@article {9999,
	title = {Technological Frames: Interpretations about the Futures of Work  and Intelligent Machines on Social Media},
	journal = {Information, Technology \& People},
	year = {2024},
	abstract = {Purpose: This study explores interpretations and feelings about futures of work and intelligent machines expressed on social media.

Design/methodology/approach: We investigate public interpretations, assumptions and expectations expressed in social media conversations through which users freely share their most recent ideas. In addition to frames, this study also coded the emotions and attitudes expressed in the text data. More specifically, a corpus consisting of 998 unique Reddit post titles and their corresponding 16,611 comments were analyzed by using computer-aided textual analysis comprising a BERTopic model, and two BERT text classification models, one for emotion and the other for sentiment analysis, supported by human judgment. Finally, relationships among frames and attitudes and frames and emotions were examined.

Findings: Twelve clusters were found that related to futures of work with intelligent machines. Based on the prior literature, two frames were chosen from these clusters and analyzed in detail: (1) general impacts of intelligent machines on wealth and society and (2) replacement of tasks (augmentation and substitution). The general attitude observed in conversations was positive, moreover the most common emotion category was approval. Findings also showed there are relationships between frames and attitudes and frames and emotions.

Originality: This work extends the prior literature on a topic relevant for academia and industry. Findings of this research can help realize potential needs and benefits from the public{\textquoteright}s vantage point in the case of possible transformations in the future of work with intelligent machines. The findings may also help enlighten researchers to shape research directions about futures of work. Furthermore, firms, organizations or industries may also employ framing methods to receive customers{\textquoteright} or workers{\textquoteright} responses, or even to influence the responses. Aside from the empirical findings, another crucial implication of this work is application of theory of technological frames for systematizing the interpretations of how people conceptualize the future of work with the technology of intelligent machines. This study constitutes a bridge that connects fields of IS, computational science and empirical social research. },
	doi = {10.1108/ITP-01-2023-0049},
	attachments = {https://crowston.syr.edu./sites/crowston.syr.edu/files/frames\%20to\%20share.pdf},
	author = {Ay{\c s}e {\"O}cal and Kevin Crowston}
}
@article {2023,
	title = {Perceived benefits of open data are improving but scientists still lack resources, skills, and rewards},
	journal = {Humanities and Social Sciences Communications},
	volume = {10},
	year = {2023},
	month = {Jan-12-2023},
	doi = {10.1057/s41599-023-01831-7},
	author = {Borycz, Joshua and Olendorf, Robert and Specht, Alison and Grant, Bruce and Crowston, Kevin and Tenopir, Carol and Allard, Suzie and Rice, Natalie M. and Hu, Rachael and Sandusky, Robert J.}
}
@article {9998,
	title = {Assessment, Usability, and Sociocultural Impacts of DataONE: A Global Research Data Cyberinfrastructure Initiative},
	journal = {International Journal of Digital Curation},
	volume = {16},
	year = {2021},
	month = {04/2021},
	abstract = {<p>DataONE, funded from 2009-2019 by the U.S. National Science Foundation, is an early example of a large-scale project that built both a cyberinfrastructure and culture of data discovery, sharing, and reuse. DataONE used a Working Group model, where a diverse group of participants collaborated on targeted research and development activities to achieve broader project goals. This article summarizes the work carried out by two of DataONE{\textquoteright}s working groups: Usability \&amp; Assessment (2009-2019) and Sociocultural Issues (2009-2014). The activities of these working groups provide a unique longitudinal look at how scientists, librarians, and other key stakeholders engaged in convergence research to identify and analyze practices around research data management through the development of boundary objects, an iterative assessment program, and reflection. Members of the working groups disseminated their findings widely in papers, presentations, and datasets, reaching international audiences through publications in 25 different journals and presentations to over 5,000 people at interdisciplinary venues. The working groups helped inform the DataONE cyberinfrastructure and influenced the evolving data management landscape. By studying working groups over time, the paper also presents lessons learned about the working group model for global large-scale projects that bring together participants from multiple disciplines and communities in convergence research.</p>},
	doi = {10.2218/ijdc.v16i1.678 },
	author = {Robert J. Sandusky and Suzie Allard and Lynn Baird and Leah Cannon and Kevin Crowston and Amy Forrester and Bruce Grant and Rachael Hu and Robert Olendorf and Danielle Pollock and Alison Specht and Carol Tenopir and Rachel Volentine}
}
@article {657,
	title = {Gravity Spy: Integrating Advanced LIGO Detector Characterization, Machine Learning, and Citizen Science},
	journal = {Classical and Quantum Gravity},
	volume = {34},
	year = {2017},
	pages = {064003},
	type = {Journal Article},
	doi = {10.1088/1361-6382/aa5cea},
	author = {Michael Zevin and Scott Coughlin and Sara Bahaadini and Emre Besler and Neda Rohani and Sarah Allen and Miriam Cabero and Kevin Crowston and Aggelos Katsaggelos and Shane Larson and Tae Kyoung Lee and Chris Lintott and Tyson Littenberg and Andrew Lundgren and Carsten Oesterlund and Joshua Smith and Laura Trouille and Vicky Kalogera}
}
@proceedings {9999,
	title = {The Rise and Fall of an Online Project. Is Bureaucracy Killing Efficiency in Open Knowledge Production?},
	year = {2015},
	address = {San Francisco, CA},
	attachments = {https://crowston.syr.edu./sites/crowston.syr.edu/files/CrowstonJullienOrtegawork_2014_life-cycle.pdf , https://crowston.syr.edu./sites/crowston.syr.edu/files/OpenSym\%20presentation\%20NJKCFO\%2008-20-15.pdf},
	author = {Nicolas Jullien and Kevin Crowston and Felipe Ortega}
}
@article {646,
	title = {Sustainability of Open Collaborative Communities: Analyzing Recruitment Efficiency},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	year = {2013},
	month = {01/2013},
	pages = {20{\textendash}26},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Extensive research has been conducted over the past years to improve our understanding of sustainability conditions for large-scale collaborative projects, especially from an economic and governance perspective. However, the influence of recruitment and retention of participants in these projects has received comparatively less attention from researchers. Nevertheless, these concerns are significant for practitioners, especially regarding the apparently decreasing ability of the main open online projects to attract and retain new contributors. A possible explanation for this decrease is that those projects have simply reached a mature state of development. Marwell and Oliver (1993) and Oliver, Marwell, and Teixeira (1985) note that, at the initial stage in collective projects, participants are few and efforts are costly; in the diffusion phase, the number of participants grows, as their efforts are rewarding; and in the mature phase, some inefficiency may appear as the number of contributors is greater than required for the work.

In this article, we examine this possibility. We use original data from 36 Wikipedias in different languages to compare their efficiency in recruiting participants. We chose Wikipedia because the different language projects are at different states of development, but are quite comparable on the other aspects, providing a test of the impact of development on efficiency. Results confirm that most of the largest Wikipedias seem to be characterized by a reduced return to scale. As a result, we can draw interesting conclusions that can be useful for practitioners, facilitators, and managers of collaborative projects in order to identify key factors potentially influencing the adequate development of their communities over the medium-to-long term.},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/646},
	author = {Kevin Crowston and Nicolas Jullien and Felipe Ortega}
}
@proceedings {438,
	title = {Is Wikipedia Inefficient? Modelling Effort and Participation in Wikipedia},
	year = {2013},
	month = {1/2013},
	address = {Wailea, HI},
	url = {http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1960696},
	attachments = {https://crowston.syr.edu./sites/crowston.syr.edu/files/hicss2013_CrowstonJullienOrtegawork_revised.pdf},
	author = {Kevin Crowston and Nicolas Jullien and Felipe Ortega}
}
@inbook {,
	title = {A coordination theory approach to process description and redesign},
	booktitle = {Organizing Business Knowledge: The MIT Process Handbook},
	year = {2003},
	publisher = {MIT Press},
	organization = {MIT Press},
	type = {Technical report},
	abstract = {Managers must understand, influence, and redesign organizational processes to improve business performance. In this paper we present a technique for documenting a business process. The technique has six steps: defining process boundaries, collecting data, determining actors and resources, determining activities, determining dependencies and model verification. While similar to other processmapping techniques, our approach is novel in incorporating ideas from coordination theory, thus the attention to dependencies. As a result, the technique is useful both for documenting a process and suggesting ways in which the process could be redesigned. We present an extended illustration with the hope that the technique can be used by readers of this article.},
	keywords = {Coordination},
	isbn = {9780585480244},
	attachments = {https://crowston.syr.edu./sites/crowston.syr.edu/files/wp204.pdf},
	author = {Kevin Crowston and Osborn, Charley}
}
@article {Malone:1999,
	title = {Tools for inventing organizations: Toward a handbook of organizational processes},
	journal = {Management Science},
	volume = {45},
	number = {3},
	year = {1999},
	note = {Reprinted in Malone, T. W., Crowston, K. \& Herman, G. (Eds.) Organizing Business Knowledge: The MIT Process Handbook. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003.
Reprinted in Malone, T. W., Laubacher, R. \& Scott Morton, M. S. (Eds.). Inventing the Organizations of the 21st Century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003.},
	pages = {425{\textendash}443},
	abstract = {This paper describes a novel theoretical and empirical approach to tasks such as business process redesign and knowledge management. The project involves collecting examples of how different organizations perform similar processes, and organizing these examples in an on-line "process handbook." The handbook is intended to help people: (1) redesign existing organizational processes, (2) invent new organizational processes (especially ones that take advantage of information technology), and (3) share ideas about organizational practices. 
A key element of the work is an approach to analyzing processes at various levels of abstraction, thus capturing both the details of specific processes as well as the "deep structure" of their similarities. This approach uses ideas from computer science about inheritance and from coordination theory about managing dependencies. A primary advantage of the approach is that it allows people to explicitly represent the similarities (and differences) among related processes and to easily find or generate sensible alternatives for how a given process could be performed. In addition to describing this new approach, the work reported here demonstrates the basic technical feasibility of these ideas and gives one example of their use in a field study.},
	keywords = {Coordination, Handbook, Process},
	doi = {10.1287/mnsc.45.3.425},
	attachments = {https://crowston.syr.edu./sites/crowston.syr.edu/files/ms99.pdf},
	author = {Malone, Thomas W. and Kevin Crowston and Lee, Jintae and Pentland, Brian and Dellarocas, Chrysanthos and Wyner, George and Quimby, John and Osborn, Charley and Bernstein, Avi and Herman, George and Klein, Mark and O{\textquoteright}Donnell, Elissa}
}
