Table Of Content

MUDSLINGING AND MANNERS ANNA FILIPPOVA NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE 2016 MUDSLINGING AND MANNERS AMULTI-METHODEXAMINATIONOFCONFLICTINFREEAND OPENSOURCESOFTWAREDEVELOPMENT ANNA FILIPPOVA B.A. (Hons), Monash University, 2008 A THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY COMMUNICATIONS AND NEW MEDIA NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE 2016 Declaration I hereby declare that this thesis is my original work and it has been written by me in its entirety. I have duly acknowledged all the sources of information which have been used in the thesis. This thesis has also not been submitted for any degree in any uni- versity previously. Anna Filippova April 22, 2016 i Name : AnnaFilippova Degree : DoctorofPhilosophy Supervisor(s) : Dr. HichangCho Department : CommunicationsandNewMedia ThesisTitle : MudslingingandManners Amulti-methodexaminationofconflictinFree andOpenSourceSoftwareDevelopment ii Acknowledgment Foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor Dr. Hichang Cho for the continuous support of my Ph.D study and research, for his patience, motivation, enthusiasm, and immense knowledge. His guidance helpedmeinallthetimeofresearchandwritingofthisthesis. Besides my advisor, I would like to thank the rest of my thesis committee: Dr. Jude Yew and Dr. Michael Stefanone, for their encouragement, insightful comments,andhardquestions. My sincere thanks also goes to the Singapore tech community for offering metheirhospitality,friendshipandsupport. Lastbutnottheleast,Iwouldliketothankmyfamily: boththeoneIstarted with four years ago, and the one I found along the way. You are my biggest cheerleader. April22,2016 iii iv Contents 1 Introduction 3 1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1.1 Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1.2 Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1.3 Contribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1.1.4 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1.1.5 ThesisStructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.2 LiteratureReview1-FreeandOpenSourceSoftware . . . . . . 15 1.2.1 BackgroundandHistoryofFreeandOpenSourceSoft- ware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1.2.2 PastResearchonFOSS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1.2.3 RelevanceoforganizationaltheorytoFOSSresearch . . 28 2 LiteratureReview2-ConflictinOrganizationalTeam 35 2.1 Classictheoryonconflictinsocialgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 2.2 Conflictinorganizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2.2.1 Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2.2.2 Processversusstructuralapproaches . . . . . . . . . . . 38 2.2.3 Towardsanintragroupconflicttaxonomy . . . . . . . . 43 2.2.4 Teamdevelopmentovertime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 2.3 Virtualteams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 2.3.1 CMCas"lack" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 2.3.2 Beyondlimitationsofreducedsocialcues . . . . . . . . 61 2.3.3 Conflictinlong-termorientedvirtualteams . . . . . . . 64 3 Study1-InterviewsandParticipantObservation 69 3.1 Studyscopeandspecificresearchquestions . . . . . . . . . . . 70 3.2 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 3.2.1 Epistemology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 3.2.2 DataCollection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 3.2.3 Immersion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 v 3.2.4 Theoreticalsampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 3.2.5 Intervieweedemographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 3.2.6 InterviewProcedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 3.2.7 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 3.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 3.3.1 TaskConflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 3.3.2 ProcessConflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 3.3.3 AffectiveandTransformingConflict . . . . . . . . . . . 90 3.3.4 Normativeconflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 3.4 Discussion1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 3.5 ConflictAntecedents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 3.5.1 GeographicalTeamDistribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 3.5.2 Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 3.5.3 DistributionofDecision-MakingandBikeshedding . . . 108 3.5.4 Interdependence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 3.6 Discussion2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 3.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 4 Hypothesis Development - Conflict, Inputs, Emergent States and Outcomes 117 4.1 HypothesisDevelopment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 4.1.1 Normativeconflictasafourthconflictdimension . . . . 120 4.1.2 Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 4.1.3 Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 4.1.4 Conflictantecedents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 4.1.5 Controlvariables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 5 Study2-Survey 147 5.1 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 5.1.1 Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 5.1.2 Pilottests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 5.1.3 Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 5.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 5.2.1 ModelSpecification: MeasurementModel . . . . . . . . 159 5.2.2 Descriptivestatistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 5.2.3 ModelSpecification: StructuralModel . . . . . . . . . . 163 5.2.4 Hypothesistesting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 5.3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 5.3.1 NormativeConflictasaSeparateConflictDimension . . 177 vi 5.3.2 Differential impact of conflict types on team emergent statesandoutcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 6 Discussion 191 6.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 6.2 ContributionstoFOSSliterature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 6.2.1 ConflictManifestation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 6.2.2 ConflictInterpretationandConflictNorms . . . . . . . 197 6.3 Contributions and Implications of the Normative Conflict di- mension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 6.4 ContributionstoVirtualTeamLiterature . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 6.4.1 Conflict, Emergent states and Outcomes in Ongoing VirtualTeams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 6.4.2 ConflictTransformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 6.4.3 ConflictAntecedents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 6.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 7 Conclusion 217 7.1 SynthesisofEmpiricalFindings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 7.2 TheoreticalImplications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 7.3 PracticalImplications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 7.4 LimitationsandDirectionsforFutureWork . . . . . . . . . . . 228 7.4.1 Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 7.4.2 Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 7.4.3 Objectiveoutcomeandinputmeasures . . . . . . . . . 230 7.4.4 Multi-leveleffects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 7.4.5 Conflictresolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 7.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 Appendices 258 .1 Inter-ItemCorrelations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 .2 Literatureexaminingconflictinvirtualteams . . . . . . . . . . 263 .3 SurveyItemMeasures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 vii Abstract This dissertation presents evidence to expand theory on conflict in ongoing dis- tributed virtual work groups, such as Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) communities,throughtheinclusionofnormativeconflict. Specifically,thework outlines how FOSS teams experience disagreements not only arising out of the directactionofworkingonasoftwareproject,butalsoconcerningthenormsof the group, such as ideology, mission and values. Conflict as a team process is thusmorethanataskbyproduct;inlong-termorientedself-organizingteams,it is a self-reflexive process that can stimulate community evolution, and in some cases,dissolution. Normative conflict is not only a novel addition to conflict theory, but also a factor with significant impact on the health of open collaborative communi- ties. Empirical findings suggest normative conflict to be the strongest overall predictor of developer retention, having both a direct negative effect, as well as throughexacerbatingothertypesofwork-drivenconflict. The dissertation traces the discovery (through interviews and community engagement),operationalization(throughdevelopmentandrefinementofanor- mativeconflictscale)andgeneralization(followingawidesurvey)ofnormative conflictaspartofanupdatedconflictframeworkforongoingdistributedvirtual workgroups. The dissertation thus presents a theoretical, methodological and practical contributiontounderstandingconflictinvirtualcommunitiesandorganizations. Theoretically, the work elucidates and provides support for the expansion of our existing understanding of conflict in distributed teams. Methodologically, the work provides a validated set of measurement tools for the updated conflict framework. Finally, the dissertation examines various team structural factors that may stimulate or reduce conflict occurrence, offering practical advice for communitybuildingandmaintenance. viii

Description:
Hichang Cho for the continuous support of my Ph.D study and research, for his patience, motivation the most commonly spoken language (R. A. Ghosh et al., 2002; Robles et al.,. 2001). Furthermore, a number writers, or are not native speakers of the dominant project language (P10). Competing
ebook img

mudslinging and manners anna filippova national university of singapore 2016 PDF

283 Pages·2016·1.38 MB·English
by  
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Upgrade Premium
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

Preview mudslinging and manners anna filippova national university of singapore 2016

MUDSLINGING AND MANNERS ANNA FILIPPOVA NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE 2016 MUDSLINGING AND MANNERS AMULTI-METHODEXAMINATIONOFCONFLICTINFREEAND OPENSOURCESOFTWAREDEVELOPMENT ANNA FILIPPOVA B.A. (Hons), Monash University, 2008 A THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY COMMUNICATIONS AND NEW MEDIA NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE 2016 Declaration I hereby declare that this thesis is my original work and it has been written by me in its entirety. I have duly acknowledged all the sources of information which have been used in the thesis. This thesis has also not been submitted for any degree in any uni- versity previously. Anna Filippova April 22, 2016 i Name : AnnaFilippova Degree : DoctorofPhilosophy Supervisor(s) : Dr. HichangCho Department : CommunicationsandNewMedia ThesisTitle : MudslingingandManners Amulti-methodexaminationofconflictinFree andOpenSourceSoftwareDevelopment ii Acknowledgment Foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor Dr. Hichang Cho for the continuous support of my Ph.D study and research, for his patience, motivation, enthusiasm, and immense knowledge. His guidance helpedmeinallthetimeofresearchandwritingofthisthesis. Besides my advisor, I would like to thank the rest of my thesis committee: Dr. Jude Yew and Dr. Michael Stefanone, for their encouragement, insightful comments,andhardquestions. My sincere thanks also goes to the Singapore tech community for offering metheirhospitality,friendshipandsupport. Lastbutnottheleast,Iwouldliketothankmyfamily: boththeoneIstarted with four years ago, and the one I found along the way. You are my biggest cheerleader. April22,2016 iii iv Contents 1 Introduction 3 1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1.1 Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1.2 Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1.3 Contribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1.1.4 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1.1.5 ThesisStructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.2 LiteratureReview1-FreeandOpenSourceSoftware . . . . . . 15 1.2.1 BackgroundandHistoryofFreeandOpenSourceSoft- ware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1.2.2 PastResearchonFOSS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1.2.3 RelevanceoforganizationaltheorytoFOSSresearch . . 28 2 LiteratureReview2-ConflictinOrganizationalTeam 35 2.1 Classictheoryonconflictinsocialgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 2.2 Conflictinorganizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2.2.1 Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2.2.2 Processversusstructuralapproaches . . . . . . . . . . . 38 2.2.3 Towardsanintragroupconflicttaxonomy . . . . . . . . 43 2.2.4 Teamdevelopmentovertime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 2.3 Virtualteams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 2.3.1 CMCas"lack" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 2.3.2 Beyondlimitationsofreducedsocialcues . . . . . . . . 61 2.3.3 Conflictinlong-termorientedvirtualteams . . . . . . . 64 3 Study1-InterviewsandParticipantObservation 69 3.1 Studyscopeandspecificresearchquestions . . . . . . . . . . . 70 3.2 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 3.2.1 Epistemology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 3.2.2 DataCollection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 3.2.3 Immersion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 v 3.2.4 Theoreticalsampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 3.2.5 Intervieweedemographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 3.2.6 InterviewProcedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 3.2.7 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 3.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 3.3.1 TaskConflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 3.3.2 ProcessConflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 3.3.3 AffectiveandTransformingConflict . . . . . . . . . . . 90 3.3.4 Normativeconflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 3.4 Discussion1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 3.5 ConflictAntecedents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 3.5.1 GeographicalTeamDistribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 3.5.2 Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 3.5.3 DistributionofDecision-MakingandBikeshedding . . . 108 3.5.4 Interdependence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 3.6 Discussion2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 3.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 4 Hypothesis Development - Conflict, Inputs, Emergent States and Outcomes 117 4.1 HypothesisDevelopment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 4.1.1 Normativeconflictasafourthconflictdimension . . . . 120 4.1.2 Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 4.1.3 Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 4.1.4 Conflictantecedents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 4.1.5 Controlvariables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 5 Study2-Survey 147 5.1 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 5.1.1 Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 5.1.2 Pilottests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 5.1.3 Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 5.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 5.2.1 ModelSpecification: MeasurementModel . . . . . . . . 159 5.2.2 Descriptivestatistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 5.2.3 ModelSpecification: StructuralModel . . . . . . . . . . 163 5.2.4 Hypothesistesting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 5.3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 5.3.1 NormativeConflictasaSeparateConflictDimension . . 177 vi 5.3.2 Differential impact of conflict types on team emergent statesandoutcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 6 Discussion 191 6.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 6.2 ContributionstoFOSSliterature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 6.2.1 ConflictManifestation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 6.2.2 ConflictInterpretationandConflictNorms . . . . . . . 197 6.3 Contributions and Implications of the Normative Conflict di- mension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 6.4 ContributionstoVirtualTeamLiterature . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 6.4.1 Conflict, Emergent states and Outcomes in Ongoing VirtualTeams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 6.4.2 ConflictTransformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 6.4.3 ConflictAntecedents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 6.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 7 Conclusion 217 7.1 SynthesisofEmpiricalFindings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 7.2 TheoreticalImplications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 7.3 PracticalImplications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 7.4 LimitationsandDirectionsforFutureWork . . . . . . . . . . . 228 7.4.1 Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 7.4.2 Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 7.4.3 Objectiveoutcomeandinputmeasures . . . . . . . . . 230 7.4.4 Multi-leveleffects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 7.4.5 Conflictresolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 7.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 Appendices 258 .1 Inter-ItemCorrelations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 .2 Literatureexaminingconflictinvirtualteams . . . . . . . . . . 263 .3 SurveyItemMeasures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 vii Abstract This dissertation presents evidence to expand theory on conflict in ongoing dis- tributed virtual work groups, such as Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) communities,throughtheinclusionofnormativeconflict. Specifically,thework outlines how FOSS teams experience disagreements not only arising out of the directactionofworkingonasoftwareproject,butalsoconcerningthenormsof the group, such as ideology, mission and values. Conflict as a team process is thusmorethanataskbyproduct;inlong-termorientedself-organizingteams,it is a self-reflexive process that can stimulate community evolution, and in some cases,dissolution. Normative conflict is not only a novel addition to conflict theory, but also a factor with significant impact on the health of open collaborative communi- ties. Empirical findings suggest normative conflict to be the strongest overall predictor of developer retention, having both a direct negative effect, as well as throughexacerbatingothertypesofwork-drivenconflict. The dissertation traces the discovery (through interviews and community engagement),operationalization(throughdevelopmentandrefinementofanor- mativeconflictscale)andgeneralization(followingawidesurvey)ofnormative conflictaspartofanupdatedconflictframeworkforongoingdistributedvirtual workgroups. The dissertation thus presents a theoretical, methodological and practical contributiontounderstandingconflictinvirtualcommunitiesandorganizations. Theoretically, the work elucidates and provides support for the expansion of our existing understanding of conflict in distributed teams. Methodologically, the work provides a validated set of measurement tools for the updated conflict framework. Finally, the dissertation examines various team structural factors that may stimulate or reduce conflict occurrence, offering practical advice for communitybuildingandmaintenance. viii

Description:
Hichang Cho for the continuous support of my Ph.D study and research, for his patience, motivation the most commonly spoken language (R. A. Ghosh et al., 2002; Robles et al.,. 2001). Furthermore, a number writers, or are not native speakers of the dominant project language (P10). Competing
See more

The list of books you might like

Upgrade Premium
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.
DMCA & Copyright: Dear all, most of the website is community built, users are uploading hundred of books everyday, which makes really hard for us to identify copyrighted material, please contact us if you want any material removed.
Copyright @ PDFdrive.to, 2022 | We love our users