The Core and Cosmopolitans: A Relational View of Innovation in User Communities

Abstract

U sers often interact and help each other solve problems in communities, but few scholars have explored how these relationships provide opportunities to innovate. We analyze the extent to which people positioned within the core of a community as well as people that are cosmopolitans positioned across multiple external communities affect innovation. Using a multimethod approach, including a survey, a complete database of interactions in an online community, content coding of interactions and contributions, and 36 interviews, we specify the types of positions that have the strongest effect on innovation. Our study shows that dispositional explanations for user innovation should be complemented by a relational view that emphasizes how these communities differ from other organizations, the types of behaviors this enables, and the effects on innovation.

Intellectual Property Norms in Online Communities: How User-Organized Intellectual Property Regulation Supports Innovation

“…Our findings contribute to the literature on norms-based IP systems (Di Stefano et al 2014, Fauchart and von Hippel 2008, Loshin 2010, Oliar and Sprigman 2008 by suggesting that the relatively small size and close-knit relationships of off-line communities are not a prerequisite for a functioning norms-based IP system, as they can effectively be substituted. Our study also contributes to the literature on innovation in online communities in general (Dahlander and Frederiksen 2012, Jeppesen and Frederiksen 2006, O'Mahony and Ferraro 2007, von Krogh et al 2012, Wasko and Faraj 2005. The role of IP has attracted great interest in this field.…”

“…In online communities, unconstrained self-selection is seen as one of the key success factors for innovation , as it is difficult to anticipate who will provide the best contribution to the task set Lakhani 2013, Franke et al 2014). A second difference is that participants often join online communities for a limited time only, which may weaken socialization processes and loyalty to the community (Bayus 2013, Dahlander and Frederiksen 2012, Fleming and Waguespack 2007. Third, online communities are typically quite heterogeneous (Boudreau and Lakhani 2009).…”

“…Members give each other feedback and help each other improve their ideas and developments. This is particularly useful when the resources required to solve the underlying problem are not all located within single individuals, but are broadly distributed across multiple individuals (Boudreau and Lakhani 2009, Dahlander and Frederiksen 2012, Franke and Shah 2003. Hayek (1945) already argued that this is the norm rather than the exception in most circumstances.…”

“…724-750, © 2016 The Author(s) communities (Dahlander and Frederiksen 2012, Jeppesen and Frederiksen 2006, O'Mahony and Ferraro 2007, von Krogh et al 2012, Wasko and Faraj 2005. We do so by comparing and contrasting norms-based IP systems in online settings with those found in off-line settings and by proposing a contingency view of norms-based IP systems in online communities.…”

Are Gatekeepers Important for the Renewal of the Local Knowledge Base? Evidence from U. S. Cities

“…The increasing complexity of processing, coding, interpreting, and absorbing large amount of information from multiple sources (Dahlander & Frederiksen, 2012) can also hamper the efficiency of knowledge exchanges. In general, social structures in which gatekeepers dominate external linkages (and the related knowledge flows) are more exposed to disruptions of such links than social structures whose external ties are mostly direct, and possibly redundant.…”