Abstract
Modern science has become collaborative and digital. The Internet has supported the emergence of scientific digital platforms that globally connect programmers and users of novel digital scientific products such as scientific interactive software tools. These digital scientific innovations complement traditional text-based products like journal publications. This article is focused on the scientific impact of a platform’s programming community that produces these digital scientific innovations. The article’s main theoretical argument is that beyond an individual’s contribution efforts to these innovations, a new social structure affects his scientific recognition through citations of his tools in text-based publications. Taking a practice theory lens, we introduce the concept of a digital practice structure that emerges from the digital innovation work practice, performed by programmers who jointly work on a tool. This digital practice creates dependence forces among the community members in an analogy to Newton’s gravity concept. Our model represents such dependencies in a spatial autocorrelative model. We empirically estimate this model using data of the programming community of nanoHUB in which 477 nanotechnology tool programmers have contributed more than 715 million lines of code. Our results show that a programmer’s contributions to digital innovations may have positive effects, while the digital practice structure creates negative dependency effects. Colloquially speaking, being surrounded by star performers can be harmful. Our findings suggest that modeling scientific impact needs to account for a scientist’s contribution to programming communities that produce digital scientific innovations and the digital work structures in which these contributions are embedded.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Some tools where significantly revised, and also renamed over the lifetime. However, the digital practice structures evolved across these tool versions and tool programmers formed new collaborations throughout the process.
The operations team at Purdue has developed a detailed lexicon to search any publications with googlscholar.com that relate to nanoHUB and the simulation tool (and other resources) available on nanoHUB.org. This lexicon is refined on a regular basis. The search hits are than reviewed by a team of nanotechnology experts who add metadata to the tools.
References
Abbasi, A., Hossain, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2012). Betweenness centrality as a driver of preferential attachment in the evolution of research collaboration networks. Journal of Informetrics, 6(3), 403–412.
Adler, B. T., & de Alfaro, L. (2007). A content-driven reputation system for the Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web. Banff, Alberta, Canada: ACM, pp. 261–270.
Adler, B. T., de Alfaro, L., Pye, I., & Raman, V. (2008). Measuring author’s contribution to Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 2008 international symposium on Wikis, 2008. Porto, Portugal, 8–10 Sept 2008.
Akerlof, G. A. (1997). Social distance and social decisions. Econometrica, 65(5), 1005–1027.
Anselin, L. (1988). Spatial econometrics: Methods and models. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Anselin, L. (2002). Under the hood issues in the specification and interpretation of spatial regression models. Agricultural Economics, 27(3), 247–267.
Arazy, O., Stroulia, E., Ruecker, S., Arias, C., Fiorentino, C., Ganev, V., et al. (2010). Recognizing contributions in Wikis: Authorship categories, algorithms, and visualizations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(6), 1166–1179.
Bateman, P. J., Gray, P. H., & Butler, B. S. (2011). Research note-the impact of community commitment on participation in online communities. Information Systems Research, 22(4), 841–854.
Bivand, R. (2015). Package ‘Spdep’: Spatial dependence: Weighting schemes, statistics and models. Repository CRAN.
Borgatti, S. P. (2005). Centrality and network flow. Social Networks, 27(1), 55–71.
Borgatti, S. P., & Everett, M. G. (2000). Models of core/periphery structures. Social Networks, 21(4), 375–395.
Borgatti, S. P., Mehra, A., Brass, D. J., & Labianca, G. (2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323, 892–895.
Burt, R. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.
Contractor, N. S., & DeChurch, L. A. (2014). Integrating social networks and human social motives to achieve social influence at scale. Proceedings of National Academy of Science USA, 111(Suppl 4), 13650–13657.
Cook, K. S., & Whitmeyer, J. M. (1992). Two approaches to social structure: Exchange theory and network analysis. Annual Review of Sociology, 18, 109–127.
Crowston, K., Wei, K., Howison, J., & Wiggins, A. (2012). Free/libre open-source software development: What we know and what we do not know. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 44(2), 7.
Crowston, K., Wei, K., Li, Q., & Howison, J. (2006). Core and periphery in free/libre and open source software team communications. In 39th Hawai’i International Conference on System System (HICSS), Hawaii: IEEE, pp. 118a–118a.
Dahlander, L., & O’Mahony, S. (2011). Progressing to the center: Coordinating project work. Organization Science, 22(4), 961–979.
Dall’Asta, L., Marsili, M., & Pin, P. (2012). Collaboration in social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(12), 4395–4400.
Faraj, S., & Johnson, S. L. (2011). Network exchange patterns in online communities. Organization Science, 22(6), 1464–1480.
Feldman, M. S., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2011). Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organization Science, 22(5), 1240–1253.
Fleming, L., & Waguespack, D. M. (2007). Brokerage, boundary spanning, and leadership in open innovation communities. Organization Science, 18(2), 165–180.
Franzoni, C., & Sauermann, H. (2014). Crowd science: The organization of scientific research in open collaborative projects. Research Policy, 43(1), 1–20.
Freeman, L. C. (1978). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215–239.
Fujimoto, K., Chou, C. P., & Valente, T. W. (2011). The network autocorrelation model using two-mode data: Affiliation exposure and potential bias in the autocorrelation parameter. Soc Networks, 33, 231–243.
García Muñiz, A. S., & Ramos Carvajal, C. (2006). Core/periphery structure models: An alternative methodological proposal. Social Networks, 28(4), 442–448.
Gargiulo, M., & Benassi, M. (2000). Trapped in your own net? Network cohesion, structural holes, and the adaptations of social capital. Organization Science, 11(2), 183–196.
Gawer, A. (2014). Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework. Research Policy, 43(7), 1239–1249.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Girvan, M., & Newman, M. E. J. (2002). Community structure in social and biological networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99(12), 7821–7826.
Haefliger, S., von Krogh, G., & Spaeth, S. (2008). Code reuse in open source software. Management Science, 54(1), 180–193.
Isard, W. (1954). Location theory and trade theory: Short-run analysis. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 68(2), 305–320.
Kane, G. J., Alavi, M., Labianca, G. J., & Borgatti, S. P. (2014). What is different about social media networks? A framework and a research agenda. MIS Quarterly, 38(1), 274–304.
Klimeck, G., McLennan, M., Brophy, S. B., Adams III, G. B., & Lundstrom, M. S. (2008). Nanohub.Org: Advancing education and research in nanotechnology. Computing in Science & Engineering (IEEE Computer Society), 10(5), 17–23.
Lazer, D., Pentland, A., Adamic, L., Aral, S., Barabasi, A. L., Brewer, D., et al. (2009). Life in the network: The coming age of computational social science. Science (New York, N.Y.), 323(5915), 721–723.
Leenders, R. T. A. J. (2002). Modeling social influence through network autocorrelation: Constructing the weight matrix. Social Networks, 24(1), 21–47.
LeSage, J. P. (2000). Bayesian estimation of limited dependent variable spatial autoregressive models. Geographical Analysis, 32(1), 19–35.
LeSage, J. P., & Pace, R. K. (2011). Pitfalls in higher order model extensions of basic spatial regression methodology. In T. S. U.-S. Marco (Ed.) Working paper, San Marco.
LeSage, J. P., & Page, R. K. (2009). Introduction into spatial economics. Boca Raton: Taylor Francis/CRC Press.
Li, E. Y., Liao, C. H., & Yen, H. R. (2013). Co-authorship networks and research impact: A social capital perspective. Research Policy, 42(9), 1515–1530.
Lin, N., Cook, K., & Burt, R. (2001). Social capital: Theory and practice. The Netherlands: Aldine Transaction.
Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2006). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using stata (2nd edn.). Stata press: College Station, TX.
Lu, H., & Feng, Y. (2009). A measure of authors’ centrality in co-authorship networks based on the distribution of collaborative relationships. Scientometrics, 81(2), 499–511.
Madhavan, K., Zentner, M., & Klimeck, G. (2013). Learning and research in the cloud. Nature Nanotechnology, 8(11), 786–789.
Marsaglia, G., Tsang, W. W., & Wang, J. (2003). Evaluating Kolmogorov’s distribution. Journal of Statistical Software, 8(18), 1–4.
Matei, S., & Bertino, E. (2014). A research agenda for the study of entropic social structural evolution, functional roles, adhocratic leadership styles, and credibility in online organizations and knowledge markets. In S. Matei & E. Bertino (Eds.), Roles, trust, and reputation in social media knowledge markets: theories and methods. Berlin: Springer.
Matei, S. A., & Bruno, R. J. (2015). Pareto’s 80/20 law and social differentiation: A social entropy perspective. Public Relations Review, 41(2), 178–186.
Mockus, A., Fielding, R. T., & Herbsleb, J. D. (2002). Two case studies of open source software development: Apache and mozilla. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 11(3), 309–346.
Olson, G. M., Zimmerman, A., & Bos, N. (2008). Scientific collaboration on the Internet. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428.
Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325(5939), 419–422.
Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. The American Economic Review, 100(3), 641–672.
Páez, A., Scott, D. M., & Volz, E. (2008). Weight matrices for social influence analysis: An investigation of measurement errors and their effect on model identification and estimation quality. Social Networks, 30(4), 309–317.
Poore, B. S., & Goodchild, M. (2011). Users as essential contributors to spatial cyberinfrastructures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(14), 5510–5515.
Rullani, F., & Haefliger, S. (2013). The periphery on stage: the intra-organizational dynamics in online communities of creation. Research Policy, 42(4), 941–953.
Sauermann, H., & Franzoni, C. (2015). Crowd science user contribution patterns and their implications. Proceedings of National Academy of Science USA, 112(3), 679–684.
Setia, P., Rajagopalan, B., Sambamurthy, V., & Calantone, R. (2012). How peripheral developers contribute to open-source software development. Information Systems Research, 23(1), 144–163.
Tilson, D., Lyytinen, K., & Sørensen, C. (2010). Research commentary—Digital infrastructures: The missing is research agenda. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 748–759.
Wareham, J., Fox, P. B., & Cano Giner, J. L. (2014). Technology ecosystem governance. Organization Science, 25(4), 1195–1215.
Wilhelm, S., & de Matos, M. G. (2013). Estimating spatial probit models in R. The R Journal, 5(1), 130–140.
Wright, D. J., & Wang, S. (2011). The emergence of spatial cyberinfrastructure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(14), 5488–5491.
Yoo, Y., Boland, R. J., Jr., Lyytinen, K., & Majchrzak, A. (2012). Organizing for innovation in the digitized world. Organization Science, 23(5), 1398–1408.
Acknowledgments
This work was initiated under the auspices of the Exploratory Research in Social Science Grant of the Executive Office of the Vice President for Research (OVPR) at Purdue University (PI Sorin Adam Matei and Gerhard Klimeck) and was supported by the NSF award 1255781. We thank Philip Munyua, Kang-Yu Hsu, Srikant Rao, Steven Clark, and Swaroop Samek at Purdue University for their support in data processing and analysis.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brunswicker, S., Matei, S.A., Zentner, M. et al. Creating impact in the digital space: digital practice dependency in communities of digital scientific innovations. Scientometrics 110, 417–442 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2106-z
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2106-z
Keywords
- Digital scientific innovation
- Scientific collaboration
- Social structure
- Programmer communities
- Network autocorrelation
- Social distance