The Impact of Ideology on Effectiveness in Open Source Software Development Teams

By K. Stewart, Sanjay Gosain. MIS Q., 2006

681 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/734a1101c739be8736086ca563380fbfcd965727

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Information Systems

Citations in the corpus

Carrots and Rainbows: Motivation and Social Practice in Open Source Software Development (2012, methodology): “• Stewart and Gosain (2006) see “learning as a value in itself” as a dimension of the “OSS values” construct that impacts effort positively via “affective trust.””
Rewarding in open innovation communities – how to motivate members (2010, background): “In OSS communities, ideology has been considered one of the motivational factors that explain why developers contribute (Lakhani and Wolf, 2005; Stewart and Gosain, 2006).”
Digital product innovation within four classes of innovation networks (2016, background): “This increased connectivity helps maintain a sense of a community, negotiate proposed designs and requirements and record reasons for choosing speci ﬁ c solutions (Stewart & Gosain, 2006; Scacchi, 2009).”
Conceptualizing models using multidimensional constructs: a review and guidelines for their use (2012, background): “Similarly, team effectiveness has been viewed as multidimensional in nature (Crowston et al, 2003), yet its dimensions have also been operationalized as separate constructs with single-item measures (Stewart & Gosain, 2006).”
Co-Creation: Toward a Taxonomy and an Integrated Research Perspective (2010, background): “The impact of ideology, defined as shared and strongly held beliefs, values, and norms, on OSS development practice was studied in a nuanced fashion by Stewart and Gosain [97].”
Understanding Sustained Participation in Open Source Software Projects (2009, background): “Motives to Participate in Open Source Software Projects Motives to participate related literature Software use value [20, 25, 35, 49, 55, 60, 63, 65] Status and recognition [25, 28, 35, 47, 49, 55, 63] Learning [25, 26, 28, 61, 63, 65] Personal enjoyment [25, 28, 49, 55, 65] Reciprocity [25, 35, 55]”
Exploring motivations for contributing to open source initiatives: The roles of contribution context and personal values (2008, background): “Indeed, much of the open source literature has focused on identifying the various motivations that individuals have for contributing to open source initiatives (e.g., Hars & Ou, 2002; Lakhani, Wolf, Bates, & DiBona, 2002; Lakhani & von Hippel, 2003; Roberts et al., 2006; Stewart & Gosain, 2006; vo”
Structural Equation Modeling in Information Systems Research Using Partial Least Squares (2010, background): “Example 2: Open Source Development The second example is Stewart and Gosain’s (2006) article titled “The Impact of Ideology on Effectiveness in Open Source Development Teams,” published in MIS Quarterly.”
Trust in teams: A taxonomy of perceived trustworthiness factors and risk-taking behaviors in face-to-face and virtual teams (2020, background): “…commitments, and following rules (e.g. Stewart and Gosain, 2006; Walther and Bunz, 2005) can be classified as task-related predictability, while perceived justice (Dayan and Di Benedetto, 2010) and shared values (Stewart and Gosain, 2006) match the team-related integrity in our team trust taxonomy.”
A Blockchain Research Framework (2017, background): “On the one hand, open source research suggests that forks can have negative motivational consequences for developers in a project (Stewart and Gosain 2006) which could also apply to complementors on a blockchain.”
Technology, capabilities and critical perspectives: what can critical theory contribute to Sen’s capability approach? (2011, background): “Rather, they constitute central parts of the shared worldview of a society or group (Stewart and Gosain 2006).”
Open Source Software User Communities: A Study of Participation in Linux User Groups (2006, background): “In OSS development and user groups, these take the form of a shared narrative (Weber 2004), a well-developed and repeatedly emphasized set of values and ideology (e.g., Hamm 2005, Ljungberg 2000, Stewart and Gosain 2004), and a widely used vernacular called “hacker slang” (Raymond 1996).”
The Next Generation of Research on IS Use: A Theoretical Framework of Delegation to and from Agentic IS Artifacts (2021, background): “(Stewart and Gosain 2006), transfer of rights and responsibilities from the bot to the code reviewer is likely to be implicit rather than being explicitly negotiated (Castelfranchi and”