add authorship information

diff --git a/research_statement.tex b/research_statement.tex
index ede334a4ea41e59568f8a390fa013f60d286d661..aaf1e4ce68beb7d0c70b647de0c829cf3710cab7 100644 (file)
--- a/research_statement.tex
+++ b/research_statement.tex
@@ -123,16 +123,17 @@ designed to promote collaboration through content remixing, only about
 ten percent of Scratch projects attract a second
 contributor.
 
 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}.
+In one study, co-authored with Andrés Monroy-Hernández and 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
+written with Monroy-Hernández and Kristina Olson, 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}
 
 \begin{wrapfigure}{l}{2.6in}
  \begin{centering}


@@ -177,23 +178,24 @@ contributors.
 \end{wrapfigure}
 
 In a study of status-based awards in Wikipedia called ``barnstars''
 \end{wrapfigure}
 
 In a study of status-based awards in Wikipedia called ``barnstars''

-(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 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 rewards.
-
-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.
+(see Figure \ref{fig:barnstar}) -- a collaboration with Aaron Shaw and
+Yochai Benkler -- 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 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 rewards.
+
+In a mixed methods study of Scratch, written with a team at Microsoft
+Research and 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}
 
 %\newpage
 \section{Design-Driven Natural Experiments}


@@ -228,14 +230,15 @@ 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.
 
 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}.
+In other work with Leah Buechley, 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}
 
 
 % 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}
 


@@ -256,10 +259,11 @@ 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
 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}.
+example, in an analysis using data from Scratch which currently under
+review -- done in collaboration with Monroy-Hernández -- 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
 
 \emph{Integrated Theory of Design for Collective Action} -- My studies
 of status and reputation provide a detailed understanding of the dynamics of