692 -.1311 -.2046 -.4487 -.9350 -.8226 -1.6648 -1.6339

1.9633 1.9065 1.3310 1.6064 .9372 .1656 1.0880 .4290 .0095 .6565 .2718 .4394 1.0966 1.3709 1.0632 1.0795 .5692 .0738 .6336 .1311 .1481 .6916 .2046 .4766 1.0278 1.0433 1.6648 1.3468 1.1214 .4487 .8296

203

Ongoing intangible costs

4 1 2 4 1 2 3 2 3 4 1 3 4 1 2 4 1 2 3 2 3 4 1 3 4 1 2 4 1 2

-.45863 -.20588 .40217 -.05645 -.14943 .45863 .05645 .76649 .27996 -.18301 -.76649 -.48653 -.94949 -.27996 .48653 -.46296 .18301 .94949 .46296 -.30214 1.24837(*) .21197 .30214 1.55051(*) .51411 -1.24837(*) -1.55051(*) -1.03640 -.21197 -.51411

.37891 .40134 .43329 .40801 .34192 .37891 .40801 .33661 .35860 .30816 .33661 .39099 .34531 .35860 .39099 .36678 .30816 .34531 .36678 .40626 .43280 .37532 .40626 .47190 .41980 .43280 .47190 .44553 .37532 .41980

.691 .967 .835 .999 .979 .691 .999 .166 .894 .950 .166 .672 .062 .894 .672 .662 .950 .062 .662 .907 .045 .956 .907 .016 .683 .045 .016 .151 .956 .683

-1.5358 -1.3468 -.8296 -1.2163 -1.1214 -.6185 -1.1034 -.1907 -.7398 -1.0593 -1.7237 -1.5984 -1.9315 -1.2997 -.6253 -1.5060 -.6933 -.0325 -.5800 -1.4576 .0174 -.8555 -.8534 .2083 -.6799 -2.4793 -2.8927 -2.3036 -1.2794 -1.7081

.6185 .9350 1.6339 1.1034 .8226 1.5358 1.2163 1.7237 1.2997 .6933 .1907 .6253 .0325 .7398 1.5984 .5800 1.0593 1.9315 1.5060 .8534 2.4793 1.2794 1.4576 2.8927 1.7081 -.0174 -.2083 .2308 .8555 .6799

Tangible costs

204

Set-up costs

3 2 3 4 1 3 4 1 2 4 1 2 3

1.03640 .31551 1.25490 .72157 -.31551 .93939 .40606 -1.25490 -.93939 -.53333 -.72157 -.40606 .53333

.44553 .56079 .59743 .51339 .56079 .65139 .57529 .59743 .65139 .61106 .51339 .57529 .61106

.151 .957 .227 .580 .957 .558 .919 .227 .558 .858 .580 .919 .858

-.2308 -1.2792 -.4440 -.7384 -1.9102 -.9130 -1.2299 -2.9538 -2.7917 -2.2710 -2.1815 -2.0420 -1.2043

2.3036 1.9102 2.9538 2.1815 1.2792 2.7917 2.0420 .4440 .9130 1.2043 .7384 1.2299 2.2710

* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. 1 - Consumers. 2 - Detached. 3 - Socializers. 4 - Enthusiasts

C3. MANOVA Results

Box's Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices (Tests the null hypothesis that the observed covariance matrices of the dependent variables are equal across groups)
Box's M F df1 df2 Sig. 266.419 1.293 165 14326.936 .007

205

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity (Tests the null hypothesis that the residual covariance matrix is proportional to an identity matrix)
Likelihood Ratio Approx. Chi-Square df Sig. .000 328.579 54 .000

Multivariate Tests
Effect Intercept Pillai's Trace Wilks' Lambda Hotelling's Trace Roy's Largest Root Pillai's Trace Wilks' Lambda Hotelling's Trace Roy's Largest Root Value .992 .008 124.398 124.398 .533 .549 .678 .364 F 1119.580(b) 1119.580(b) 1119.580(b) 1119.580(b) 1.989 2.000 2.004 3.351(c) Hypothesis df 10.000 10.000 10.000 10.000 30.000 30.000 30.000 10.000 Error df 90.000 90.000 90.000 90.000 276.000 264.844 266.000 92.000 Sig. .000 .000 .000 .000 .002 .002 .002 .001 Partial Eta Squared .992 .992 .992 .992 .178 .181 .184 .267 Noncent. Parameter 11195.802 11195.802 11195.802 11195.802 59.685 58.565 60.127 33.510 Observed Power(a) 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 .998 .998 .998 .985

Cluster Membership Variable

a Computed using alpha = .05 b Exact statistic c The statistic is an upper bound on F that yields a lower bound on the significance level.

Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances (Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups)
F Ongoing intangible costs 4.246 df1 3 df2 99 Sig. .007

206

Tangible costs Set-up costs Identified Regulation External Regulation Introjected Regulation Relatedness Warm-glow intrinsic motivation Enjoyment Reciprocity

2.249 3.207 .295 6.734 .408 .361 1.448 1.141 .250

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99

.087 .026 .829 .000 .748 .781 .234 .336 .861

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Source Corrected Model Dependent Variable Ongoing intangible costs Tangible costs Set-up costs Identified Regulation External Regulation Introjected Regulation Relatedness Warm-glow intrinsic motivation Enjoyment Reciprocity Ongoing intangible costs Tangible costs Set-up costs Identified Regulation External Regulation Type III Sum of Squares 12.672(b) 26.676(c) 19.962(d) 20.888(e) 7.959(f) 29.803(g) 16.777(h) 9.185(i) 5.821(j) 5.228(k) 1813.950 3131.431 1212.897 1971.527 338.336 df 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 Mean Square 4.224 8.892 6.654 6.963 2.653 9.934 5.592 3.062 1.940 1.743 1813.950 3131.431 1212.897 1971.527 338.336 F 2.763 4.033 1.590 3.513 1.499 3.800 3.627 3.349 3.562 .922 1186.615 1420.406 289.851 994.862 191.149 Sig. .046 .009 .197 .018 .220 .013 .016 .022 .017 .433 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Partial Eta Squared .077 .109 .046 .096 .043 .103 .099 .092 .097 .027 .923 .935 .745 .909 .659 Noncent. Parameter 8.289 12.100 4.770 10.540 4.497 11.401 10.881 10.048 10.686 2.765 1186.615 1420.406 289.851 994.862 191.149 Observed Power(a) .652 .828 .407 .767 .385 .802 .782 .745 .773 .246 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Intercept

207

QCL_3

Error

Total

Introjected Regulation Relatedness Warm-glow intrinsic motivation Enjoyment Reciprocity Ongoing intangible costs Tangible costs Set-up costs Identified Regulation External Regulation Introjected Regulation Relatedness Warm-glow intrinsic motivation Enjoyment Reciprocity Ongoing intangible costs Tangible costs Set-up costs Identified Regulation External Regulation Introjected Regulation Relatedness Warm-glow intrinsic motivation Enjoyment Reciprocity Ongoing intangible costs Tangible costs

1658.686 2181.451 3292.978 3742.273 2638.011 12.672 26.676 19.962 20.888 7.959 29.803 16.777 9.185 5.821 5.228 151.339 218.256 414.271 196.189 175.231 258.791 152.643 90.500 53.930 187.209 2138.778 3659.000

1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 103 103

1658.686 2181.451 3292.978 3742.273 2638.011 4.224 8.892 6.654 6.963 2.653 9.934 5.592 3.062 1.940 1.743 1.529 2.205 4.185 1.982 1.770 2.614 1.542 .914 .545 1.891

634.528 1414.826 3602.251 6869.748 1395.035 2.763 4.033 1.590 3.513 1.499 3.800 3.627 3.349 3.562 .922

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .046 .009 .197 .018 .220 .013 .016 .022 .017 .433

.865 .935 .973 .986 .934 .077 .109 .046 .096 .043 .103 .099 .092 .097 .027

634.528 1414.826 3602.251 6869.748 1395.035 8.289 12.100 4.770 10.540 4.497 11.401 10.881 10.048 10.686 2.765

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 .652 .828 .407 .767 .385 .802 .782 .745 .773 .246

208

Corrected Total

59.751 102 192.437 102 a Computed using alpha = .05, b R Squared = .077 (Adjusted R Squared = .049), c R Squared = .109 (Adjusted R Squared = .082), d R Squared = .046 (Adjusted R Squared = .017), e R Squared = .096 (Adjusted R Squared = .069), f R Squared = .043 (Adjusted R Squared = .014), g R Squared = .103 (Adjusted R Squared = .076), h R Squared = .099 (Adjusted R Squared = .072), i R Squared = .092 (Adjusted R Squared = .065), j R Squared = .097 (Adjusted R Squared = .070), k R Squared = .027 (Adjusted R Squared = -.002)

Set-up costs Identified Regulation External Regulation Introjected Regulation Relatedness Warm-glow intrinsic motivation Enjoyment Reciprocity Ongoing intangible costs Tangible costs Set-up costs Identified Regulation External Regulation Introjected Regulation Relatedness Warm-glow intrinsic motivation Enjoyment Reciprocity

1785.000 2404.845 553.313 2160.382 2543.500 3684.722 4100.917 3028.750 164.011 244.932 434.233 217.077 183.191 288.594 169.420 99.686

103 103 103 103 103 103 103 103 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 102

209

Appendix D
Interview Details

Date December 17, 2006 December 21, 2006 December 21, 2006 January 15, 2007 January 25, 2007

Interviewee Name Giorgos Pandelis Vassilis Haris Dialekti

Interview Guide (In Greek)

. ( AWMN ...), . ; ; ; , ; . ; ; (. , , , ..) ,

210

. ( ); ; , ; ; . ( , ); ; .. , ; ; ; . .. , , , , , ; ; . ; , ( , , ). ( ) ( , , ).

211

 ( , , ). ( , , ). , ; ; , ( ) ;

212

Appendix E
Original interview extracts (in Greek): ... ... , , , gratification 2 ... . , ... to have fun 3 ... , ... 4 ... 5 A ... 6 o... 7 ... 8 ... ... 9 10 , ... , ... a... ... ... 11 , , , 12 13 , , , , impact ... 14 ... ... 15 ... , ... ... , , ... , , ... 16 ... ... , .... ... 17 , .
1

213

 ... .. , . 19 ... 20 , ... ... ... ... 21 , , , , always on ... ; 22 T payoff . , AWMN . 23 ... opportunity cost ... resources... resources , tangible intangible 24 N ... , ... 25 ... 26 ... 27 ... : (file sharing), online gaming SMS gateway t VoIP... o 28 p2p, ftp site ... o... forum ... - low-level , , , , , ... 29 ... forum interactive , , , ... , 30 ... AWMN (gaming, file sharing, email) 31 ... 32

18

214

B ... 34 ... ... 35 ... ... 36 ... , ... 37 ... ( ) ... 100% .... 38 ... AWMN... ... 39 ( ) , , . 40 , ... ... 41 ... , , ... 42 ... ... ... ... ... 43 ( / )... () ... 44 ... ( ) 45 , AWMN ... 46 ( ) , links . 47 ... , . 48 ... , ... , , ,, ... 49 , ( )... ... , ... 50 ( ) ... ... 51 ... Internet...

33

215

, ... Internet ... 53 , AMWN, AWMN ... ( AWMN... 54 . 55 H - ... AWMN , AWMN... ... 56 ... DSL, Internet... ... 57 .. Internet dial up ADSL ... 58 , provider, , , . 59 ... ... grassroots , ... ... 60 - 61 AWMN 62 , , ... ... 63 ... 64 AWMN ( )... AWMN... , , ... 65 ... . , ( ) 66 ... , broadband ... broadband ...

52

216

 ... (workshops)

67

217