@conference {flosswp408,
	title = {Asynchronous Decision-Making in Distributed Teams},
	booktitle = {Computer Supported Cooperative Work 2008},
	year = {2008},
	month = {July},
	pages = {1{\textendash}2},
	abstract = {Extensive use of CSCW applications can influence group decision-making practices. Unlike previous research focused on the influence of synchronous ICTs, our study examines how group decisions are made in asynchronous communication channels. Our inductive qualitative analysis of 360 decision episodes of six FLOSS projects revealed diversity in decision-making practices, which appears to be related to differences in project effectiveness and task type. We also find that standardization of procedures through CSCW tools transforms the nature of some software development work from non-routine to standard procedure.},
	attachments = {https://flosshub.org/sites/flosshub.org/files/CSCW2008FLOSSposter_sub.pdf , https://flosshub.org/sites/flosshub.org/files/CSCW2008Poster11x17sub.pdf},
	author = {Li, Qing and Robert Heckman and Eileen Allen and Kevin Crowston and Eseryel, U. Yeliz and James Howison and Andrea Wiggins}
}
@unpublished {flosswp415,
	title = {eScience for Free/Libre Open Source Software Researchers},
	year = {2008},
	month = {August},
	publisher = {FLOSSpapers},
	type = {Working Paper},
	abstract = {This paper presents a case study of the application of eScience tools and practices for the social science research community studying Free/Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS) development practices. We first describe what we mean by eScience and introduce research on FLOSS to motivate the need for eScience tools and approaches. We then describe our initial efforts to introduce eScience tools for FLOSS research, potential obstacles, and how the use of such tools might affect the practice of research in this field.},
	attachments = {https://flosshub.org/sites/flosshub.org/files/eResearch2008iCS-working.pdf},
	author = {Kevin Crowston and Andrea Wiggins and James Howison}
}
@conference {flosswp392,
	title = {Replication of FLOSS Research as eResearch},
	booktitle = {Oxford e-Research Conference 2008},
	year = {2008},
	month = {May},
	abstract = {We are working to introduce the ideas of eResearch to a multi-disciplinary research domain: those researchers examining Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) and its development (Howison, Wiggins, \& Crowston, 2008).The first phase of this work focused on building a repository for data on FLOSS teams, FLOSSmole (Howison, Conklin, \& Crowston, 2006), and collaborating with other nascent data repositories in the field. Recently we have begun a second phase, which is to introduce another established principle of eResearch, that of broader collaboration through shared workflows accessing these data repositories. To provide an example of the potential value of this principle, we are replicating seminal FLOSS papers using eResearch approaches. This paper describes research outcomes and lessons learned from translating published literature into eResearch workflows.},
	keywords = {eResearch eScience},
	attachments = {https://flosshub.org/sites/flosshub.org/files/Wiggins-FLOSS-eResearch.pdf},
	author = {Andrea Wiggins and James Howison and Kevin Crowston}
}
@article {86,
	title = {The role of face-to-face meetings in technology-supported self-organizing distributed teams},
	journal = {Ieee Transactions on Professional Communication},
	volume = {50},
	number = {3},
	year = {2007},
	note = {Times Cited: 0},
	pages = {185-203},
	abstract = {We examine the role of face-to-face meetings in the context of technology-supported self-organizing distributed (or virtual teams), specifically Free/Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS) development teams. Based on a qualitative inductive analysis of data from interviews and observations at FLOSS conferences, we identify a variety of settings in which developers meet face-to-face, and we point out the activities performed in these settings and the benefits obtained. Contrary to conventional wisdom about distributed teams, FLOSS developers generally do not meet face-to-face until the project is well under way. An additional benefit offace-to-face meetings is time away from a regular job and speed of interaction for certain kinds of tasks.},
	author = {Kevin Crowston and James Howison and Chengetai Masango and Eseryel, U. Yeliz}
}
@article {85,
	title = {Assessing the health of open source communities},
	journal = {Computer},
	volume = {39},
	number = {5},
	year = {2006},
	note = {Times Cited: 0},
	pages = {89-91},
	author = {Kevin Crowston and James Howison}
}
@proceedings {107,
	title = {Emergent decision-making practices in technology-supported self-organizing distributed teams},
	year = {2006},
	address = {Milwaukee, WI, 10{\textendash}13 Dec},
	author = {Robert Heckman and Kevin Crowston and Li, Qing and Eileen Allen and Eseryel, U. Yeliz and James Howison and Wei, Kangning}
}
@conference {flosswp406,
	title = {Emergent Decision-making Practices in Technology-Supported Self-Organizing Distributed Teams},
	booktitle = {Twenty Seventh International Conference on Information Systems},
	year = {2006},
	pages = {1{\textendash}12},
	abstract = {We seek to identify work practices that make technology-supported self-organizing distributed (or virtual) teams (TSSODT for short) effective in producing outputs satisfactory to their sponsors, meeting the needs of their members and continuing to function. A particularly important practice for team effectiveness is decision making: are the right decisions made at the right time to get the work done in a way that satisfies team sponsors, keeps contributors happy and engaged, and enables continued team success? In this research-in-progress paper, we report on an inductive qualitative analysis of 120 decision episodes taken by 2 Free/libre Open Source Software development teams (the completed paper will include 360 episodes from 6 teams). Our analysis revealed differences in the performance of the two teams that seems to be related to differences in overall project effectiveness.},
	attachments = {https://flosshub.org/sites/flosshub.org/files/decision_making_practices.pdf},
	author = {Robert Heckman and Kevin Crowston and Li, Qing and Eileen Allen and Eseryel, U. Yeliz and James Howison}
}
@article {109,
	title = {FLOSSmole: A Collaborative Repository for FLOSS Research Data and Analyses},
	journal = {International Journal of Information Technology and Web Engineering},
	volume = {1},
	number = {3},
	year = {2006},
	pages = {17-26},
	author = {James Howison and Conklin, Megan and Kevin Crowston}
}
@article {111,
	title = {Social dynamics of free and open source team communications},
	journal = {Proceedings of the IFIP 2nd International Conference on Open Source Software, Lake Como, Italy},
	year = {2006},
	author = {James Howison and Inoue, K. and Kevin Crowston}
}
@conference {78,
	title = {Collaboration Using OSSmole: A repository of FLOSS data and analyses},
	booktitle = {Symposium on Mining Software Repositories},
	year = {2005},
	month = {17 May},
	address = {St. Louis},
	author = {Conklin, Megan and James Howison and Kevin Crowston}
}
@article {84,
	title = {The social structure of Free and Open Source Software development},
	journal = {First Monday},
	volume = {10},
	number = {2},
	year = {2005},
	author = {Kevin Crowston and James Howison}
}
@unpublished {flosswp198,
	title = {The social structure of Free and Open Source software development},
	year = {2004},
	month = {November},
	publisher = {Syracuse University School of Information Studies},
	type = {Working Paper},
	abstract = {Metaphors, such as the Cathedral and Bazaar, used to describe the organization of FLOSS projects typically place them in sharp contrast to proprietary development by emphasizing FLOSS{\textquoteright}s distinctive social and communications structures. But what do we really know about the communication patterns of FLOSS projects? How generalizable are the projects that have been studied? Is there consistency across FLOSS projects? Questioning the assumption of distinctiveness is important because practitioner-advocates from within the FLOSS community rely on features of social structure to describe and account for some of the advantages of FLOSS production. To address this question, we examined 120 project teams from SourceForge, representing a wide range of FLOSS project types, for their communications centralization as revealed in the interactions in the bug tracking system. We found that FLOSS development teams vary widely in their communications centralization, from projects completely centered on one developer to projects that are highly decentralized and exhibit a distributed pattern of conversation between developers and active users.},
	attachments = {https://flosshub.org/sites/flosshub.org/files/crowstonhowison.pdf},
	author = {Kevin Crowston and James Howison}
}
@conference {flosswp137,
	title = {Defining Open Source Software Project Success},
	booktitle = {Twenty-Fourth International Conference on Information Systems},
	year = {2003},
	month = {December},
	abstract = {Information systems success is one of the most widely used dependent variables in information systems research. In this paper, we identify a range of measures that can be used to assess the success of open source software (OSS) projects. We identify measures based on a review of the literature, a consideration of the OSS development process and an analysis of the opinions of OSS developers. For each measure, we provide examples of how they might be used in a study of OSS development.},
	attachments = {https://flosshub.org/sites/flosshub.org/files/crowstonannabihowison.pdf},
	author = {Kevin Crowston and Hala Annabi and James Howison}
}
