Blockchain Papers

Dieter Zinnbauer

No abstract is available for this record.

Mayo Fuster Morell

Online Creation Communities (OCCs) can be defined as networks of individuals that communicate, interact and collaborate; in several forms and degrees of participation which are eco-systemically integrated; mainly via a platform of participation on the Internet, on which they depend; and aiming at knowledge-making and sharing. This article analyses the conception of participation and the organizational logic of participation in OCCs. Participation in OCCs does not follow a dichotomize approach, but function more as an eco-system. The more significant characteristic of participation in OCCs are: 1) What is important is that the system is open to participation, but it is not expected that everybody participate and contribute equally; 2) Participation has multiple forms and degrees which are integrated. A critical mass of active developers is essential to initiate the project and maintain the content; weak cooperation enriches the system and facilitates reaching larger fields of information resources; and lurker or non-participants provide value as audience or though unintended participation that improve the system; 3) Participation is decentralized and asynchronous; 4) Participation is in public; 5) Participation is autonomous in the sense that each person decides which level of commitment they want to adopt and on what aspects they want to contribute. 6) Participation is not only deliberation but implementation. To conclude, an analysis of the governance conditions under which the resulting outcome could be defined as a digital commons is included. Furthermore, a reflection on the political implications of CCOs is also provided. The analysis is developed over the case studies of a platform provided by the European Social Forum, Flickr, Wikihow and Wikipedia. The main empirical methods are interviews, virtual ethnography and content analysis.

Randall M. Livingstone

Although I'm a rich white guy, I'm also a feminist anti-racism activist who fights for the rights of the poor and oppressed. (Carl Kenner)Systemic bias is a scourge to the pillar of neutrality. (Cerejota)Count me in. Let's leave the bias to the mainstream media. (Orcar967)Because this is so important. (CuttingEdge)These are a handful of comments posted by online editors who have banded together in a virtual coalition to combat Western bias on the world’s largest digital encyclopedia, Wikipedia. This collective action by Wikipedians both acknowledges the inherent inequalities of a user-controlled information project like Wikpedia and highlights the potential for progressive change within that same project. These community members are taking the responsibility of social change into their own hands (or more aptly, their own keyboards).In recent years much research has emerged on Wikipedia from varying fields, ranging from computer science, to business and information systems, to the social sciences. While critical at times of Wikipedia’s growth, governance, and influence, most of this work observes with optimism that barriers to improvement are not firmly structural, but rather they are socially constructed, leaving open the possibility of important and lasting change for the better.WikiProject: Countering Systemic Bias (WP:CSB) considers one such collective effort. Close to 350 editors have signed on to the project, which began in 2004 and itself emerged from a similar project named CROSSBOW, or the “Committee Regarding Overcoming Serious Systemic Bias on Wikipedia.” As a WikiProject, the term used for a loose group of editors who collaborate around a particular topic, these editors work within the Wikipedia site and collectively create a social network that is unified around one central aim—representing the un- and underrepresented—and yet they are bound by no particular unified set of interests. The first stage of a multi-method study, this paper looks at a snapshot of WP:CSB’s activity from both content analysis and social network perspectives to discover “who” geographically this coalition of the unrepresented is inserting into the digital annals of Wikipedia.Wikipedia and WikipediansDeveloped in 2001 by Internet entrepreneur Jimmy Wales and academic Larry Sanger, Wikipedia is an online collaborative encyclopedia hosting articles in nearly 250 languages (Cohen). The English-language Wikipedia contains over 3.2 million articles, each of which is created, edited, and updated solely by users (Wikipedia “Welcome”). At the time of this study, Alexa, a website tracking organisation, ranked Wikipedia as the 6th most accessed site on the Internet. Unlike the five sites ahead of it though—Google, Facebook, Yahoo, YouTube (owned by Google), and live.com (owned by Microsoft)—all of which are multibillion-dollar businesses that deal more with information aggregation than information production, Wikipedia is a non-profit that operates on less than $500,000 a year and staffs only a dozen paid employees (Lih). Wikipedia is financed and supported by the WikiMedia Foundation, a charitable umbrella organisation with an annual budget of $4.6 million, mainly funded by donations (Middleton).Wikipedia editors and contributors have the option of creating a user profile and participating via a username, or they may participate anonymously, with only an IP address representing their actions. Despite the option for total anonymity, many Wikipedians have chosen to visibly engage in this online community (Ayers, Matthews, and Yates; Bruns; Lih), and researchers across disciplines are studying the motivations of these new online collectives (Kane, Majchrzak, Johnson, and Chenisern; Oreg and Nov). The motivations of open source software contributors, such as UNIX programmers and programming groups, have been shown to be complex and tied to both extrinsic and intrinsic rewards, including online reputation, self-satisfaction and enjoyment, and obligation to a greater common good (Hertel, Niedner, and Herrmann; Osterloh and Rota). Investigation into why Wikipedians edit has indicated multiple motivations as well, with community engagement, task enjoyment, and information sharing among the most significant (Schroer and Hertel). Additionally, Wikipedians seem to be taking up the cause of generativity (a concern for the ongoing health and openness of the Internet’s infrastructures) that Jonathan Zittrain notably called for in The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It. Governance and ControlAlthough the technical infrastructure of Wikipedia is built to support and perhaps encourage an equal distribution of power on the site, Wikipedia is not a land of “anything goes.” The popular press has covered recent efforts by the site to reduce vandalism through a layer of editorial review (Cohen), a tightening of control cited as a possible reason for the recent dip in the number of active editors (Edwards). A number of regulations are already in place that prevent the open editing of certain articles and pages, such as the site’s disclaimers and pages that have suffered large amounts of vandalism. Editing wars can also cause temporary restrictions to editing, and Ayers, Matthews, and Yates point out that these wars can happen anywhere, even to Burt Reynold’s page.Academic studies have begun to explore the governance and control that has developed in the Wikipedia community, generally highlighting how order is maintained not through particular actors, but through established procedures and norms. Konieczny tested whether Wikipedia’s evolution can be defined by Michels’ Iron Law of Oligopoly, which predicts that the everyday operations of any organisation cannot be run by a mass of members, and ultimately control falls into the hands of the few. Through exploring a particular WikiProject on information validation, he concludes:There are few indicators of an oligarchy having power on Wikipedia, and few trends of a change in this situation. The high level of empowerment of individual Wikipedia editors with regard to policy making, the ease of communication, and the high dedication to ideals of contributors succeed in making Wikipedia an atypical organization, quite resilient to the Iron Law. (189)Butler, Joyce, and Pike support this assertion, though they emphasise that instead of oligarchy, control becomes encapsulated in a wide variety of structures, policies, and procedures that guide involvement with the site. A virtual “bureaucracy” emerges, but one that should not be viewed with the negative connotation often associated with the term.Other work considers control on Wikipedia through the framework of commons governance, where “peer production depends on individual action that is self-selected and decentralized rather than hierarchically assigned. Individuals make their own choices with regard to resources managed as a commons” (Viegas, Wattenberg and McKeon). The need for quality standards and quality control largely dictate this commons governance, though interviewing Wikipedians with various levels of responsibility revealed that policies and procedures are only as good as those who maintain them. Forte, Larco, and Bruckman argue “the Wikipedia community has remained healthy in large part due to the continued presence of ‘old-timers’ who carry a set of social norms and organizational ideals with them into every WikiProject, committee, and local process in which they take part” (71). Thus governance on Wikipedia is a strong representation of a democratic ideal, where actors and policies are closely tied in their evolution. Transparency, Content, and BiasThe issue of transparency has proved to be a double-edged sword for Wikipedia and Wikipedians. The goal of a collective body of knowledge created by all—the “expert” and the “amateur”—can only be upheld if equal access to page creation and development is allotted to everyone, including those who prefer anonymity. And yet this very option for anonymity, or even worse, false identities, has been a sore subject for some in the Wikipedia community as well as a source of concern for some scholars (Santana and Wood). The case of a 24-year old college dropout who represented himself as a multiple Ph.D.-holding theology scholar and edited over 16,000 articles brought these issues into the public spotlight in 2007 (Doran; Elsworth). Wikipedia itself has set up standards for content that include expectations of a neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and the publishing of no original research, but Santana and Wood argue that self-policing of these policies is not adequate:The principle of managerial discretion requires that every actor act from a sense of duty to exercise moral autonomy and choice in responsible ways. When Wikipedia’s editors and administrators remain anonymous, this criterion is simply not met. It is assumed that everyone is behaving responsibly within the Wikipedia system, but there are no monitoring or control mechanisms to make sure that this is so, and there is ample evidence that it is not so. (141) At the theoretical level, some downplay these concerns of transparency and autonomy as logistical issues in lieu of the potential for information systems to support rational discourse and emancipatory forms of communication (Hansen, Berente, and Lyytinen), but others worry that the questionable “realities” created on Wikipedia will become truths once circulated to all areas of the Web (Langlois and Elmer). With the number of articles on the English-language version of Wikipedia reaching well into the millions, the task of mapping and assessing content has become a tremendous endeavour, one mostly taken on by information systems experts. Kittur, Chi, and Suh have used Wikipedia’s existing hierarchical categorisation structure to map change in the site’s content over the past few years. Their work revealed that in early 2008 “Culture and the arts” was the most domin

Chris Jensen, Walt Scacchi

No abstract is available for this record.

Jochen Gläser

This chapter contributes to the sociological understanding of open source software (OSS) production by identifying the social mechanism that creates social order in OSS communities. OSS communities are identified as production communities whose mode of production employs autonomous decentralized decision making on contributions and autonomous production of contributions while maintaining the necessary order by adjustment to the common subject matter of work. Thus, OSS communities belong to the same type of collective production system as scientific communities. Both consist of members who not only work on a common product, but are also aware of this collective work and adjust their actions accordingly. Membership is based on the self-perception of working with the community’s subject matter (software or respectively scientific knowledge). The major differences between the two are due to the different subject matters of work. Production communities are compared to the previously known collective production systems, namely, markets, organizations, and networks. They have a competitive advantage in the production under complete uncertainty, that is, when neither the nature of a problem, nor the way in which it can be solved, nor the skills required for its solution are known in advance.Request access from your librarian to read this chapter's full text.

J.C.A.R. Nouwens, Harry Bouwman

The use of information technologies and services – group-decision-support systems, electronic mail, electronic data interchange (EDI) and electronic information services such as videotex, audiotex and CD-ROM, has received considerable attention in recent research. Of particular current interest is the study of integration of these different services in “networks” such as the Internet and their use in organizations and by individual consumers. In this study, we will argue that the use of telecommunication technologies and services will have its major impact on the coordination mechanisms of how organizations deal with their outside world (that is, the organizational environment). Our main question, therefore, is: How do telecommunication networks and services contribute to the development and maintenance of inter-organizational coordination? This question can be interpreted in two ways. First, what kind of benefits can be expected from the use of telecommunication networks and services for the development and maintenance of inter-organizational coordination? This question will be answered by presenting a theoretical framework in which the concept of networks is used to describe both organizations and telecommunications and to show how these concepts are interrelated. We will argue that the traditional dichotomy between (electronic) markets and hierarchies will be nuanced by offering a third option, the development of network-organizations. Secondly, we ask how telecommunication networks can be developed in order to facilitate the development and maintenance of inter-organizational coordination. We suggest that the way telecommunication networks and services are implemented will have significant impact on the way these networks are used. We will do so by focusing on the participating actors in the implementation phase of network development, and especially the role of system integrators in this process. Case studies have been done in the Dutch sectors of music retail, construction, agriculture and the hotel industry. Relationships between organizations develop on the basis of certain common interests and dependencies. An organization can be defined as a specific solution created by more or less autonomous actors to achieve common goals (Van de Vlist, 1988). Between organizations, relationships are developed for the exchange of goods, resources, information and so on. The inter-organizational relationships are most manifest in commercial transactions, in which goods or services are exchanged from one organization to another. Williamson (1975) has stated that transaction costs will rise when the unpredictability and uncertainty of events increases, and/or when transactions require very specific investments, and/or when the risk of opportunistic behavior of other organizations is high. Williamson argues the higher transaction costs are, the more likely transactions will take place within hierarchically organized firms. That is, when transaction costs are high, firms tend to choose vertical integration in order to control the transaction process. If transaction costs are low, that is; are straightforward, non- repetitive and require no transaction-specific investments, then the market is the optimal choice. Transaction costs thus depend upon the coordination mechanism being used. Markets are mainly coordinated by a price mechanism in which independent actors are searching for the best bargain. Firms are mainly coordinated by supervision in which actors who are involved in power-dependent relationships act according to routines. Powell (1990) has suggested that an alternative coordination structure is emerging: networks. Networks are groups of organizational actors who participate in a general pattern of interaction (Kreps, 1990). Networks can be groups of organizations, but also groups within organizations. Network-organizations stress the interdependence between organizational actors and thus pay a lot of attention to the development and maintenance of (communicative) relationships. At the same time, the different organizational actors have their own particular interests, and can be allied to different network-organizations. Thus, network-relationships can always be characterized by a tension between autonomy and interdependence, between team loyalty and individuality, between competition and cooperation. Traditionally, these networks are considered to be a hybrid form of market and hierarchies but Powell argues that this is “historically inaccurate, overly static, and it detracts from our ability to explain many forms of collaboration that are viable means of exchange.” (Powell, 1990, p. 298). That is, network forms of exchange have completely different modes of coordination that is neither price nor supervision, but mutual interest and interdependence (see Table 1). In line with Powell, we argue that network organizations are not equal to markets, since “central to the conceptualizations of the electronic marketplace is the ability of any buyer or seller to interconnect with a network to offer wares or shop for goods and services. Hence, ubiquity is by definition a prerequisite” (Steinfield, Plummer & Kraut, 1995). Ubiquity is - again, by definition - not a feature of a network organization, since interdependence has to exist; network organizations are built around general patterns of interaction. It is the relationship that counts: A relationship that is dependent on clear communication patterns in order to achieve a mutual understanding. Information and communication can determine whether these autonomous actors (individuals, groups or organizations as a whole) are able to work together. “Communication is defined as a process in which the participants create and share information with one another in order to reach a mutual understanding (….). In other words, communication always implies relationships” (Rogers & Kincaid, 1981). All inter-organizational relationships are characterized both by autonomy and interdependency, self-interest and team-spirit, competition and cooperation. These relationships are often described as value-added partnerships, that is, a set of independent organizations who cooperate to manage (information about) the flow of products and services in the value chain. The partnerships or inter-organizational networks can be either based on horizontal, vertical or symbiotic relationships. Within horizontal relationships, the organizations are one another's competitors. in vertical relationships other in a value and the symbiotic relationships is that the different organizations offer services and products to the The of these partnerships is to achieve - - in to outside this has that structure the of any of the between the of the of products and the of and the of partnerships are, on one the means to any between these different - by means of between and - on the other means to the of the network organization in to organizations not to this In order for network organizations to be - and thus to - depend on relationships based on a network the of to the networks can be as as the of and the system of networks coordination firms and can a for We argue that telecommunication networks and services can the and maintenance of these value-added partnerships facilitate the way organizations as the concept of relationships is in to achieve it is for telecommunication use of any telecommunications implies two the to be to the network from the to and to between actors networks and services can relationships within a value-added communication is or a more exchange of information These services to information by other organizations, or information with of other organizations. a information be to the network of inter-organizational relationships. information be by electronic or will and will and offer a for the of the that can be on the basis of This (see Table impact of telecommunications in of and the of the structure of organizational relationships The are optimal of optimal of and of more goals by products and/or services or by The of the and an of organizations can achieve when telecommunication In information and telecommunications are firms to of coordination and control and thus to inter-organizational relationships, especially and these technologies can be used to create and electronic markets, as can be on the Internet with electronic such as and electronic hierarchies is the with most the main of these technologies in the development and maintenance of network organizations. organizations have more of the in and communication communication is the clear coordination mechanism to these organizations, it is that the use of can these communication of the main of network organizations is that are to and information & as Powell (1990) has information networks is information in the market the price mechanism to information as a and thus to it as as and in a information is not as The be that network organizations the of vertical integration such as control and coordination of actors one is dependent upon and of and with the of independent - who have more tend to be in with the are more with and This is not to that we have the best to in organizational have that organizations have to to their particular in the network organizations are more for for are especially for the exchange of of which the value is to such as These are also very In of of organizational a network organization most a specific kind of an are most likely to be in and A and thus an a a network organizations can offer network organizations are also and require of Thus, organizations who use for the of network organizations the most from these it is not to be that use in this organizations have considerable other coordination but are also it has to be The use of for electronic markets and electronic hierarchies is - specific (see - as The relationships between telecommunications and organizations be as can telecommunication technologies and services have a significant impact on how inter-organizational relationships are but the structure and of the network of organizations also to have considerable for the way in which the telecommunication network is implemented and used. the development of telecommunication networks it is to the actors outside the of an organization, who are involved in the development of telecommunication networks and services. or organizations, and other organizations a and and network All these have an interest in the of network and services. the most but also the most actors are the the and organizations that use of the information and communication networks. of these actors will have their to participate in the telecommunications Our interest is on the of the different their the of their and the in the the development, implementation and use of telecommunication networks (see Table are for the involved in the development of telecommunication networks in such as or are based on between actors within a The will be a who use of to the of of the other actors within the for by the of another or by with the to the of another are in the network and the within the network by of the An who a to other for by an within the value chain. are used by a which the Relationships are This for a very in the All these are an option, on relationships, and Relationships that have to be most in the have developed more partnerships In order for participating to from the a more or less independent organization has to act as the system a network organization who that the development and maintenance of a telecommunication network will and in best on the market structure this can be a network organization of different of participating or an independent third as a the or the The main of system integrators is to develop and relationships with the actors In particular the concept of system integration that network organizations are completely different from electronic markets or electronic are not markets, since the of the network is not a of actors the are are not hierarchies the system is a it has no control on the behavior of the independent organizations. the organizations can be for a specific That is, the different organizations can participate in different networks for which different The use of information and communication has a in specific sectors in the networks are, for and networks a specific value for the & Vlist, 1988). studies have been done to develop the use of telecommunication systems, such as videotex, and so or are In this we will on of these The studies are not for their use of We are in the to the implementation of the and since in the have more with for the most are to The are to of information and communication The of a role by in which specific or participate in the of telecommunications These are to have a both in of a with to and with to that be by the involved to their the other the also studies in this a study done to determine which especially firms within these be best to use & it that be viable and for the and be for the for in the to offer the expected to be especially vertical we deal with our study of the and the we to deal with a study from and and (1990) as we do in our own This study is it how telecommunications can the development of telecommunications services. The which services to market and in the way their to and The of these services is by a telecommunications a This network the of a of services. The question what kind of be for both the and the market The study not to the question of how the of communication networks the horizontal and vertical networks around market The information flow within this network can be described most from the of the market Information is exchanged with to of goods of for with the services and general information development, and so on. the study and which also for data the of the and the network of the the communication The is described as a network of information (see 1). The most vertical relationship between of and so the the markets, and the of these relationships are mainly for between the and relationships between these actors and such as especially of organizations, and Information is most for the value and is mainly to the from the the market to the and The information in this is to and communication is in other especially communication with to information is exchanged in relationships. of are to the process in the value but different of communication are from to In general be by with to from different in the therefore, are no on how in the be used. of the and a more to be the markets and the Information a as as with in the are developed outside the mainly by The in a The network different for the such as electronic mail, and information exchange and and of and so on. The is more in to an An for this has to do with the of telecommunications in the At the this of most services to the an control system This the value or the horizontal relationships between the most This it clear that a telecommunication development of telecommunication services and the a the is and it for other to offer services. development of which are the in this The music is a of a inter-organizational The considerable of in the and services of organizations and its and of in and a more or less which for a of of uncertainty the commercial of goods to networks of and The of a is specific and not are to the market have a of thus with firms best able to to and The is a vertical the interests in and on the other are or are which be by of the uncertainty have to their as as of the are the it has with the of the the are that the will to the of the market and the of in is mainly own a The most actors are the music such as and in the are & the organized in of two organizations which are involved in the of a general organization which for the and two organizations of and The is and by the main music In the music and an electronic and system based on to this and the general information with to and for is as the music the the system and it by a in use mainly the system not an The system not so the music In the the actors involved for a the to be the to be involved in the A organization in which and on an equal by an Thus, one can argue that is a system or a network organization, not organizations but also a value-added for are with by a The of this are from the music which to the system a on the use of the or the an of actors involved and the information The music and to a the organization information to the and have to the information in a traditional and or by means of A third is the use of by means of a by of the time, is in more general in these general of the used this the this the of is an one a chain. a It is that of the use the These the and the most viable In the of is The music the that costs are and the process has more the other that both in and are high. The not been the of our The main in the of has to do with the of the In the music and the are competitors. it for the to the the firms to be involved in the the music to the of are as and have not in of on the other the system to be less their own systems, do to their The information by means of is or and to cooperation. The of on the of of independent or the that can a certain are more mainly to the to Thus, a network for not to an role for firms have the question of whether benefits the the is in Table In general it can be that and in by In and the of That is, not in the between and but more within the and for A vertical network in the music the are symbiotic and the and of The between the actors involved the development since their is The that by the most actors is the different actors depend on the music has a are not able to to use the that have to deal with a traditional as as an electronic (1990) has that this to higher and the development of a This is not for the music the is a share the with the other actors The network in this can be described as and The music and the in of and have different The information flow within the network (information and The network is between the different actors is many and has for and it is mainly involved in The most recent development within has to do with the of music the network to the so that can their own of is no and the of in the It is that is based on or but a order is in Table is a from the to the the of the The music the role of of the The vertical integration within the music and information is these The actors that to be very with development are the is the An from be that the of telecommunication technologies and services not be defined as a the use on the of organizations within the industry. A such as the music in the music can act as a system and the it will be the the role of system not as one who to actors A system has to create a that value for involved this means that are the of the of telecommunications services not be defined in of and to be as In the value will electronic hierarchies in which are and are dependent on these organizations, both with to the process and with to of and use of telecommunication technologies and services. This not a is in the order such as and are by order such as the use of the use of for for will be Within the a of different can be In this we will to that of the that in The structure of the is with the structure of the music industry. we can of and the and the the The of our is the a which an In general the of is the same for the of information within the & 1990). and the goods to are to the organized in the of to these are firms in this are on from which is by the The has to deal with and especially in the in but as an in of the that the an with to the actors that have been a of other actors involved around the implemented and two firms and for the (see the system also use of the the is also a in the It expected that to of and time, being the most especially in the and to the the integration of within the is most within industry. the the of the flow of goods more In within organizations, more information can be the of the of what is on the basis of the the use of more when a also use of telecommunications such as which is a system to to other are being such as the an of the and and In this and is tension between the involved to be a specific concept or be to use a and At the of this study, a of firms with and then on a is based on as network The is by the but the main costs are by from the for for The are that will contribute to and the implementation of and the concept has to be implemented for to be The of from to will contribute to a of their the will be by the who will use of other electronic information and order are to offer The the use by for The to the question is in Table The actors have different for participating in the In general the of is The is the of transaction the organizations can be can be to This will to and The network is in the value chain. is with the process of of industry. the it is more but on the development of the system that will with The of the is that the actors to participate the same In that are no relationships between the actors that are but will be with The that used by the different actors can be described as and have an equal The be characterized as a very one another as their relationships with are are as and no relationships are developed between and In the value have the most are and depend on the of their goods The products of and are less dependent on their can contribute to especially between and The are more the of transactions more are and is behavior is by the development of mutual The network is exchange of information in the is not the are a and but this for a is The network around is and not very mainly it is The is and has to with other it is to very It can be that to the of involved for other are and the integration of in the process has to The network the a in the value both in the of their and in the of their the within the hotel is the offering of and services to Dutch and and are and with the to which the services are or are the by Dutch and by and from other The of are and for and In the is with more and more the of is the of in The of is An in can be in this industry. of the in hotel is the to which in information In general the of is for the and have been developed on a basis which it to with an role in this but it not to major are more telecommunications services. is one organization in which both and in the and of the of this organization is the which for and the the Dutch Dutch on and to these organizations, hotel such as and are major of hotel services. In general the information from a will flow an organization the the or the to the At the the system and hotel have their own networks. mainly for and in the for the same also work with by or A general network is considered to be for the industry. The network in the hotel is but and Information from organizations such as and to and is competition in a market in which especially and are hotel with their own as is between it between individual and or the The common interest for the involved is not are in and is to telecommunications services other then and are other in the hotel and and from a it is not to be expected that these will the industry. In general the that is by different especially by the hotel is in between the and the and the different of the development of a The is to the main for different interests of involved The which are be and so that but to be a lot of within the This is not it be to the but are mainly organizational The is the to use of the system and will not for hotel or have their own that are to their and are to a system this will information their to other the information and are not clear benefits for to a telecommunication system and is not a that can the development of a are in the that use of the of their systems, such as and for other hotel services. it is to offer other such as offering for the of the and so on. The system not to more and but also to It is clear that to the and network in the hotel the development of a system based on a telecommunication network will not to from such as The actors have their own networks and are not in and especially in of the in the Case studies have been done in the music retail, and hotel In general we that the role of a system is but the same a who is in a can also the development and use of services hotel An electronic can to a use of the telecommunication services An inter-organizational network in an telecommunication network in which participants have a of different of services such as videotex, electronic or hybrid on the the hierarchies between organizations to a use of telecommunications services and costs organized networks can as an market place different telecommunications services are being used and the costs are Information develop very mainly as a of in interest between involved is a of not and a on that the development is with Internet of more for and the is that the of information and telecommunication services is defined as a and not an organizational The of information and telecommunication services on the of organizations within the A such as the music in the music and in the can act as a system and the are actors do not the of the implementation of telecommunications services for their organization and for their The of and to and in the The of information and telecommunication services will to It is clear in information and communication is used by in the value to develop electronic organizations in these hierarchies are dependent on the both with to the process and with to of and use of information and telecommunications services. order such as and are by order such as use of information and telecommunications services the use of for for or the use of information in the hotel will be for then will electronic networks be within for the development of network organizations, especially with the of the organizational can these

Authors unavailable

No abstract is available for this record.

João Batista Araújo e Oliveira

Portability is defined as the capacity of an educational software item to be used differently from the way, the objectives, or the environment in which it was originally conceived. There are obvious economic strategies for increasing the portability of educational software. Computer software has high fixed costs and extremely low variable costs. In principle, portability would lead to greater utilization, reducing unit costs and increasing quality, thus leading to higher cost effectiveness. However, the nature and behavior of both centralized and decentralized education systems set limits to the exercise of pure economic rationality. The paper discusses both the limits of educational software markets and the potential effects of government policies to increase the portability of educational software. Three major findings derived from empirical observation and economic analysis are discussed. First, high fixed costs associated with very low variable costs make higher usage, and hence portability, particularly attractive. Second, given the peculiarities of educational markets, the way governments finance schools are relatively more important than the price of software: Teachers are more likely to buy, adapt, or develop programs according to the logic of local financing policies rather than cost considerations. Third, both markets and governments influence portability and the willingness of producers to develop portable computer-education software. Government policies that can be particularly effective to improve portability are financing and incentive systems, licensing, copyright agreements, and regulatory policies concerning systems compatibility. The provision of support functions through clearinghouses for exchange of information, training, research and development, and feedback to producers can also help correct for market imperfections.

B. Balamurugan, T. Poongodi, M. R. Manu, S. Karthikeyan · 5 authors

The moving image archive of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) includes a copy of the film The Double Day (1975), cataloged in the series Moving Images Relating to International Development Programs and Activities, 1979–1991, a collection of more than eight hundred titles “created to provide information on assistance programs supported by the Agency for International Development (AID).”1 Yet, The Double Day does not, in fact, directly depict or engage with any specific development or aid initiative. Instead, the film—directed by US-based Brazilian filmmaker Helena Solberg as part of the International Women’s Film Project collective and described as “the first Latin American feminist documentary”—examines the gendered dynamics of paid and unpaid labor through the testimonies of women from Argentina, Bolivia, Venezuela, and Mexico.2 Its presence in the USAID archive is likely a consequence of its funding history, having received support from the Inter-American Foundation, a USAID-affiliated entity; the development agencies of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden; the United Nations Development Program; and US philanthropist Calvin Cafritz.3These transnational funding structures not only enabled the film’s production but also determined its archival destination, which renders legible its place within the history of international development.4 The Double Day’s institutional trajectory reflects the shifting configurations of aid, gender, and media during a historic moment when women were being repositioned at the center of what Arturo Escobar has described as development’s “regimes of visuality.”5 Especially relevant to The Double Day’s production and exhibition was the international institutional framework of Women in Development (WID). Emerging in the early 1970s and culminating in United Nations’ proclamation of 1975 as International Women’s Year, WID emphasized women’s participation in the global economy as both an index and mechanism of development. Indeed, The Double Day premiered at the World Conference of the International Women’s Year, held in Mexico City.6 Within this context, the film forms part of a broader trajectory of media use by international organizations that intensified during the 1970s—as best exemplified by Media Habitat, a collection of 236 documentary films commissioned by the United Nations to represent urban and rural development initiatives for the 1976 Habitat Conference on Human Settlements in Vancouver. As a policy-shaping initiative, Media Habitat primarily featured films from the Global South intended not only to illustrate but also to help codify standardized audiovisual markers of “underdevelopment” that determined access to the emerging global economic order and to international aid.7Framed in relation to these international institutions and their operations, The Double Day could similarly be considered “development media”—exemplifying the type of nonfiction media produced and distributed outside of the commercial film circuits whose aspects and subcategories have been variously described in scholarship as nontheatrical, useful, sponsored, institutional, industrial, educational, or nonprofessional/amateur.8 Scholars working in this area have emphasized the institutional contexts of such media’s production and exhibition infrastructures as shaping its instrumentalized effects. From a feminist perspective, such an approach is crucial to grappling with the broader question of how “gender impacts [these works’] shape, content, and trajectories.”9 Yet we also argue that, taken in isolation, the institutional and infrastructural contexts are insufficient to account for the complex relationship between media and development, potentially not only limiting our understanding of the reach and impact of development but also distorting our interpretive conclusions. For example, to categorize The Double Day as “development media” is to overlook the film’s place within Solberg’s directorial oeuvre, as well as within the histories of both transnational women’s filmmaking and radical Latin American documentary cinema to which it simultaneously belongs. Such exclusive framing is especially limiting given that women globally were disproportionately engaged in nonfiction production throughout the twentieth century—sometimes by political choice but more often due to structural exclusions from fiction filmmaking. Even in nonfiction historiography, however, institutional media has remained particularly marginal, reinforcing hierarchies that separate such works from the aesthetic and authorial frameworks through which film history has been constructed.10 This marginalization not only tends to erase women’s contributions but also presumes a “weak” or derivative authorship, rendering these films unworthy of the interpretive attention needed to apprehend their aesthetic and political complexity.11 The same dynamic is likely to structure assumptions about “development media” as well.Categorizing The Double Day exclusively within this category would further prompt us to assume top-down institutional analyses that have been characteristic of both institutional media methodologies and the scholarship on development at large. This, in turn, would risk obscuring this film’s radical Marxist approach to women’s labor as well as its concrete contribution to activism and its attendant grassroot structures. In Mexico City, The Double Day became a catalyst for feminist solidarity in practice when one of the film’s protagonists, Bolivian activist and trade unionist Domitila Barrios de Chungara, was invited to participate in the Tribune of Non-Governmental Organizations held alongside the official UN conference.12 There, Barrios de Chungara challenged Western feminist priorities by reframing the debate around labor, class, and imperialism, helping to articulate a shared Third World feminist agenda that significantly departed from the developmentalist vision of the United Nations and USAID.13 Seen through the lens of activist media, The Double Day helped forge transnational solidarity networks by enabling information exchange across the diverse voices that shaped its making—from the women featured in the film to the activists who circulated it—revealing a considerably more dynamic interplay between institutional and grassroots or contingent media practices.Moreover, the film’s Latin American context—reflected in Solberg’s formation in Brazil as the only woman in Cinema Novo, its focus on women from across the region, and its premiere and key reception in Mexico City—requires grappling with the regional specificities of the very notion of development in its multiple iterations.14 Far from being an epistemological and political framework imposed solely by the Global North, both the practices of development and the theoretical foundations of developmentalism (understood as a broad and polysemic set of discourses) were shaped through the active participation of Latin American economists.15 Within this iteration, underdevelopment, as a constitutive notion of developmentalism, became central to a distinctly critical strand, which by the late 1960s became known as the dependency theory.16 This same approach is reflected in some of the best-known Latin American radical film manifestos of the time, arising precisely from the same milieus to which Solberg belonged.17These various considerations of the film’s history illustrate the methodological challenges confronting feminist scholars seeking to assess the impact of development on media projects, theories, and practices. To disregard the developmentalist context of such works by emphasizing their political aesthetics and affects risks reproducing a romanticized narrative of heroic resistance (albeit from a feminist perspective). Yet to engage exclusively with their institutional and material infrastructures risks naturalizing developmentalism’s political and epistemological foundations at the expense of the goals and beliefs of the many women who participated in these projects. The contradictions and ambivalences that animate such histories call for feminist frameworks capable of holding both institutional complicity and radical possibility in view.This challenge resonates with ongoing debates about the politics of the archive and what Allyson Field has termed “the practice of informed speculation.”18 As she reminds us, feminist, queer, and decolonial methodologies have long taught us to “press at the limits” of the archive to “inoculate our scholarship against our evidence’s afflictions.”19 The concern that the evidence we draw on in our analysis reproduces the very structures and blind spots of the dominant ideology and therefore shapes and delimits our interpretation becomes particularly urgent when engaging the developmentalist media corpus. Informed speculation offers an alternative by inviting the experimental, creative, and speculative rewriting of history, mobilizing the archive “in a project that runs counter to the original purpose, or the imperative to preserve, or the conditions that led to erasure.”20 Yet, as Field cautions, such speculative gestures must remain grounded in a deep and “intimate familiarity with the archive” that we are working with and against. Building on this imperative, we suggest that the developmentalist archive, in particular, demands expansion and critical reconsideration in ways that unsettle the very disciplinary frameworks through which it has been studied as well as the larger institutional contexts for such knowledge production.Our focus on The Double Day in the opening of this introduction thus foregrounds the entanglements of institutional and grassroots forces, local and international contexts, structural and interpersonal relations, and creative and economic factors that have shaped not only this film but the broader ecosystem of development media projects—and their preservation—over time. Addressing such a constellation involves transgressing methodologically entrenched divisions between political economy and aesthetics, between material infrastructures and affective regimes; reckoning with divergent periodizations across film history and world economics; and situating these within the local specificities of women’s movements and international institutional programs. It also demands attentiveness to the coexistence of multiple, and sometimes competing, understandings of development—each historically, geographically, and ideologically situated.We imagine this special issue as an opening toward a critical dialogue, not only about how such an approach might be enacted in practice but also about the far-reaching ways development paradigms have shaped both our objects of study and the contours of the field itself. The decision to center institutionally sponsored films across all the essays in this issue is deliberate and enables us to highlight institutional critique as a vital methodological imperative within our analytical framework. Created within the frameworks of international organizations, state agencies, or NGOs, these films’ histories make legible the institutional logics that underwrite their production. Yet our critique does not stop at these specific entities. Rather, we argue for a broader interrogation of the political conditions and institutional infrastructures that shape media and knowledge production more generally. This includes contemporary corporations embedded in the digital platform economy, from streaming services to the rapid expansion of AI. Equally critical is a reflexive examination of academia itself, where departments of economics, political science, and centers for development have played a formative role in producing and legitimizing developmentalist theories and policy frameworks. While the humanities and arts have at times offered critical alternatives, they have also frequently mirrored and reinforced many of the same developmentalist assumptions. A feminist analysis of the nexus between development and media must therefore unsettle not only dominant archives but also the institutional and disciplinary foundations of our own scholarly practices.As scholars, we share the complex position of navigating the same tensions between institutional complicity and emancipatory aspiration as many of the media-makers whose work we study. Mirroring our subjects is also the transnational, collective mode of this special issue’s own production as it emerges from an ongoing informal working group we have sustained over several years. While relying on institutional and disciplinary affordances—such as university funding for conferences or access to academic publishing platforms—we have been working toward creating a community that exceeds, and often resists, the prevailing logics of our academic institutions. Our aim has been to create a space for shared inquiry and mutual support that pushes back against disciplinary siloing and technocratic neoliberal assessment modes of both labor and knowledge production—and this certainly extends to our experience collaborating with the journal editors throughout the publication process. Our goal has been to examine both the persistence and variability of developmentalism, understood as what Gustavo Esteva calls a “powerful but fragile semantic constellation,” as a conceptual formation that has historically inspired, legitimized, and mobilized media projects across Asia, Africa, and Latin America.21 And gendered biopolitics, from population control to gender mainstreaming, have remained integral to development policies and media practices, recurring across formats from institutional newsreels to film festivals.We share the conviction that, far beyond the history of nonfiction institutional media, development (as both a broad ideological project and a network of material and institutional practices) and developmentalism (as a set of discourses and theoretical models associated with development) have exerted a far-reaching influence on film and media cultures at large. As such, they must be treated as a major force in shaping global film and media systems and also the many ongoing assumptions behind their critical discourses. The discipline of communication studies was founded on modernization theory governed by Cold War goals of dissemination of Western liberal democracy around the world, while “an area studies framework allowed compartmentalizing Western and non-Western outcomes of technologies that were always claimed to be universal.”22 Despite critique from postcolonial and critical race studies, many of these frameworks have remained foundational for media theory.23 In historical scholarship, as we increasingly move beyond “modernity” as a dominant conceptual anchor, engaging with practices and discourses of development opens more precise analytical pathways. These film and media’s entanglements with the logics of and economic and the associated with as well as their conceptual underdevelopment, and impact in as diverse as and of media aesthetic and paradigms in film and film and funding are developmentalist assumptions to the they to underwrite the narrative and logics of and global media from the structure of the film to the cultures of argue that a examination of the historical entanglements between film and developmentalist aesthetics, modes of as well as infrastructures and critical the and that our contemporary media is a of the historical contours of development as a field of inquiry embedded within a of some of the methodologies by the featured in this special a of this complex history, to the larger at in media, development, and gender all its development a it as an of be with practices as divergent as and in In as we work on this the of the of the USAID the ideological that have the history of international the and of this on the global its a from development as a global practice and as an institutional and which over the has as a with its own media Yet or does not erase the historical impact of these the contradictions they have reflected and over the as the of development several crucial to the economic theories of development initiatives to and through the of the development an international policy framework at from the Global to the of the Global the by the political role of and the of the International the on was challenged by dependency theory and at development as global structural the neoliberal of the the Programs by the and World imposed and as conditions for and forms of assistance became known as the major markers for international development development has moving beyond economic to such as the Human Development and the Development and from international organizations such as the United Nations to a broader network of These frameworks increasingly of and liberal of and with what in many ways to various while the of the to development’s epistemological more scholarship has toward a of its and material the field has to a of and critical by and scholars, which development as a dynamic of conceptual and political to these the studies in this special issue call for sustained analysis in place of In we draw from a of and that in of of gender and to this special issue engage that and from Mexico to contemporary specific local historical of global distinctly feminist methodologies as well as attention to studies that this issue a in the global history of development on and documentary work in Mexico how early women infrastructures as of while US films an early of state and transnational on a outside the Global as the of developmentalist both the and markers of development media, its to the and Latin central grounded in archival also women’s in transnational and the methodological of archives on study of the series to a a digital media not by but by women not as but as subjects and within circuits of neoliberal and the aesthetics and of how development’s has models of to contemporary neoliberal paradigms of and analysis how digital and gender and practices, discourses on and their of these essays the of some of the historical of developmentalist as the question of the role of the state within such on a notion of economic as a and the dominant of development that the state as the for and through infrastructural projects. This understanding of development was shared across both of the as well as in the Third The United and the increasingly mobilized international in the of the modes of international at the postcolonial of policy and ideological These programs were at the expansion of their and of while with the and decolonial of The conceptual between modernization and development that the Cold in of and hierarchies of that long and As an of postcolonial their role as of international aid concern about the of Western development projects. In alternative across the Global South that to structural between and through policies of and In many they were further the global structures. In Latin for example, this approach was through organizations such as the United Nations for Latin and the both developmentalist projects and their have taken many forms historically, and they have and they have been to a of projects, and postcolonial and development has been and in ways and with frequently political While many of these alternative frameworks the embedded in dominant Western they often technocratic and assumptions. gender and gender as for the of to be shaped by This becomes particularly in the media that of development where women frequently a crucial associated with and women were as both the subjects and of their participation in the and labor often as the index of In this study of from the 1970s how women were as of this as these about women’s urban and recurring and of a within the own of and critique that official examination of archives and enables a feminist interrogation of their mobilizing a of the in the of contribution to this issue similarly the of a dynamic within as well as across ideological the of women’s and the media of the and as active in labor and as integral to the technocratic women became of as their labor remained a of and analysis and archival with attention to the specific of and It also transnational that as a and affective a nexus of and practices through which gender, media, and developmentalism one film not as a but as part of the of alongside and work a broader concern of this special media as a of developmentalist projects. The debates the World and which international such as the United Nations and a critical historical for such primarily by postcolonial and of the for the of media and communication infrastructures in as to counter Western The a between and economic how systems of media and reinforced global hierarchies of and in an agenda that supported and alternative media infrastructures across postcolonial contexts, the framework gender as an analytical This “gender in the 1970s by of the Women in Development in relation to The Double its political critique of with its broader to center women in development policy through and This was also in of media, which was shaped by its international reach and audiovisual production and and and Yet, as WID institutional it also to the and of the women’s development programs often by in These were by a of studies, and on and the to of women’s presence and through the of their economic and In this on the filmmaker this history directly by the and of for women by the WID framework during the with and agencies the of and against Women in at the of the neoliberal turn, when institutional media often the only to access and support to projects. The an by this dynamic as of the from the Global South are to engage with the developmentalist assumptions funding models that their similarly the as a in developmentalist media history by the of and centers on the Film a between of and the attention toward the and labor by and work was foundational the of and the of audiovisual aid, as both a of development projects and a critical for their the in this issue argue for a with media, gender, and developmentalism as an field of that is and shaped by feminist and methodologies and that challenge the entanglements between academic knowledge production and and technocratic development And while methodological these dynamics at the structural the of feminist in media and cinema by this the very a