IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orisre/v23y2012i3-part-2p993-1010.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Cross-Purposes of Cross-Posting: Boundary Reshaping Behavior in Online Discussion Communities

Author

Listed:
  • Brian S. Butler

    (Katz Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260)

  • Xiaoqing Wang

    (Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742)

Abstract

Increasingly, online discussion communities are used to support activities ranging from software development to political campaigns. An important feature of an online discussion community is its content boundaries, which are individual perceptions of what materials and discussions are part of the community and what are not, and how that community is related to others within a larger system. Yet in spite of its importance, many community infrastructures allow individual participants to reshape content boundaries by simultaneously associating their contributions with multiple online discussion communities. This reshaping behavior is a controversial aspect of the creation and management of many types of online discussion communities. On one hand, many communities explicitly discourage boundary reshaping behaviors in their frequently asked questions or terms-of-use document. On the other hand, community infrastructures continue to allow such reshaping behaviors. To explain this controversy, we theorize how the extent of boundary reshaping in an online discussion community has simultaneously positive and negative effects on its member dynamics and responsiveness. We test predictions about the conflicting effects of reshaping behaviors with 60 months of longitudinal data from 140 USENET newsgroups, focusing on cross-posting activities as a form of reshaping behavior. Empirical results are consistent with the proposed hypotheses that reshaping behaviors within a discussion community affect member dynamics and community responsiveness in both positive and negative ways. Taken together, the findings highlight the boundary-related design challenges faced by managers seeking to support ongoing activity within online discussion communities.

Suggested Citation

  • Brian S. Butler & Xiaoqing Wang, 2012. "The Cross-Purposes of Cross-Posting: Boundary Reshaping Behavior in Online Discussion Communities," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(3-part-2), pages 993-1010, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:23:y:2012:i:3-part-2:p:993-1010
    DOI: 10.1287/isre.1110.0378
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.1110.0378
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/isre.1110.0378?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Laura Dabbish & Robert Kraut, 2008. "Research Note ---Awareness Displays and Social Motivation for Coordinating Communication," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 19(2), pages 221-238, June.
    2. Quentin Jones & Gilad Ravid & Sheizaf Rafaeli, 2004. "Information Overload and the Message Dynamics of Online Interaction Spaces: A Theoretical Model and Empirical Exploration," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 15(2), pages 194-210, June.
    3. Joseph Feller & Patrick Finnegan & Brian Fitzgerald & Jeremy Hayes, 2008. "From Peer Production to Productization: A Study of Socially Enabled Business Exchanges in Open Source Service Networks," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 475-493, December.
    4. Filipe M. Santos & Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, 2005. "Organizational Boundaries and Theories of Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(5), pages 491-508, October.
    5. Mark Thompson, 2005. "Structural and Epistemic Parameters in Communities of Practice," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(2), pages 151-164, April.
    6. Jeffrey A. Roberts & Il-Horn Hann & Sandra A. Slaughter, 2006. "Understanding the Motivations, Participation, and Performance of Open Source Software Developers: A Longitudinal Study of the Apache Projects," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(7), pages 984-999, July.
    7. Wanda J. Orlikowski, 1992. "The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 398-427, August.
    8. Lakhani, Karim R. & von Hippel, Eric, 2003. "How open source software works: "free" user-to-user assistance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 923-943, June.
    9. John Seely Brown & Paul Duguid, 1991. "Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 40-57, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Paulo B. Goes & Mingfeng Lin & Ching-man Au Yeung, 2014. "“Popularity Effect” in User-Generated Content: Evidence from Online Product Reviews," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 222-238, June.
    2. Tai Ming Wut & Chammy Yan Lam Lau & Wai Tung Chan, 2022. "Share, Comment, and Like on Facebook and Message Strategies of Non-Governmental organizations," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(1), pages 21582440221, March.
    3. Xiaoqing Wang & Brian S. Butler & Yuqing Ren, 2013. "The Impact of Membership Overlap on Growth: An Ecological Competition View of Online Groups," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 414-431, April.
    4. Natalia Levina & Manuel Arriaga, 2014. "Distinction and Status Production on User-Generated Content Platforms: Using Bourdieu’s Theory of Cultural Production to Understand Social Dynamics in Online Fields," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 468-488, September.
    5. Lien Thi Kim Nguyen & Hao-Hsuan Chung & Kristine Velasquez Tuliao & Tom M. Y. Lin, 2020. "Using XGBoost and Skip-Gram Model to Predict Online Review Popularity," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(4), pages 21582440209, December.
    6. Kawaljeet Kaur Kapoor & Kuttimani Tamilmani & Nripendra P. Rana & Pushp Patil & Yogesh K. Dwivedi & Sridhar Nerur, 2018. "Advances in Social Media Research: Past, Present and Future," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 531-558, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Emmanuelle Vaast & Geoff Walsham, 2009. "Trans-Situated Learning: Supporting a Network of Practice with an Information Infrastructure," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 547-564, December.
    2. Samer Faraj & Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa & Ann Majchrzak, 2011. "Knowledge Collaboration in Online Communities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1224-1239, October.
    3. Thomas Keil & Erkko Autio & Gerard George, 2008. "Corporate Venture Capital, Disembodied Experimentation and Capability Development," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(8), pages 1475-1505, December.
    4. Samer Faraj & Georg von Krogh & Eric Monteiro & Karim R. Lakhani, 2016. "Special Section Introduction—Online Community as Space for Knowledge Flows," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 668-684, December.
    5. Jae Yun Moon & Lee S. Sproull, 2008. "The Role of Feedback in Managing the Internet-Based Volunteer Work Force," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 494-515, December.
    6. Michael Kaethler, 2019. "Curating creative communities of practice: the role of ambiguity," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 8(1), pages 1-17, December.
    7. Elizabeth J. Altman & Frank Nagle & Michael L. Tushman, 2013. "Innovating Without Information Constraints: Organizations, Communities, and Innovation When Information Costs Approach Zero," Harvard Business School Working Papers 14-043, Harvard Business School, revised Sep 2014.
    8. Ankita Tandon & Unnikrishnan K. Nair, 2015. "Enactment of knowledge brokering: Agents, roles, processes and the impact of immersion," Working papers 183, Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode.
    9. Wirth, Steffen, 2014. "Communities matter: Institutional preconditions for community renewable energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 236-246.
    10. Gerald C. Kane & Jeremiah Johnson & Ann Majchrzak, 2014. "Emergent Life Cycle: The Tension Between Knowledge Change and Knowledge Retention in Open Online Coproduction Communities," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(12), pages 3026-3048, December.
    11. Simon Turner, 2013. "Absorptive Capacity: The Role of Communities of Practice," Working Papers wp444, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    12. Amit Mehra & Rajiv Dewan & Marshall Freimer, 2011. "Firms as Incubators of Open-Source Software," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 22-38, March.
    13. Greenstein, Shane & Nagle, Frank, 2014. "Digital dark matter and the economic contribution of Apache," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 623-631.
    14. Henry Sauermann & Wesley M. Cohen, 2008. "What Makes Them Tick? Employee Motives and Firm Innovation," NBER Working Papers 14443, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Wen Wen & Chris Forman & Stuart J. H. Graham, 2013. "Research Note ---The Impact of Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement on Open Source Software Project Success," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 1131-1146, December.
    16. A. Yalta & A. Yalta, 2010. "Should Economists Use Open Source Software for Doing Research?," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 35(4), pages 371-394, April.
    17. Chris Kimble, 2013. "Knowledge management, codification and tacit knowledge," Post-Print halshs-00826911, HAL.
    18. Gerald C. Kane & Sam Ransbotham, 2016. "Content as Community Regulator: The Recursive Relationship Between Consumption and Contribution in Open Collaboration Communities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(5), pages 1258-1274, October.
    19. Raymond F. Zammuto & Terri L. Griffith & Ann Majchrzak & Deborah J. Dougherty & Samer Faraj, 2007. "Information Technology and the Changing Fabric of Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(5), pages 749-762, October.
    20. Davide Nicolini, 2011. "Practice as the Site of Knowing: Insights from the Field of Telemedicine," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 602-620, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:23:y:2012:i:3-part-2:p:993-1010. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.