Thesis Bina
-
Upload
dinu-popescu -
Category
Documents
-
view
228 -
download
0
Transcript of Thesis Bina
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
1/217
ATHENS UNIVERSITY OFECONOMICS AND BUSINESS
DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Wireless Community Networks: A Case of ModernCollective Action
PhD THESIS
Maria D. Bina
Athens, June 2007
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
2/217
2
:
M.
A, 2007
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
3/217
3
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
4/217
4
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 macro-
properties. In doing so, it portrays wireless communities as an impure public information and
communication goodthat 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 ofcollective 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.
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
5/217
5
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 large-
scale 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 socio-
technical 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 free-
riding) 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
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
6/217
6
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.
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
7/217
7
. ,
(Access Point),
, ,
( , , )
.
, ,
,
,
, , ,
()
VoIP . ,
.
-.
-
(impure public information and
communication good)
(,
, , ).
,
(,
, ,
),
. , (collective
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
8/217
8
action) .
:
, ,
, ,
.
(qualitative) (quantitative)
(triangulation). ,
,
,
. ,
. ,
.
-
,
,
, , .
(intrinsic gratification).
, .
,
.
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
9/217
9
,
(free-riding)
.
,
()
() ,
,
.
.
:
, ,
, .
,
,
:
,
,
. ,
,
, ,
.
,
.
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
10/217
10
,
. ,
, ,
. ,
.
. ,
. ,
,
,
,
.
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
11/217
11
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 WirelessCommunity 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.
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
12/217
12
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 ofthinking 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.
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
13/217
13
Table of Contents
Abstract.........................................................................................................................4 .........................................................................................................................7
List of Publications....................................................................................................11Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................12Table of Contents ......................................................................................................13List of Figures ............................................................................................................15List of Tables ..............................................................................................................161 Introduction .......................................................................................................17
1.1 Wireless Networking: Technologies and Service Access Models ......181.2 The Community-based Wireless Movement ........................................231.3 Wireless Communities as a Case of User-Driven Technology-Augmented Initiative ...........................................................................................27
1.4 Research Objectives ..................................................................................302 Reviewing the Literature on Wireless Communities ...................................34
2.1 Literature Review Strategy ......................................................................342.2 Organizing the Literature ........................................................................402.3 Framing a Research Agenda for Studying Wireless Communities ...472.4 A Research Opportunity ..........................................................................51
3 Theoretical Framing..........................................................................................543.1 Collective Action, Public Goods, and Social Dilemmas ......................543.2 Collective Action Revisited .....................................................................583.3 Wireless Communities as an Information and Communication Good
62
3.4 Wireless Communities under the Lens of Collective Action Theory 653.4.1 Individual Characteristics................................................................653.4.2 Group Characteristics.......................................................................663.4.3 Action Processes or Interdependencies .........................................67
3.5 A Framework for Analyzing Wireless Community Collective Action68
4 Research Design ................................................................................................724.1 Combining Methodologies through Triangulation .............................724.2 Exploratory Qualitative Research...........................................................75
4.2.1 The First Interview............................................................................764.2.2 The Second Set of Interviews ..........................................................774.2.3 The Third Set of Interviews .............................................................79
4.3 Survey Research ........................................................................................794.4 Confirmatory Qualitative Research........................................................814.5 Summary ....................................................................................................82
5 Empirical Research Part I: Survey orchestration, statistical analyses, andfindings interpretation .............................................................................................84
5.1 Model development..................................................................................845.1.1 Motivation Essentials .......................................................................85
5.1.2 Costs....................................................................................................945.1.3 Participation / Involvement............................................................96
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
14/217
14
5.1.4 Hypothesization ................................................................................985.2 Measurement and Data Collection .......................................................101
5.2.1 Construct Instrumentation ............................................................1015.2.2 Questionnaire Instrumentation and Proof-testing .....................1065.2.3 Reliability and Construct Validity ................................................107
5.3 Statistical Analyses .................................................................................1115.3.1 Sample Descriptive Statistics and Demographics ......................1115.3.2 Motivation and Cost Descriptive Statistics (Mean Values &Correlations) ....................................................................................................1125.3.3 Participation Descriptive Statistics (Mean Values & FactorAnalysis)...........................................................................................................1165.3.4 Wireless Community Member Segmentation.............................1195.3.5 Predicting Wireless Community Sustainability .........................127
5.4 Summary of Findings .............................................................................1336 Empirical Research Part II: Confirmatory Qualitative Research Designand Findings ............................................................................................................136
6.1 Re-introducing Wireless Communities ...............................................1366.2 Design Issues: Interview Protocol and Sampling ...............................1396.3 Data Analysis and Interpretation .........................................................142
6.3.1 Introducing the Informants ...........................................................1426.3.2 Coding ..............................................................................................1446.3.3 Findings ............................................................................................145
6.4 Unfolding the Characteristics of Wireless Communities ..................1537 Conclusions, Limitations, and Further Research .......................................158
7.1 Contribution.............................................................................................1587.1.1 Contribution 1: A Detailed Empirics-based Exposition ofWireless Communities ...................................................................................1607.1.2 Contribution 2: Advancing the Application Domain ofCollective Action Theory ...............................................................................1637.1.3 Contribution 3: Marking the Ground for Effective End-userEmpowerment .................................................................................................165
7.2 Limitations ...............................................................................................1667.3 Further Research Directions ..................................................................1707.4 Concluding Thoughts.............................................................................175
References ................................................................................................................177Appendix A..............................................................................................................188
A1. The First Interview.......................................................................................188A2. The Second and Third Set of Interviews...................................................190
Appendix B ..............................................................................................................192Appendix C ..............................................................................................................200
C1. ANOVA Results ...........................................................................................200C2. ANOVA Post Hoc Comparisons (Scheffe) ...............................................201C3. MANOVA Results .......................................................................................205
Appendix D..............................................................................................................210Appendix E ..............................................................................................................213
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
15/217
15
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Taxonomy of WLAN Application Scenarios.....................................21
Figure 2.1: The Literature Review Strategy...........................................................35Figure 2.2: The Two Categories of Research Issues .............................................41Figure 2.3: Decomposing the Inner Properties of Wireless Communities........52Figure 3.1: The Goods Landscape...........................................................................56Figure 3.2: Highlights in the Evolution of Collective Action Theory................62Figure 3.3: The Two Wireless Community Good Classes...................................63Figure 3.4: A Framework for Analyzing Wireless Community CollectiveAction..........................................................................................................................70Figure 4.1: Stages in the Exploratory Qualitative Study .....................................76Figure 4.2: Research Design.....................................................................................83
Figure 5.1: Taxonomy of Motivation (adapted from (Ryan & Deci, 2000)) ......89Figure 5.2: A Model for Understanding the Micro and Macro-level Propertiesof Wireless Communities.......................................................................................100Figure 5.3: Steps towards Conducting the Survey.............................................107Figure 5.4: Logistic Regression Model Configurations .....................................129Figure 5.5: Micro and Macro-level Properties of Wireless CommunityCollective Action.....................................................................................................133Figure 6.1: Wireless Community Characteristics ...............................................157
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
16/217
16
List of Tables
Table 1.1: Summary of the IEEE 802.11 Family of Standards... ..........................20Table 1.2: Indicative Wireless Community Projects.............................................25Table 2.1: The Literature Pool of Publications ......................................................37Table 2.2: Organizing the Literature ......................................................................42Table 2.3: A Research Agenda for Studying Wireless Communities ................50Table 3.1: Wireless Communities as an Information and CommunicationGood............................................................................................................................65Table 3.2: Research Questions for Investigating Wireless CommunityCollective Action.......................................................................................................70Table 4.1: Synergies between Qualitative and Quantitative Research .............74
Table 5.1: Motivation / Cost Constructs, Items, and OperationalizationSources......................................................................................................................104Table 5.2: Factor Analysis Results ........................................................................110Table 5.3: Sample Descriptives and Demographics...........................................111Table 5.4: Mean Values, SD, and Correlations for Motivation and Costs ......115Table 5.5: Mean Values, SD, and Factor Analysis results for Participation....118Table 5.6: Mean Values, SD, and Correlations for Participation Components....................................................................................................................................118Table 5.7: Motivation Cluster Analysis Results..................................................121Table 5.8: Motivation Clusters Additional Profiling.........................................123
Table 5.9: Participation Cluster Analysis Results...............................................124Table 5.10: Participation Clusters Additional Profiling ...................................127Table 5.11: Logistic Regression Results................................................................130Table 6.1: Research Questions for the Confirmatory Qualitative Research ...139Table 6.2: Coding Categories and Content..........................................................144Table 6.3: Wireless Community Profile Evaluation ...........................................151Table 7.1: Research Questions, Objectives, and Methods .................................159
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
17/217
17
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 ofthe 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
changes2. 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 MySpace3. An horizontal view on all the aforementioned user-
driven phenomena, including the community-based wireless movement, converges to the
following observation that was the primary inspiration for this research: modern Information
1 Erika Jonietz. Unwiring the Web. Published in Technology Review in December, 2001 (availableonline 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 onApril 4th, 2007).3
Seesupra note 2
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
18/217
18
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 technology-
augmented 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 AccessModels
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 access4. 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 Area4
See WiFi timeline at http://wifinetnews.com/archives/001315.html
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
19/217
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
20/217
20
Table 1.1: Summary of the IEEE 802.11 Family of Standards (source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11)
Protocol Release DateOperation
frequencyData Rate
Range
(Indoor)
Range
(Outdoor)
Legacy 1997 2.4 GHz 2 Mbit/s
802.11a 1999 5 GHz 54 Mbit/s ~25m ~75m
802.11b 1999 2.4 GHz 11 Mbit/s ~35m ~100m
802.11g 2003 2.4 GHz 54 Mbit/s ~25m ~75m
802.11n 2007(unapproved draft)
2.4 GHz or 5GHz 540 Mbit/s ~50m ~125m
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 theirflexibility (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 haverendered 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 oroffice 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
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
21/217
21
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.
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 (orfor-profit) and
community (ornot-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
Home
Office
Publicly-available
Coverage area
User needs
Internet accessBroadband connectivity
Internet / intranet accessDevice inter-connectivity
Internet sharingDevice inter-connectivity
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
22/217
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
23/217
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
24/217
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
25/217
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
26/217
26
Wireless Communities represent a grassroots, bottom-up, self-organized organizational
model grouping wireless enthusiasts and activists who non-coercivelycooperate 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 availableand
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 wirelesslinks 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 not-
for-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
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
27/217
27
paradigms of end-users reclaiming power for the configuration of technical systems or
artefacts.
1.3 Wireless Communities as a Case of User-DrivenTechnology-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
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
28/217
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
29/217
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
30/217
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
31/217
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
32/217
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
33/217
33
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 6details 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 7concludes 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 inreconfiguring 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.
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
34/217
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
35/217
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
36/217
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
37/217
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
38/217
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
39/217
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,
O
R
(E
R
C
2006 Damsgaard, J., Parikh, M.A., & Rao, B. Wireless
Commons: Perils in the Common Good.
Communications of the ACM.
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
40/217
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
41/217
41
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-driveninterpretations and empirical validation.
Organizing aWireless Comm unit y:
Mobilizing andCoordinatingparticipants
Technology
Marketplace
Society
Regulationsurroundingenvironment
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
42/217
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
43/217
Entrepreneurial innovation Dutton et al. (2003), Meinrath (2005)
Spectrum policy debate: Spectrum commons (instead of property
rights in spectrum allocation)
Benkler (2002), Rheingold (2002), B
Meinrath (2005)
Bandwidth (Internet) sharing in grey legal zone Verma & Beckman (2002), Herslow
Reforms for a decentralized wireless grid Dutton et al. (2003), Bar & Galperin (
Policy /
Regulation
Infrastructure development patterns Sawhney (2003a, 2003b), Bar & Galp
Reinforcement of local social ties Verma & Beckman (2002), Schmidt &
Gaved & Mulholland (2005)
Fostering social capital Fuentes-Bautista & Inagaki (2005), M
(2005)
Provide access to under-served areas Auray et al. (2003), Sandvig (2004), G
Raising awareness on wireless broadband technologies Lehr & McKnight (2003), Schmidt &
Dutton et al. (2004)
Societal
Involvement of local public bodies Auray et al. (2003), Fuentes-Bautista
Member characteristics:
- Motives and incentives
- Member involvement and commitment
Herslow et al. (2002), McDonald (200
(2004)
Rao & Parikh (2003a; 2003b), Campo
(2003), Damsgaard et al. (2004; 2006
Group interactions, ties, and dynamics McDonald (2002), Rheingold (2002)
(2004b), Damsgaard et al. (2004; 200
Community
Organization
Community mission Schmidt & Townsend (2003)
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
44/217
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
45/217
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
46/217
46
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 issuesaddress 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 itwith 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.
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
47/217
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
48/217
48
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 wirelesscommunities 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
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
49/217
49
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 technology-
induced 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
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
50/217
50
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?
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
51/217
51
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 adoptsa user-
centric 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 weighpotential 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 potentialsurvivability 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.
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
52/217
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
53/217
53
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.
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
54/217
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
55/217
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
56/217
56
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, andcommon orcollectivegoods. 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.
Figure 3.1: The Goods Landscape
CollectiveGoods
PublicGoods
non-rivalry rivalry
non-
excludability
excludability
Private
Goods
Club Goods
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
57/217
57
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 over-
exploitation (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
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
58/217
58
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
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
59/217
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
60/217
60
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-
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
61/217
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
62/217
62
Highlight 1: Olsonframes Collective
Action theory
Two major cornerstones:- the size issue
- free-riding is a sizeable threat that isovercome only if participants receive
selective incentives or if they are
coerced to collaboration
Highlight 2 : Crit icalMass Theory
Non-linear effect of size on collectiveaction growth and success:
- form of the production function- interest and resource heterogeneity
- costs- social mor phology
Highlight 3: Collective
Action in I CT-augmented
environments
Departure from material to digital
connective and comm unal goods:
- desired production level is not objective- complex production process due togood divisibility
- resource contribution does not signifyloss of ownership
Highlight 4: CollectiveAction Revisited
ICT-related collective actions can beeffective and successful:
- plethora ofcommunicationmechanisms 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 andCommunication 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.
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
63/217
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
64/217
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
65/217
65
Table 3.1: Wireless Communities as an Information and Communication Good
Dimension Description
Heterogeneity Tangible and intangible components
First class (tangible): physical connectivity, digital service
commons Second class (intangible): social connectivity, knowledge pool
Divisibility Grassroots development, accelerating production function
Public Good Properties Impure public good: non-excludability and non-rivalry can be hindered by
physical constraints
Power/Ownership Loss Limited loss of power/ownership over both tangible and intangible
resources contributed to the community
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 individuallevel, 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
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
66/217
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
67/217
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
68/217
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
69/217
69
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 waycoordination 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).
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
70/217
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 Research Questions
What are themotivation profiles of wireless community members?Individual Characteristics
What are the cost structures of wireless community members?
Group Characteristics Whatparticipatory preferences are exhibited by wireless community members with regards to
the processes supporting the operation of a wireless community?
Isfree-riding a compelling threat? If not, how is it overcome?Action Processes
(Interdependencies) How iscoordination among wireless community members achieved?
Individualcharacteristics
Motivation and Costprofiles
The group is able to produce thegood through its membersparticipation preferences
Groupcharacteristics
Action Processes
- collaboration instead of f- coordination instead of
organization
Good characteristics
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
71/217
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
72/217
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
73/217
-
7/30/2019 Thesis Bina
74/217
74
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 Contribution of surveys to fieldwork
Survey Design Scouting and gaining familiarity
with the sample
Fieldwork Design Identification of cases of
interest either for generalizability or theory
refinement purposes
Survey Data Collection Pre-testing of the
questionnaire for improvement; Acquiring
knowledge of the population to gain legitimacy of
the survey
Fieldwork Data Collection Correction for the
elite bias stemming from questioning selected
informants; Information on overlooked subjects
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
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 analys