X-Git-Url: https://projects.mako.cc/source/bmh-research_statement/blobdiff_plain/a044ac11ed5e8ff5052a710cede57b74f01bc9f3..2d8640cdc15752dec4daa249664baf86884a4085:/research_statement.tex

diff --git a/research_statement.tex b/research_statement.tex
index f9b94b5..ede334a 100644
--- a/research_statement.tex
+++ b/research_statement.tex
@@ -49,40 +49,40 @@
 
 \maketitle
 
-My research is focused on collective action in online communities and
-seeks to understand why some attempts at collaborative production --
-like Wikipedia and Linux -- build large volunteer communities while
-the vast majority never attract even a second contributor. I am
-particularly interested in how the design of communication and
-information technologies shape social outcomes like the decision to
-join a community or contribute to a public good. My research is deeply
-interdisciplinary and lies at the intersection of sociology,
-communication, and human-computer interaction. I combine data from
-online communities that make failures of collective action newly
-visible with ``big data'' research methods from software engineering
-to answer fundamental social scientific questions.
-
-Seeking to understand the determinants of collective action, my
-research has been driven by three overlapping themes: (1)
-population-level observational studies comparing failures to build
-communities to the rare successful attempts; (2) attention to the role
-of reputation and status in collective action; and (3) analyses of
-design changes treated as ``natural experiments'' to build a deeper,
-and often causal, understanding of social processes from observational
-data. Almost all of my work incorporates at least two of these themes.
-
-\section{Population-Level Observational Studies}
+I study collective action in online communities and seek to understand
+why some attempts at collaborative production -- like Wikipedia and
+Linux -- build large volunteer communities while the vast majority
+never attract even a second contributor. I am particularly interested
+in how the design of communication and information technologies shape
+fundemental social outcomes with broad theoretical and practical
+implications -- like the decision to join a community or contribute to
+a public good. My research is deeply interdisciplinary, consists
+primarily of ``big data'' quantitative analyses, and lies at the
+intersection of sociology, communication, and human-computer
+interaction.
+
+Using Internet-based peer production projects as my research settings,
+my work seeks to understand the conditions for collective action using
+observational data from real communities.  This work has been shaped
+by three complentary approaches: (1) the comparison of failures to
+build communities to rare successful attempts through the use of
+projects as the unit of analysis; (2) attention to the role of
+reputation and status in the mobilization of volunteers; and (3)
+analysis of design changes as ``natural experiments'' building a
+deeper, and often causal, understanding of social processes using
+observational data. Nearly all of my work incorporates at least two of
+these approaches.
+
+\section{Projects As Unit of Analysis}
 
 Although there have been many thousands of studies of online
-collective action and peer production, the vast majority of these
-studies have only considered successful projects like Wikipedia and
-GNU/Linux.  The majority of research on collective action -- both
-online and off -- has only considered projects that have successfully
-mobilized contributors. In this sense, most previous analyses of
-collection action have systematically selected on their dependent
-variable. Most of my research treats projects as the unit of analysis
-and mobilization as the dependent variable, comparing successful
-examples of collective actions to failures.
+collective action the vast majority have only considered successful
+projects like Wikipedia and Linux.  The majority of research on
+collective action -- on and offline -- has only considered projects
+that have successfully mobilized. In this sense, most previous
+analyses of collection action have systematically selected on their
+dependent variable. Most of my research treats projects as the unit of
+analysis and collective action as the outcome of interest.
 
 % \begin{wrapfigure}{r}{0.4\textwidth}
 %  \begin{centering}
@@ -96,35 +96,44 @@ examples of collective actions to failures.
 \begin{wrapfigure}{r}{2.6in}
  \begin{centering}
  \includegraphics[width=2.6in]{figures/scratch_screenshot_default.png}
- \caption{A screenshot of the Scratch desktop programming environment
+ \caption{A screenshot of the Scratch programming environment
    where users create animations and interactive games.}
  \label{fig:scratchapp}
  \end{centering}
  \vspace{-2em}
 \end{wrapfigure}
 
-
-For example, in a working paper that is part of my dissertation, I
-compare Wikipedia to seven attempts to create online collaborative
-encyclopedia projects that were launched before Wikipedia
-\cite{hill_almost_2012}. Using a inductive, grounded-theory based
+In one study, I compare Wikipedia to seven attempts to create online
+collaborative encyclopedia projects that were launched previously
+\cite{hill_almost_2012}. Using an inductive, grounded-theory based
 analysis of founder interviews and archival data, I propose four
-hypothesis for why Wikipedia built a large community while extremely
-similar projects struggled to do so. Although the paper's methods
-diverge from the quantitative, ``big data'' approach typical of most
-of my work, the research question and strategy is representative.
-
-I have also addressed this question in a series of quantitative
-studies of the Scratch online community: a public website with a large
-community of users who create, share, and remix interactive media. The
+hypothesis to explain why Wikipedia attracted many more
+contributors. Although the paper's methods diverge from the
+quantitative, ``big data'' approach typical of most of my work, the
+research question and strategy is representative.
+
+I have also followed this strategy in a series of quantitative
+studies of the Scratch online community: a public website where a large
+community of users create, share, and remix interactive media. The
 community is built around the Scratch programming environment: a
 freely downloadable desktop application that allows amateur creators
 to combine media with programming code (see Figure
-\ref{fig:scratchapp}. Despite the fact that Scratch is a community
+\ref{fig:scratchapp}). Despite the fact that Scratch is a community
 designed to promote collaboration through content remixing, only about
-ten percent of Scratch projects will attract even a second
+ten percent of Scratch projects attract a second
 contributor.
 
+In one study, forthcoming in American Behavioral Scientist, I test
+several of the most widely cited theories associated with
+``generativity'' (i.e., qualities of technology or content that make
+some works more fertile ground for collaboration). I find some support
+for existing theory but also find that, across the board, factors
+associated with more collaboration are also associated with less
+original and transformative types of joint-work
+\cite{hill_remixing_2012}. In another study of Scratch, I show that
+this type of superficial collaboration leads to negative reactions and
+community displeasure \cite{hill_responses_2010}.
+
 \begin{wrapfigure}{l}{2.6in}
  \begin{centering}
  \includegraphics[width=2.6in]{figures/frontpage_modified-topremix.png}
@@ -135,40 +144,26 @@ contributor.
  \vspace{-2em}
 \end{wrapfigure}
 
-In one study, forthcoming in American Behavioral Scientist, I test
-three of the most commonly cited theories associated with
-``generativity'' (i.e., qualities of technology or content that make
-some works more fertile group for collaboration). I find some support
-for previous theories but also find that, across the board, factors
-associated with increased collaboration are associated with less
-original and less transformative modes of joint-work
-\cite{hill_remixing_2012}. In another published study using data from
-Scratch, I show that more superficial collaboration leads to negative
-reactions and displeasure in the community
-\cite{hill_responses_2010}.
-
-I am conducting a similar population based analysis in a new dataset I
-have created with a population of 80,000 public attempts at ``wikis''
-(i.e., public websites using the same infrastructure as Wikipedia). In
-a working paper using this dataset, I consider inter-organizational
-effects of competition for volunteer labor and find little support for
-a widely cited ecological model of collective action from sociology
-that treats volunteer labor as fixed and finite resource. Using data
-on wikis hosted by both Wikia and the Wikimedia Foundation, I show
-that contributions across peer production projects are driven by
-environment-level changes in interest and that projects can even
-benefit from complimentarities between similar projects
+This year, I am conducting a population-level analysis in a new
+dataset I have created that includes 80,000 attempts at wikis (i.e.,
+public, editable, websites similar to Wikipedia). In my first working
+paper using this dataset, I consider inter-organizational effects of
+competition for volunteer labor and find little support for a widely
+cited ecological model of collective action from sociology that treats
+volunteer labor as a fixed and finite resource. Instead, I show that
+contributions to different wikis on the same topic or theme are driven
+primarily by environment-level changes in interest and that projects
+may even benefit from complimentarities and synergies
 \cite{hill_is_2012}.
 
 \section{Reputation and Status}
 
 Although empirical research comparing successful and unsuccessful peer
-projects has been rare, theories offering to explain the success of
-collective action online have been widespread. No theory has been more
-influential or widespread than the suggestion that, in the absence of
-pecuniary rewards, engagement in collective action in online
-communities is driven by the possibility of increased reputation and
-status conferred upon contributors to an online public good.
+production projects has been rare, theories have been widespread. No
+theory has been more influential than the suggestion that, in the
+absence of pecuniary rewards, contributions to online public goods are
+driven by the possibility of increased reputation and status for
+contributors.
 
 \begin{wrapfigure}{r}{0.3\textwidth}
  \vspace{-1em}
@@ -182,66 +177,65 @@ status conferred upon contributors to an online public good.
 \end{wrapfigure}
 
 In a study of status-based awards in Wikipedia called ``barnstars''
-(see Figure \ref{fig:barnstar}) that I will be submitting to a major
-sociology journal by the end of this year, I provide an empirical test
-of an influential status-based theory of collective action from
+(see Figure \ref{fig:barnstar}) I provide an empirical test of an
+influential status-based theory of collective action from
 sociology. Although the study finds support for the widely
-hypothesized virtuous cycle of status rewarding active contributors,
-it also finds that these effects are limited to a sub-population of
-Wikipedia contributors -- i.e., those who show their awards off to
-others in virtual trophy cases \cite{hill_status_2012}. This result
+hypothesized ``virtuous cycle'' of status rewards both causing and
+being caused by contributions, it also finds that this effect is
+limited to a sub-population of Wikipedia contributors -- ``signalers''
+who show off their awards \cite{hill_status_2012}. This result
 has broad implications for both status-based theories of collective
-action as well the design of reputation-based reward systems.
+action as well the design of reputation-based rewards.
 
-In another study of Scratch, nominated for best paper at the CHI 2011
-conference \cite{monroy-hernandez_computers_2011}, I paired a
-quantitative analysis of a design change with in-depth interviews of
-users to demonstrate how credit-giving is ineffective when it stems
-from an automated system because the system fails to reinforce
-status-ordering through credible human expressions of social deference
-and gratitude.
+In a mixed methods study of Scratch, nominated for best paper at the
+CHI 2011 conference \cite{monroy-hernandez_computers_2011}, I
+present both a quantitative analysis of a design change and in-depth
+interviews of users to demonstrate how credit-giving is ineffective
+when it stems from an automated system because systems fail to
+reinforce status-ordering with credible human expressions of social
+deference and gratitude.
 
+%\newpage
 \section{Design-Driven Natural Experiments}
 
+Although nearly all of my work has important implications for the
+design of socio-technical systems, I have structured much of my work
+around the evaluation of technological design changes. In several
+papers, I treat design changes as ``natural experiments'' that
+exogenously change the ways that social structure is enacted. By doing
+so, I can both build causal understandings of social phenomena from
+field data, and can tighten the distance between theory and design.
+
 \begin{wrapfigure}{r}{0.25\textwidth}
+ \vspace{-1em}
  \begin{centering}
  \includegraphics[width=1.5in]{figures/lilypad.png}
  \caption{A image of the LilyPad Arduino microcontroller.}
  \label{fig:lilypad}
  \end{centering}
+ \vspace{-1em}
 \end{wrapfigure}
 
-Although nearly all of my work has important implications for the
-design of socio-technical systems, I have structured much of my work
-around the evaluation of design interventions. In several papers, I
-treat design changes in technologies as ``natural experiments'' that
-exogenously change the ways that social structure is enacted in order
-to both build causal understanding from field data and to tighten the
-distance between theories and and design.
-
 For example, to evaluate the impact of status-based incentives and
 collaboration in Scratch, I use a regression discontinuity framework
-to measure the causal effect of increased status for collaboration in
-Scratch \cite{hill_causal_2012}. In that study, which I am preparing
-for submission to a communication journal this fall, I show that the
-highlighting the work of the authors of collaborative projects on the
-Scratch web page (see the bottom of Figure \ref{fig:scratchfrontpage})
-resulted in more collaboration but also caused a decrease in the
-amount of total effort exerted by contributors. Speaking to
-fundamental sociological work in the literature on collective action,
-I present evidence that this decrease is driven by both an the influx
-of new contributors and a decrease in the effort and contributions of
-established contributors.
-
-In other papers, I have helped analyze sales records of hobbyists
-microcontrollers to suggest that relatively simple design changes in
-the \emph{LilyPad Arduino} -- a electronics toolkit minimally
-re-designed for women and girls (see Figure \ref{fig:lilypad}) -- can
-lead to large increases in the proportion of women contributors
-through important shifts in the type of projects created
-\cite{buechley_lilypad_2010}. In other work, I have explored how
-technical errors may be able to provide similar opportunities for
-analysis \cite{hill_revealing_2010}.
+to measure the causal effect of increased status for collaboration
+\cite{hill_causal_2012}. I show that highlighting collaborative
+projects on the Scratch web page (see the bottom of Figure
+\ref{fig:scratchfrontpage}) resulted in more collaboration but also
+caused a decrease in the amount of total effort exerted by
+contributors. Speaking to fundamental sociological work in the
+literature on collective action, I present evidence that this decrease
+is driven by both an the influx of new contributors and a decrease in
+the effort and contributions of established participants.
+
+In other work, I have analyzed sales records of hobbyist
+microcontrollers to argue that relatively simple design changes in the
+\emph{LilyPad Arduino} -- a electronics toolkit minimally re-designed
+for women and girls (see Figure \ref{fig:lilypad}) -- lead to large
+increases in the proportion of women contributors and drastic shifts
+in the type of projects created \cite{buechley_lilypad_2010}. I have
+also explored how technical errors may be able to provide similar
+opportunities for analysis \cite{hill_revealing_2010}.
 
 % or changes in socio-technical systems describing responsibility for a piece of software can lead to an important impact in the type and structure of contributions in peer production \cite{michlmayr_quality_2003}
 
@@ -249,54 +243,53 @@ analysis \cite{hill_revealing_2010}.
 
 My research agenda involves further exploration of the determinants of
 collection action online -- especially using a series of large new
-datasets I have built in my dissertation research. I plan to both
-continue this research trajectory and to create new social and
-technical infrastructure that will allow others researchers to join me
-in the type ``big data'' observational research in active communities
-that my research involves. This section outlines some future
-directions I plan to explore.
-
-\emph{Toolkits for Experimental Social Design} -- My research has been
-possible through relationships I have with a series of organizations
-with large active online communities (e.g., the MIT Media Lab and the
-Wikimedia Foundation). These organizations, like many others, make
-design changes to the software that supports their communities to
-encourage contributions and improve aspects of their users'
-experiences. Most of the time, these organizations have very little
-idea if these changes work. I plan to build on my own experience
-evaluating natural experiments in online communities to create a
-technical framework, and a network of academic and practitioner
-collaborators, to facilitate well-designed experiments by the hosts of
-large online communities and a system for data sharing that allows for
-academic evaluation of these experiments.
+datasets I have recently assembled. I plan to both continue on this
+research trajectory and to create new social and technical
+infrastructure that will allow others researchers to join me in ``big
+data'' observational research with active communities. This section
+outlines some future directions I plan to explore.
 
 \emph{Understanding the Relationship Between Collective Action and
   Performance} -- My work has treated collective action and production
 as ends in themselves and has largely avoided the consideration of
-issues of performance, efficiency, or quality. Using my existing
-datasets, I will compare the performance of collaborative production
-to individually produced works to understand when successful
-collection action leads to higher performance or quality. In a
-manuscript currently under review using data from Scratch, I show
-important limitations of collaboration in remixing quality,
-particularly in regards to more artistic or media-intensive projects
-\cite{hill_cost_2012}. I will further explore this direction in future
-work.
-
-\emph{Integrated Theory of Design for Collective Action} --
-My studies of status provide a detailed understanding of the dynamics
-of collection action in relation to one important independent
-variable. In future work, I plan to evaluate the effect of governance
-and different systems of authority, framing, modularity and project
-complexity. In the long term, I hope to work toward a broad set of
-principles of design for collection action and community.
-
-In graduate school, I have been fortunate to collaborate with many
-co-authors in many academic departments and I intend to continue this
-tradition going forward. In sum, my research uses design to contribute
-to social scientific theories of collective action, and using theories
-of collective action to influence design and offers implications and
-opportunities for a broad range of disciplines and fields.
+issues of performance, efficiency, and quality. Using my existing
+datasets, I plan to compare the performance of collaborative
+production to individually produced works to understand when
+successful collection action leads to increased performance. For
+example, in a manuscript currently under review using data from
+Scratch, I show important limitations of collaboration through
+remixing in regards to project quality, particularly for more artistic
+or media-intensive works \cite{hill_cost_2012}.
+
+\emph{Integrated Theory of Design for Collective Action} -- My studies
+of status and reputation provide a detailed understanding of the dynamics of
+collection action in relation to one set of important predictors. In future
+work, I plan to evaluate the effect of governance and different
+systems of authority, framing, modularity and project complexity. In
+the long term, I hope to offer a broad set of principles of
+design for online collection action and community.
+
+\emph{Toolkits for Experimental Social Design} -- My research has been
+possible through personal relationships I have with a series of
+organizations with large, active, online communities (e.g., the MIT
+Media Lab and the Wikimedia Foundation). These organizations, like
+many others, make design changes to the software that supports their
+communities to encourage contributions and improve users'
+experiences. Most of the time, these organizations have very little
+idea if these changes are effective. I plan to seek funding for, and
+to create, a technical framework and a network of academic and
+practitioner collaborators, to facilitate well-designed natural
+experiments by the hosts of large online communities and to share data
+that allows for academic evaluation of these experiments.
+
+Although I study cooperation, I also practice it. In graduate school,
+I have collaborated with a large and engaged group of co-authors in
+many academic departments. I intend to continue doing so. In sum, my
+research uses design to contribute to social scientific theories of
+collective action, and uses theories of collective action to influence
+design. Although my research settings are online communities, I
+believe my work has implications for a broad range of disciplines and
+fields.
 
 % bibliography here
 \renewcommand{\bibsection}{\section{\bibname}\prebibhook}