The role of users in innovation processes has gained increasing attention in innovation studies, technology studies, and media studies. Scholars have identified users and use practices as a source of innovation. So far, however, little insight has been generated in innovation processes in which communities of users are the driving force in all phases of the innovation process. This article explores the conceptual vocabularies of innovation studies and actor— network theory and discusses their adequacy for describing and understanding the dynamics of user-initiated innovation processes in which community and innovation are closely intertwined. The authors introduce the concept of community innovation and argue for its relevance for understanding the full dynamics of innovations initiated and shaped by user collectives. The article elaborates a qualitative case study of Wireless Leiden, a local wireless network infrastructure in the Dutch town of Leiden initiated, designed, and maintained by a local community of users.
Akrich, M.1992. The de-scription of technological objects. In Shaping technology, building society. Studies in sociotechnical change, ed. W. Bijker and J. Law, 205-24. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
Benkler, Y.2002. Coase's penguin, or, linux and the nature of the firm . The Yale Law Journal112:369-446.
3.
Callon, M.1987. Society in the making: The study of technology as a tool for sociological analysis. In The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology, ed. W. E. Bijker, T. Hughes and T. Pinch, 83-103. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4.
Day, P., and D. Schuler.2004. Community practice: An alternative vision of the network society. In Community practice in the network society: Local action/global interaction, ed. P. Day and D. Schuler, 3-20. London : Routledge.
5.
Federal Communications Commission.1985. Gen. Docket 81-413; FCC 85-245. http://www.marcus-spectrum.com/documents/81413RO.txt (accessed February 21, 2006).
6.
---, Office of Engineering and Technology.1993 . Understanding the FCC regulations for low-power, non-licensed transmitters, p. 2. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet63/oet63rev.pdf (accessed February 21, 2006).
7.
Franke, N., and S. Shah.2003. How communities support innovative activities: An exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users. Research Policy31 (1): 157-78.
8.
Gurstein, M., ed. 2000. Community informatics: Enabling communities with information and communication technologies . Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing .
9.
Hienerth, C.2006. The commercialization of user innovations: The development of the rodeo kayak industry. R&D Management36 (3): 273-94.
10.
Hughes, T.P.1983. Networks of power. Electrification in Western society 1880-1930. Baltimore, MD and London : John Hopkins University Press.
11.
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.1997. IEEE 802.11 working group timelines. http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/11/Reports/802.11_Timelines.htm (accessed February 23, 2006).
12.
Keeble, L., and B. D. Loader, eds. 2001. Community informatics: Shaping computer-mediated social relations. London: Routledge.
13.
Kline, R., and T. Pinch.1996. Users as agents of technological change: The social construction of the automobile in the rural United States. Technology and Culture37 (4): 763-95.
14.
Law, J., ed. 1991. A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination. London and New York: Routledge .
15.
Leadbeater, C. . We-Think: The power of mass creativity. http://www.wethinkthebook.net (accessed April 19, 2007).
16.
---, and P. Miller.2004. The pro-am revolution: How enthusiasts are changing our economy and society. London: Demos .
17.
Lin, Y.2005. The future of sociology of FLOSS. First Monday10 (10). http://www.firstmonday.org (accessed October 25, 2007).
18.
Lüthje, C., C. Herstatt, and E. von Hippel.2005. User-innovators and "local" information: The case of mountain biking. Research Policy34:951-65.
19.
Oudshoorn, N., M. Brouns, and E. van Oost.2005. Diversity and distributed agency in the design and use of medical video-communication technologies. In Inside the politics of technology. Agency and normativity in the co-production of technology and society, ed. H. Harbers , 85-105. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
20.
---, and T. Pinch, eds. 2003. How users matter: The co-construction of users and technologies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21.
---. 2007. User-technology relationships: Some recent developments . In Handbook of science and technology studies, edited by E.J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman, 541-65. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
Rip, A., T. J. Misa , and J. Schot, eds. 1995. Managing technology in society. The approach of constructive technology assessment. London and New York: Pinter.
23.
Rohracher, H., ed. 2005. User involvement in innovation processes. Strategies and limitations from a socio-technical perspective. München and Vienna : Profil Verlag.
24.
Schot, J.1992. Constructive technology assessment and technology dynamics: The case of clean technologies. Science, Technology, & Human Values17 (1): 36-56.
25.
Schot, J., and A. de la Bruheze .2003. The mediated design of products, consumption, and consumers in the twentieth century. In How users matter: The co-construction of users and technologies, ed. N. Oudshoorn and T. Pinch , 229-46. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26.
Schuler, D., and P. Day , eds. 2004. Shaping the network society: The new role of civic society in cyberspace. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
27.
Shah, S.2000. Sources and patterns of innovation in a consumer products field: Innovations in sporting equipment. Sloan Working Paper 4105, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge. http://opensource.mit.edu (accessed October 25, 2007).
28.
---. 2005. Open beyond software. In Open sources 2.0 , ed. D. Cooper, C. DiBona, and M. Stone, 339-60. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly.
29.
---. 2006. Motivation, governance, and the viability of hybrid forms in open source software development. Management Science52 (7): 1000-14.
30.
---, and M. Tripsas.2004. When do user-innovators start firms? Towards a theory of user entrepreneurship. Working Paper 04-0106, University of Illinois. http://userinnovation.mit.edu (accessed October 25, 2007).
31.
Shapin, S.1989. The invisible technician. American Scientist77 (6): 554-63.
32.
Star, S.L.1991. Power, technology and the phenomenology of conventions: On being allergic to onions. In A sociology of monsters, ed. J. Law.London and New York: Routledge.
33.
---, and A. Strauss.1999. Layers of silence, arenas of voice: The ecology of visible and invisible work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work8 (1): 9-30.
34.
Stewart, J., and R. Williams.2005. The wrong trousers? Beyond the design fallacy: Social learning and the user. In User involvement in innovation processes, ed. H. Rohracher , 39-72. München and Vienna: Profil Verlag .
35.
TIME. 2006-7. European Edition, 168 (27/28): 26-57.
36.
Truffer, B., and G. Dürrenberger .1997. Outsider initiatives in the reconstruction of the car: The case of lightweight vehicle milieus in Switzerland . Science, Technology, & Human Values22 (2): 207-234.
37.
Van Drunen, R., D.W. van Gulik, J. Koolhaas, H. Schuurmans, and M. Vijn.2003. Building a wireless community network in the Netherlands. Paper presented at USENIX Annual Technical Conference, June, San Antonio, TX.
38.
Von Hippel, E.1976. The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process. Research Policy5 (3): 212-39.
39.
---. 1986. Lead users: A source of novel product concepts. Management Science32 (7): 791-805.
40.
---. 1988a. Lead user analysis for the development of new industrial products. Management Science34 (5): 569-82.
41.
---. 1988b. The sources of innovation. Oxford , UK: Oxford University Press.
42.
---. 1994. Sticky information and the locus of problem solving: Implications for innovation. Management Science40 (4): 429-39.
43.
---. 2005. Democratizing innovation. Cambridge and London: MIT Press.
44.
Von Hippel, E., and R. Katz.2002. Shifting innovation to users via toolkits . Management Science48 (7): 821-33.
45.
Von Hippel, E., and G. von Krogh.2003. Open source software and the "private-collective" innovation model: Issues for organization science. Organization Science14 (2): 209-23.
46.
Von Krogh, G., S. Spaeth, and K.R. Lakhani.2003. Community, joining, and specialization in open source software innovation: A case study. Research Policy32:1217-41.
47.
Woolgar, S.1991. Configuring the user. The case of usability trials. In A Sociology of Monsters, ed. J. Law, 58-99. London and New York: Routledge .
