Conclusion - EXPLORING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, ON SOCIAL CREATIVITY, IN VIRTUAL COMMUNITIES

77 do not interact to fulfill a specific task neither do they state a goal beforehand, as teams do. Still, they produce original outcome. Therefore, there are no phases of problem finding or acceptance. The same applies for the last phase. As the community does not interact to solve one specific problem there will never be one final solution. This highlights another difference to virtual teams. They often diverge after the task is done (Li, 2004). Community activities, like the ones observed, can go on for a long time. It is obvious that a process model is not suited to describe the creative process going on in this kind of communities, were the creativity is of a natural and unplanned nature, with no goal. Most of the creative endeavors observed lie on the little-c site of the creative continuum. Small changes to a system, which was not that pioneering in the first place.

However, the ways in which the members use the system, which meanings they attach to it and how they have adapted it to their needs shows great creativity.

The cultural framework of creativity (Glăveanu, 2010) is well suited to understand this.

Amongst other things it emphasizes that creativity includes the production of artefacts, from those which are already present in the environment the creator acts in. These artefacts emerge through the relation of the creators and the community. The members in the communities create new products from all those already present, without necessarily knowing, which ones precisely. They are influenced by all the different norms which make up the community culture, like all present artefacts. Besides the provision of artefacts, from which new artifacts are created, the community as a whole, also makes sense of those new artefacts. In the end, they decide, in the current context, if a new artefact is creative.

78 I observed several interesting interactions. The physical environment, with its technical features, is what Glăveanu (2010) calls affordances. They are resources for creativity, but can also act as restraints. The explored communities apply the same technical functions differently, which is an expression of the overall motives for posting, that predominate in this community. On the one hand, I found, that the technical features, of the environment, support a focus on member created content, instead of the person. This is in favor of social creativity to occur. Creativity takes the form of a natural process, where members use those artifacts, which are already present in the community, to create new artefacts. On the other hand, two features of the physical environment, can be contradictory. They express an image, which is not shared by most of the active contributors. This has an impact, on some of the members motivation to contribute.

The other dimension of the environment, is the audience (Glăveanu, 2010). It is made up of the community members; lurkers, posters and commenters. This social environment leeds to an “open innovation” mindset which promotes social creativity in the virtual community, in that trust and supportive behavior is present between the members.

What remains to be investigated is, under which circumstances trust and support in virtual communities can develop, without all dimensions of the SOVC concept (Blanchard

& Markus, 2004) being present.

Furthermore, I found, that the commercialization of the consumer created trend, Bulletjournaling, has positive and negative impacts on the social creativity, in the two communities. Knowledge of motivations for contributing can have practical implications for organizations who want to use consumer created trends.

Finally, conflict, induced by mismatches of different motives, can lead to creativity supporting changes in the community. The conflict, between the devotees of the two streams of Bulletjournaling, opened up for new ways of creativity to emerge.

It should be emphasized, that this thesis is of explorative nature. Observations and analysis of naturally occurring interactions, generate an extensive amount of data. The research questions allowed for a broad exploration, without a focus on one specific variable of the environment. Additional research on this topic could focus deeper on one

79 of the discussed topics. One possibility is to learn more about, when consumers, who create together in a community, feel ownership for their collectively generated ideas.

As for the method of netnography, which was applied in this thesis, it was a challenge to combine the huge amount of data, with the explorative nature of the research focus. The method of netnography is time intensive and requires commitment as well as a thorough reflection of the data. The method is strongly dependent on the researcher’s ability to find connections between pieces of information and the interpretations drawn from that. This is informed by, but also limited to, former experiences and knowledge as well as the learning process which accompanies the analysis and interpretation of the data.

For further research, a possibility to validate some of the findings, would be to present them to the observed communities. The possibility to get some feedback and comments on the assumptions drawn, might give further insights. Generally, netnography is a great tool, to learn about interactions between technology and humans, and between the members of a community. The possibility to travel back in time, and follow all developments of a new trend, as the community members use and change it, opens up for many possibilities.

6 REFERENCES

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of personality and social psychology, 45(2), 357.

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity.

Hachette UK.

Amabile, T.M. (2013) in Kessler, E.H. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Management Theory. Sage Publications.

Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and creativity at work. Administrative science quarterly, 50(3), 367-403.

Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of management journal, 39(5), 1154-1184.

Amabile, T. M., & Pillemer, J. (2012). Perspectives on the social psychology of creativity.

The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(1), 3-15.

Ashford, S. J., & Black, J. S. (1996). Proactivity during organizational entry: The role of desire for control. Journal of Applied psychology, 81(2), 199

Bagozzi, R. P., & Dholakia, U. M. (2002). Intentional social action in virtual communities.

Journal of interactive marketing, 16(2), 2-21.

Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S. E. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic management journal, 10(S1), 107-124.

Blanchard, A. L., & Markus, M. L. (2004). The experienced sense of a virtual community:

Characteristics and processes. ACM SIGMIS Database: the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, 35(1), 64-79.

Bernstein, M. S., Monroy-Hernández, A., Harry, D., André, P., Panovich, K., & Vargas, G.

G. (2011, July). 4chan and/b: An Analysis of Anonymity and Ephemerality in a Large Online Community. In ICWSM (pp. 50-57).

Bonsu, S. K., & Darmody, A. (2008). Co-creating Second Life: Market—Consumer Cooperation in Contemporary Economy. Journal of macromarketing, 28(4), 355-368.

Bouchard, T. J. (1972). A comparison of two group brainstorming procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56(5), 418.

Bouchard Jr, T. J., & Hare, M. (1970). Size, performance, and potential in brainstorming groups. Journal of applied Psychology, 54(1p1), 51.

81 Chen, M. H. (2006). Understanding the benefits and detriments of conflict on team

creativity process. Creativity and innovation management, 15(1), 105-116.

Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business Press.

Christensen, C. M., Raynor, M. E., & McDonald, R. (2015). What is disruptive innovation.

Harvard Business Review, 93(12), 44-53.

Chiu, C. M., Hsu, M. H., & Wang, E. T. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories.

Decision support systems, 42(3), 1872-1888.

Collaros, P. A., & Anderson, L. R. (1969). Effect of perceived expertness upon creativity of members of brainstorming groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 159–163.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: a systems view of creativity. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 325–339). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dabbish, L., Farzan, R., Kraut, R., & Postmes, T. (2012, February). Fresh faces in the crowd:

turnover, identity, and commitment in online groups. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 245-248).

Dennis, A. R., & Valacich, J. S. (1993). Computer brainstorms: More heads are better than one. Journal of applied psychology, 78(4), 531.

Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of personality and social psychology, 53(3), 497 Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1991). Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking

down the blocking effect. Journal of personality and social psychology, 61(3), 392-403.

Dul, J., Ceylan, C., & Jaspers, F. (2011). Knowledge workers' creativity and the role of the physical work environment. Human resource management, 50(6), 715-734.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.

Administrative science quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.

Edmondson, A. C. (2002). Managing the risk of learning: Psychological safety in work teams. Cambridge, MA: Division of Research, Harvard Business School.

Ekvall, G. (1996). Organizational climate for creativity and innovation. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 105–123.

82 Ekvall, G. (1997). Organizational conditions and levels of creativity. Creativity and

innovation Management, 6(4), 195-205.

Faraj, S., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Majchrzak, A. (2011). Knowledge collaboration in online communities. Organization science, 22(5), 1224-1239.

Fernback, J., & Thompson, B. (1995). Virtual Communities: Abort, Retry, Failure?

Presented as "Computer-Mediated Communication and the American Collectivity: The Dimensions of Community Within Cyberspace," at the annual convention of the International Communication Association, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Füller, J. (2010). Refining virtual co-creation from a consumer perspective. California management review, 52(2), 98-122.

Füller, J., Matzler, K., Hutter, K., & Hautz, J. (2012). Consumers' creative talent: Which characteristics qualify consumers for open innovation projects? An exploration of asymmetrical effects. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21(3), 247-262.

Gibson, C., & Mumford, M. D. (2013). Evaluation, criticism, and creativity: Criticism content and effects on creative problem solving. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7(4), 314.

Glăveanu, V. P. (2010). Paradigms in the study of creativity: Introducing the perspective of cultural psychology. New ideas in psychology, 28(1), 79-93

Glăveanu, V.P. (2013). Rewriting the Language of Creativity: The Five A´s Framework.

Review of General Psychology 17(1), 69-81.

Hienerth, C., Von Hippel, E., & Jensen, M. B. (2014). User community vs. producer innovation development efficiency: A first empirical study. Research policy, 43(1), 190-201.

Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., & Zhou, J. (2009). A cross-level perspective on employee creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity.

Academy of management journal, 52(2), 280-293.

Ind, N., & Coates, N. (2013). The meanings of co-creation. European Business Review, 25(1), 86-95.

Iriberri, A., & Leroy, G. (2009). A life-cycle perspective on online community success. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 41(2), 11.

Janis, I. L. (1971). Groupthink. Psychology today, 5(6), 43-46.

83 Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four C model of

creativity. Review of general psychology, 13(1), 1.

Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. E. (1983). Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Free-rider effects. Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 44(1), 78.

Kirton, M. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of applied psychology, 61(5), 622.

Kirton, M. (1978). Have adaptors and innovators equal levels of creativity?. Psychological reports, 42(3), 695-698.

Kurtzberg, T. R. (2005). Feeling creative, being creative: An empirical study of diversity and creativity in teams. Creativity Research Journal, 17(1), 51-65.

Jawecki, G., Füller, J., & Gebauer, J. (2011). A comparison of creative behaviours in online communities across cultures. Creativity and Innovation Management, 20(3), 144-156.

Keck, S. L. (1997). Top management team structure: Differential effects by environmental context. Organization science, 8(2), 143-156.

Kozinets, R. V. (1999). E-tribalized marketing?: The strategic implications of virtual communities of consumption. European Management Journal, 17(3), 252-264.

Kozinets (2015). Netnography: Redefined (2. Ed.). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Kurtzberg, T. R., & Amabile, T. M. (2001). From Guilford to creative synergy: Opening the black box of team-level creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3-4), 285-294.

Kurtzberg, T. R. (2005). Feeling creative, being creative: An empirical study of diversity and creativity in teams. Creativity Research Journal, 17(1), 51-65.

Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1992). Paralanguage and social perception in computer‐mediated communication. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 2(3-4), 321-341.

Levine, Choi, and Moreland (2003) Newcomer Innovation in Work Teams. Chapter 10 in Paulus, P. B., & Nijstad, B. A. (Eds.). (2003). Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration. Oxford University Press.

Larey, T. S., & Paulus, P. B. (1999). Group preference and convergent tendencies in small groups: A content analysis of group brainstorming performance. Creativity Research Journal, 12(3), 175-184.

84 Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1985). Innovation and socialization in small groups. In S.

Moscovici, G. Mugny, & E. Van Avermaet (Eds.), Perspectives on minority influence (pp. 143–169). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Levine, J. M., Choi, H. S., & Moreland, R. L. (2003). Newcomer innovation in work teams.

In Paulus, P. B., & Nijstad, B. A. (Eds.) Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration, 202-224.

Li, H. (2004). Virtual community studies: A literature review, synthesis and research agenda. AMCIS 2004 Proceedings, 324.

Luarn, P., & Hsieh, A. Y. (2014). Speech or silence: the effect of user anonymity and member familiarity on the willingness to express opinions in virtual communities.

Online Information Review, 38(7), 881-895.

Mahr, D., & Lievens, A. (2012). Virtual lead user communities: Drivers of knowledge creation for innovation. Research policy, 41(1), 167-177.

Maier, E., & Branzei, O. (2010). Creative conflict in digital imaging communities. Emotions and Organizational Dynamism, 6, 333.

Martins, L. L., Gilson, L. L., & Maynard, M. T. (2004). Virtual teams: What do we know and where do we go from here?. Journal of management, 30(6), 805-835.

Mathisen, G. E., & Einarsen, S. (2004). A review of instruments assessing creative and innovative environments within organizations. Creativity Research Journal, 16(1), 119-140.

McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory.

Journal of community psychology, 14(1), 6-23.

Merrotsy, P. (2013). A note on Big-C creativity and little-c creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 25(4), 474-476.

Nemeth, C. J., Personnaz, B., Personnaz, M., & Goncalo, J. A. (2004). The liberating role of conflict in group creativity: A study in two countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(4), 365-374.

Paulus, P. B. (1998). Developing consensus about groupthink after all these years.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73(2-3), 362-374.

Paulus, P. B., & Dzindolet, M. T. (1993). Social influence processes in group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 575.

Paulus, P. B., & Nijstad, B. A. (Eds.). (2003). Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration. Oxford University Press.

85 Reicher, S. D., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (1995). A social identity model of deindividuation

phenomena. European review of social psychology, 6(1), 161-198.

Remmers de Vries, S., & Valadez, A. A. (2008). Let our voices be heard: qualitative analysis of an internet discussion board. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 3(4), 383-400.

Ridings, C. M., & Gefen, D. (2004). Virtual community attraction: Why people hang out online. Journal of Computer-mediated communication, 10(1), JCMC10110.

Ridings, C. M., Gefen, D., & Arinze, B. (2002). Some antecedents and effects of trust in virtual communities. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(3-4), 271-295.

Ridings, C., Gefen, D., & Arinze, B. (2006). Psychological barriers: Lurker and poster motivation and behavior in online communities. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 18(1), 16.

Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305-310.

Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 657–687.

Runco, M. A. (2007). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, development, and practice. Elsevier.

Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92-96.

Sawhney, M., Verona, G., & Prandelli, E. (2005). Collaborating to create: The Internet as a platform for customer engagement in product innovation. Journal of interactive marketing, 19(4), 4-17.

Sawyer, K. (2007). Group genius: The creative power of collaboration. New York:

BasicBooks.

Sawyer, R. K. (2011). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation. Oxford University Press.

Sonnenburg, S. (2004). Creativity in communication: A theoretical framework for collaborative product creation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13(4), 254-262.

Sproull, L., & Faraj, S. (1997). Atheism, sex, and databases: The net as a social technology.

Culture of the Internet, 16(3), 35-51.

Stein, M. I. (1953). Creativity and culture. The journal of psychology, 36(2), 311-322.

86 Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press.

Stroebe, W., & Diehl, M. (1994). Why groups are less effective than their members: on productivity losses in idea-generating groups. European review of social psychology, 5(1), 271-303.

Stroebe, W., & Frey, B. S. (1982). Self‐interest and collective action: The economics and psychology of public goods. British Journal of Social Psychology, 21(2), 121-137.

Suler, J. (2005). The online disinhibition effect. International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 2(2), 184-188

Sun, N., Rau, P. P. L., & Ma, L. (2014). Understanding lurkers in online communities: A literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 38, 110-117.

Taggar, S. (2002). Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 315–330.

Torres, E. N. (2017). Online-to-Offline Interactions and Online Community Life Cycles: A Longitudinal Study of Shared Leisure Activities. Leisure Sciences, 1-19.

Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited.

Group & Organization Studies, 2(4), 419-427.

Tönnies, F. (1912). Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft: Grundbegriffe der reinen Soziologie [Community and society: key terms of the pure sociology].

Van Der Vegt, G. S., & Bunderson, J. S. (2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification.

Academy of management Journal, 48(3), 532-547.

Von Hippel, E., Ogawa, S., & De Jong, J. P. (2011). The age of the consumer-innovator.

MIT Sloan management review, 53(1), 27.

Von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: a source of novel product concepts. Management science, 32(7), 791-805.

Weber, R. (2004). The Rhetoric of Positivism Versus Interpretivism: A Personal View 1.

MIS quarterly, 28(1), III

Wellman, B., & Gulia, M. (1997). Where does social support come from? The social network basis of interpersonal resources for coping with stress. In Social

87 Conditions, Stress, Resources and Health. National Institute of Mental Health Rockville, MDWu & Tsang, 2008

Ziller, R. C., Behringer, R. D., & Goodchilds, J. D. (1960). The minority newcomer in open and closed groups. The Journal of Psychology, 50(1), 75-84

Ziller, R. C., Behringer, R. D., & Jansen, M. J. (1961). The newcomer in open and closed groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 45(1), 55.

7 APPENDIX 1

Statistics on communication patterns

r/BulletJournal r/Bujo

Posts 12.879 727

Comments 85.851 (ratio 6,6) 6.641 (ratio 9,1)

Posts (2018) 4719 452

Comments (2018) 27852 (ratio 5,9) 4.127 (ration 9,1) Posts with picture 8.773 (68%); 2014-2018 400 (55%); 2016-2018 Posts without picture 4.106 (32%); 2014-2018 327 (45%); 2016-2018 Posts with picture

(2018)

3655 (77%)

MeanComments: 6

ZeroComments: 688 (19%)

264 (58%)

MeanComments: 8 ZeroComments: 14 (5%) Posts without picture

(2018)

1064 (23%)

MeanComments: 4

ZeroComments: 397 (37%)

188 (42%) MeanComments:

Zero Comments: 45 (23%)

Posts without Response

2258 (18%) 98 (13%)

Post without Response 2018

1085 (23%) 59 (11%)

Table 1: Activity and Interaction

r/Bulletjoural r/Bujo

Subscribers April 18 64.000 12.000

Subscribers August 18 85.000 (+32%) 17.000 (+41%) Table 2: Subscribers from April-August (Observation)

89 Table 3: r/Bulletjournal Distinct Authors

Table 4 r/Bujo Distinct Authors

1323 1213 1390 1991

3049

2355 2223 2151

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr

2017 2018

r/Bulletjournal distinct authors 17/18

Total

1 32

151 158 134185 203 503

434 376 400

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr

Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2

2017 2018

r/Bujo distinct authors

Total

Row Labels

Distinct Count of author 2018

Jan 3049

Feb 2355

Mar 2223

Apr 2151

Grand Total 6989

Row Labels

Distinct Count of author 2018

Jan 503

Feb 434

Mar 376

Apr 400

Grand Total 1242

Total Posts Comments

DrazzyG 952 Randomniscity 65 DrazzyG 950

Destins_Destiny 550 ladyofgreentea 37 Destins_Destiny 522 ladyofgreentea 460 lackinginsanity 34 ladyofgreentea 423

75footubi 432 sonbonn 31 75footubi 421

Randomniscity 425 RipleyRiot 31 Randomniscity 360

Skysorania 338 redbujo 30 Skysorania 326

ghostsco 329 MyOwnGuitarHero 29 ghostsco 307

Pewtarizard 279 xThexUnrealx 28 uglybutterfly025 274

uglybutterfly025 277 royal_rose_ 28 Pewtarizard 273

royal_rose_ 261 Skyhigh08 28 eperdu 255

Table 5 r/Bulletjournal Top 10 Posters 2014-2018 Total

(2018)

Posts (2018)

Comments (2018)

Randomniscity 425 Randomniscity 65 Randomniscity 360

RipleyRiot 257 RipleyRiot 31 DrazzyG 233

DrazzyG 234 IcyFantasia 27 RipleyRiot 226

oliviablunt 219 DefensiveCode 25 oliviablunt 198

uglybutterfly025 196 yearinbullets 22 uglybutterfly025 194 heathersphilosophy 171 oliviablunt 21 heathersphilosophy 161

food_and_cuddles 146 ava_ven 20 food_and_cuddles 134

keyy0610 143 bujo_brainstorm 17 keyy0610 133

pumpkinrum 129 SteadfastDharma 15 pumpkinrum 129

bananotes 112 noblesse-oblige- 15 ladyofgreentea 100

Table 6 r/Bulletjournal Top 10 Posters Jan-Apr 2018

Total Posts Comments

Nadio8 201 Nadio8 28 MrsRevShamwow 179

MrsRevShamwow 183 tachy_as_a_clam 14 Nadio8 173

super_corgi 140 marianlibrarian13 10 super_corgi 137 marianlibrarian13 101 hockeyandquidditch 10 Destins_Destiny 92 Destins_Destiny 100 Destins_Destiny 8 marianlibrarian13 91

tachy_as_a_clam 82 1itt1ewing 8 h-e-a-t-h-e-r 73

h-e-a-t-h-e-r 78 Bdi89 6 woven_noodles 70

woven_noodles 71 Lordtittyfarts 5 tachy_as_a_clam 68

eperdu 68 MissHurt 5 eperdu 68

soapturtle 65 h-e-a-t-h-e-r 5 soapturtle 63

Table 7 r/Bulletjournal Top 10 Posters 2016-2018 Total

(2018)

Posts (2018)

Comments (2018)

Nadio8 98 Nadio8 16 Nadio8 82

MrsRevShamwow 75 hockeyandquidditch 10 MrsRevShamwow 75 marianlibrarian13 51 1itt1ewing 8 marianlibrarian13 47

alcibiad 46 tachy_as_a_clam 7 alcibiad 44