skip to main content
10.1145/2494188.2494208acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesi-knowConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Assessing Barcamps: Incentives for Participation in Ad-hoc Conferences and the Role of Social Media

Authors Info & Claims
Published:04 September 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

Barcamps are informal conferences whose content is not defined in advance, often referred to as ad-hoc conferences or un-conferences. Therefore, the outcomes of a barcamp are largely unknown before the event. This raises the question of the participants' motivations to attend and contribute. To answer this question, we conducted an exploratory empirical study at Barcamp Graz 2012. We applied a mixed-method approach: first we used a socio-demographic questionnaire (n=99) which allowed us to characterize the 'typical barcamper'. Second, we conducted qualitative interviews (n=10) to get a deeper understanding of the participants' motivations to attend, expectations, and the use of social media in that context. We identified three concepts, which could be deducted from the interviews: people, format and topics. We found that the motivation to attend and even a common identity is quite strongly based on these three factors. Furthermore, the results indicate that participants share a set of activities and methods by following the barcamp's inherent rules and make extensive use of social media.

References

  1. T. Bernhardt and M. Kirchner. Web 2.0 meets conference: The educamp as a new format of participation and exchange in the world of education. In Looking Toward the Future of Technology-Enhanced Education, pages 192--204. Information Science Reference, Hershey, PA, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. M. Boule. Mob Rule Learning: Camps, Unconferences, and Trashing the Talking Head. Cyber Age Books, Medfor, Oct. 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. B. Chen. Is the backchannel enabled? Using twitter at academic conferences. In Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. M. Ebner and W. Reinhardt. Social networking in scientific conferences: Twitter as tool for strengthen a scientific community. Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Science, 2(C):1--8, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. D. Ernesto and L. Fonseca. EduCamp Colombia : Social Networked Learning for Teacher Training. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. P. Kraker, C. Wagner, F. Jeanquartier, and S. Lindstaedt. On the Way to a Science Intelligence: Visualizing TEL Tweets for Trend Detection. In Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, pages 220--232. Springer, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. K. R. Lakhani and R. G. Wolf. Why Hackers Do What They Do : Understanding Motivation and Effort in Free / Open Source Software Projects. In Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software, pages 1--27. MIT Press, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. L. Lapointe. BarCampOrlando 2009: a model for libraries? Library Hi Tech News, 26(5/6):1--3, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. J. Lave and E. Wenger. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation, volume 95 of Learning in doing. Cambridge University Press, 1991.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. S. Lawson. Library Camps and Unconferences. Neal-Schuman Publishers, New York, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. A. Louie, N. Asis, and T. Chapters. Designing a User-Centered Conference for User-Centered Information Professionals : The Story of InfoCamp Seattle. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 34(5):5--9, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. P. Mayring. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung Forum Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. K. Weller, E. Drge, and C. Puschmann. Citation analysis in twitter. approaches for defining and measuring information flows within tweets during scientific conferences. In Proceedings of Making Sense of Microposts Workshop at ESWC, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. M. Weller. The Digital Scholar. Bloomsbury Publishing PLC, Sept. 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. E. Wenger, R. McDermott, and W. Snyder. Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge, volume 5 of Learning in doing. Harvard Business School Press, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. E. Wenger, N. White, and J. D. Smith. Digital Habitats; Stewarding Technology for Communities. CPsquare, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Y. Ye and K. Kishida. Toward an Understanding of the Motivation of Open Source Software Developers. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 419--429, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Assessing Barcamps: Incentives for Participation in Ad-hoc Conferences and the Role of Social Media

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        i-Know '13: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Knowledge Technologies
        September 2013
        271 pages
        ISBN:9781450323000
        DOI:10.1145/2494188

        Copyright © 2013 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 4 September 2013

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        i-Know '13 Paper Acceptance Rate27of87submissions,31%Overall Acceptance Rate77of238submissions,32%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader