Legitimate Peripheral Participation in the GNU/Linux Community Don Davis Texas State University
[email protected] Iffat Jabeen Texas State University
[email protected]
Abstract: The GNU/Linux operating system is a cornerstone of Information Technology developed through a community of contributors, who often develop and hone their skills within the context of community participation. Participants' status in the community strongly depends on their motivation to learn and to educate others. The GNU/Linux community seems to exemplify learning in the context of legitimate peripheral participation (LPP). The GNU/Linux community's strong emphasis on learning may represent a resource relatively untapped by educators. Therefore, research was conducted to study the significance and impact of LPP on learning within this community. The data collected highlight educational benefits of participation in the GNU/Linux community as well as the instruction of the FOSS framework in K-16 academic community.
Introduction Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) is often at the cutting edge of technology with rapid prototyping, debugging, and release cycles. GNU/Linux is the best known FOSS operating system with an estimated user base of more than five million users who form a successful community of learners. From an educational point-of-view, the discussion of FOSS is underdeveloped. Particularly, it is the framework under which GNU/Linux is used and developed that deserves more attention from the education community. In contrast to proprietary software, where the user is considered a passive participant whose primary function is that of a consumer, GNU/Linux consists of a community of users and developers who work together to create and improve software. Active participation is encouraged by members at all skill levels. For instance, members of the Linux user groups (LUG) participate in various online and face-to-face activities, both individually and as a group (Bagozzi & Dholakia, 2006). Similar to academia, the FOSS paradigm emphasizes the importance of sharing and constructing knowledge as a community of learners. Furthermore, the FOSS model and the GNU/Linux community exhibit several characteristics of legitimate peripheral participation, a process whereby learning occurs informally as members of a group interact to develop knowledge and skills (Edwards, 2001; Mateos-Garcia & Steinmueller, 2002). This paper seeks to explore this phenomenon through a two part research study.
Background Since the inception of Linux, Linus Torvalds, the progenitor of Linux, has encouraged democratic software development reliant upon community participation (Diamond & Torvalds, 2001). The framework he established grew quickly into a community of developers and users helping each other to learn about and improve the emergent operating system (Fang & Neufeld, 2009). This created a community expectation that those with greater knowledge and skill help guide those with less experience and knowledge (Himanen, Torvalds, & Castells, 2001). Learners within the community are encouraged to ask questions but are also encouraged to exercise due diligence in searching for answers.
Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses “Legitimate peripheral participation is proposed as a descriptor of engagement in social practice that entails learning as an integral constituent” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 35). This paper examines learning through the lens of LPP as described by Lave and Wenger (1991) who initially posited LPP as a way to speak about communities of knowledge and practice (p. 29). Lave and Wenger consider legitimate peripheral participation to be much more than learning by doing. They emphasize that it is a process whereby “a person's intentions to learn are engaged and the meaning of learning is configured through … becoming a full participant in a sociocultural practice” (p. 29). It is the aforementioned sociocultural practice that defines the GNU/Linux community and is the underlying focus of this study. It is the previously mentioned relationship between learning and becoming a full participant that prompted the overarching hypotheses1 and 2: Hypothesis 1: There is a significant relationship between GNU/Linux community members' participation and learning whereby an objective measure of participant status is the frequency of a member's engagement in activities. This overarching hypothesis is evaluated through: I. There is a significant correlation between members' overall participation and learning. II. There is a significant correlation between members’ participation in software activities (beyond simple use) and learning. III. There is a significant correlation between members' communication participation and learning. As a person becomes more involved with a sociocultural practice, that person will identify his or herself increasingly as a member of that sociocultural practice. Therefore: Hypothesis 2: There is a significant relationship between members' identification with the community and learning whereby a subjective measure of participant status is the member's stated level of identification with the GNU/Linux community. Viewing GNU/Linux through the filter of legitimate peripheral participation, a GNU/Linux community member would be expected to use the computer for typical desktop computing and then progress in the community through increasing contributions and eventually participate more fully by becoming involved in the development of GNU/Linux software and the GNU/Linux community (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Himanen et al., 2001). A typical progression might be a desktop user who after becoming more familiar with GNU/Linux instructs others and eventually contributes to more demanding tasks such as debugging, providing documentation, contributing patches and workarounds, and possibly becoming a package maintainer. Lave and Wenger emphasize that “learning involves the whole person” which includes “becoming a full participant” in social communities (p. 53). In the context of LPP becoming a full participant “implies becoming able to be involved in new activities, to perform new tasks and functions, [and] to master new understandings” within social communities because they “do not exist is isolation” (p.53). Following this line of reasoning: Hypothesis 3: There is a significant relationship between members' identification with the community and their contributions. This is evaluated through an analysis of the following components: I. There is a significant correlation between members' identification with the community and overall contributions to the GNU/Linux community. II. There is a significant correlation between members' identification with the community and software contributions to the GNU/Linux community. III. There is a significant correlation between members' identification with the community and communication contributions to the GNU/Linux community. Similar to the legitimate peripheral participation of tailors discussed by Lave and Wenger for whom “cultural transparency of technology seemed relevant” (p. 30), the transparency of technology has always played a crucial role in the development of GNU/Linux (Diamond & Torvalds, 2001). One of the tenets of the GNU/Linux community is that the source code (the original human readable programming) should always be available to and alterable by all users of GNU/Linux (“The Free Software Definition”, 2010). Since its beginning the GNU/Linux community has consisted of substantial numbers of bricoleurs and tinkerers who feel it important to be able to change programs as they please (See Papert, 1991). (This is the freedom implied by the label Free and Open Source software.)
In order to discuss the nature of FOSS and GNU/Linux it is helpful to speak in terms of legitimate peripheral participation. Although Lave and Wenger (1991) emphasize LPP’s composite nature (p. 35), an analysis of the GNU/Linux community is best facilitated through an examination of the individual prerequisites of legitimate peripheral participation. Based on the research findings of Fang and Neufeld (2009), “[i]nitial access and motivations are the precursors to peripheral participation in an OSS [Open Source Software] community. Once a member begins to participate, the LPP process ensues” (p. 44). Participants in the GNU/Linux community are legitimate participants. Users can, and frequently do, communicate directly with debuggers and package maintainers via email and public listservs. The bug reports and features requests are rapidly acknowledged and incorporated into software packages. Although some bugs and features take longer to incorporate, their status is publicly viewable (Mateos-Garcia & Steinmuller, 2002). Users often create and share patches (tiny changes in source code) with one another and developers. The developers use publicly readable open mailing lists and IRC channels to discuss development. The programming tools and source code are freely available to all. Learners are encouraged to tinker and learn as bricoleurs. It is the responsiveness to users and acceptance of their input that legitimizes the participation of GNU/Linux community members. As Lave and Wenger indicate, legitimacy is a “crucial condition for learning” (p. 35). The importance and presence of legitimate participants in the GNU/Linux community can be assessed through an evaluation of hypothesis 3. “Peripherality,” as described by Lave and Wenger, “suggests that there are multiple, varied, more- or lessengaged and -inclusive ways of being located in the fields of participation defined by a community” (pp. 35 – 36). The GNU/Linux strongly exhibits 'peripherality' in its numerous roles in which users and developers can participate. Users are encouraged to ask questions, help others, participate in LUGs and on forums, submit bug reports and feature requests, contribute code, and provide translations. Lave and Wenger expound that “[a]s … one moves toward more-intensive participation, peripherality is an empowering position” (p. 36). Fang and Neufeld (2009) observe that “[a]s new members become increasingly established in the community, their access to resources and understanding escalates, and this in turn stimulates them to participate even more actively in the future” (p. 14). The emphasis on identity construction and its role in learning echoes the belief in education that teachers should empower learners by avoiding disconnected learning. The importance and presence of peripherality in the GNU/Linux community can be assessed through an evaluation of the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 4: There is a positive correlation between members' participation in the GNU/Linux community and identification with the GNU/Linux. Further, it follows that full participants perceive engagement in the GNU/Linux and FOSS communities as educationally beneficial. Therefore: Hypothesis 5: There is a significant correlation between the level of participation and members’ perception of the educational benefits of involvement in GNU/Linux and FOSS communities. The FOSS community shares several characteristics with academia. Collaboration and guidance are key components of community membership. The strong emphasis on educational values may translate into community members’ perception that the inclusion of the FOSS framework may benefit the K-16 education system. This presupposes that: Hypothesis 6: There is a significant relationship between members’ learning in the GNU/Linux community and their recommendation of FOSS. A hypothesis evaluated by the components: I. There is a significant correlation between members' learning and the belief that involvement in the FOSS community is educationally beneficial. II. There is a significant correlation between members' learning and recommendation for teaching the FOSS framework to students in K-12. III. There is a significant correlation between members' learning and recommendation for teaching the FOSS framework to students in post secondary education.
Methodology This empirical study was conducted using an online survey and face-to-face interviews; the survey consisted of 21 questions and the interview included 18 semi-structured questions with active participants in the
GNU/Linux community reflecting on roles and learning in the GNU/Linux community. An online survey was utilized in order to ensure a wide participation of GNU/Linux users from across the world. The survey was designed to understand the GNU/Linux community; therefore, non GNU/Linux users were not directly targeted. Posts soliciting volunteers for participants in the online survey were posted to online message forums dedicated specifically to GNU/Linux such as Linuxquestions.org, Ubuntu, Red Hat, OpenSuse, and Debian user groups. Participants were also invited to this study through other means: Linux User Group (LUG) mailing lists, email, and blog posts. The survey, based on a Likert scale, was made available online for twelve weeks. An application MrInterview was utilized to create the survey and data were analyzed using SPSS and R. Interview respondents were participants of the installfest and charity event “Linux Against Poverty”. All participants read and signed a consent form that listed the purpose of the research, its procedure, objectives and use, terms of confidentiality, and contact information of the researchers. The online survey was completed by 4603 participants. The largest number (n > 3000) of respondents completed the survey after Ken Starks, well known for his Linux based charity work, posted the survey link on his blog (Starks, 2010). The ages of the respondents ranged from under 18 to over 45 years. The respondents were predominantly male. Ten participants of the Linux installfest volunteered for the interview all of whom were males.
Fig. 1: Respondents’ Gender
Fig. 2: Respondents’ Age
Fig. 3: Respondents’ Location
Results Preliminary data indicate that a significant correlation exists between community participation and perceived educational benefits of FOSS. Multiple regression analysis of variables indicates a strong preference for implementation of the FOSS framework in education. Welch’s t-tests and Pearson's product moment correlation tests were conducted to compare responses based on level of members’ participation, communication, and roles in the FOSS community. These tests indicated confidence levels of 95% and p < .001. Regression analysis was the primary tool used to determine the validity of the hypotheses and to identify significant regressors for further evaluation; correlation coefficients (r-values) and coefficients of determination (adjusted r² values) are provided. Out of the 4603 survey respondents, 35% expressed affiliation with the Linux community and 47% expressed strong affiliation. Seventy-three percent of respondents indicated that the FOSS framework is better suited to education than the proprietary software model. The following table presents some initial findings: Use of FOSS is educationally beneficial: Agree 90% Disagree 2% No opinion 8%
Participation in the FOSS community is educationally beneficial: Agree 86% Disagree 2% No opinion 12% Table 1: Initial Findings
Recommendations for using FOSS framework for: K-6 grades 81% 6-12 grades 92% College students 98%
In order to evaluate hypothesis 1, whether there is a significant relationship between level of participation and learning, responses about members’ participation in software creation and evaluation as well as communication activities tasks were computed and assessed. There was a significant correlation (r = 0.473, r² = 0.224, p < .001), between overall participation and learning, software participation and learning (r = 0.432, r² = 0.186, p < .001), and communication participation and learning (r = 0.426, r² = 0.181, p < .001). Visual analysis of data, a size-scale graph and hex tiles generated in R, highlights the prevalence of
Learning
Learning
respondents who participated frequently in the GNU/Linux community indicated that their learning was impacted positively (Fig. 4.1 and 4.2).
Overall Participation
Overall Participation
Fig. 4.1: Hypothesis 1
Fig. 4.2: Hypothesis 1
= 0.139, p < .001)
Learning
Learning
Evaluation of hypothesis 2 revealed that there was a moderate correlation (r = 0.373, r² between identification with the GNU/Linux community and learning (Fig. 5.1 and 5.2).
Identification with Community
Identification with Community
Fig. 5.1: Hypothesis 2
Fig. 5.2: Hypothesis 2
Total Contributions
Software Contributions
Communication Contributions
The validity of hypothesis 3 was determined by measuring the correlation between members' identification with the GNU/Linux community and their contributions within the GNU/Linux community. Correlation was evaluated separately for three sub-components: overall contributions, software contributions, and communication contributions. There was a significant relationship (r = 0.403, r² = 0.162, p < .001) between members' identification with the community and their overall contributions (Fig. 6.1). Results indicated moderate significance (r = 0.311, r² = 0.097, p.001). Regression values were used to assess whether there is a significant relationship between members’ learning in the FOSS community and their recommendation of the FOSS framework as educationally beneficial (hypothesis 6-II and III). For greater clarification in evaluation of this hypothesis, correlations were assessed separately for respondents' belief that involvement in the FOSS community is educationally beneficial, their recommendations for teaching the FOSS framework to students in K-12, and their recommendations for teaching the FOSS framework to students in post secondary education. Respondents were asked to identify on a scale of -2 to 2 whether they feel that involvement in the FOSS community is educationally beneficial, whether they recommend the teaching of the FOSS framework to K-12 students, and whether they recommend teaching the FOSS framework to college students. Results indicated a mild correlation (r = 0.272, r² = 0.074, p
