Reconceptualizing the paradox of openness: How solvers navigate sharing-protecting tensions in crowdsourcing
Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › fagfællebedømt
Standard
Reconceptualizing the paradox of openness : How solvers navigate sharing-protecting tensions in crowdsourcing. / Foege, J. Nils; Lauritzen, Ghita Dragsdahl; Tietze, Frank; Salge, Torsten Oliver.
I: Research Policy, Bind 48, Nr. 6, 07.2019, s. 1323-1339.Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › fagfællebedømt
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Reconceptualizing the paradox of openness
T2 - How solvers navigate sharing-protecting tensions in crowdsourcing
AU - Foege, J. Nils
AU - Lauritzen, Ghita Dragsdahl
AU - Tietze, Frank
AU - Salge, Torsten Oliver
PY - 2019/7
Y1 - 2019/7
N2 - The paradox of openness describes the fundamental tension between knowledge sharing and knowledge protection in open innovation. While sharing is vital for value creation, protecting is critical for value appropriation. Prior research has examined this paradox of openness from the perspective of the seeking firm, focusing on the firm-level challenges of inbound open innovation. In this article, we complement that research by illuminating the tensions between sharing and protecting in individual-level outbound open innovation, where we argue that the paradox of openness is most prevalent, yet much less well understood. Drawing on the experience of individual participants, or solvers, in intermediated crowdsourcing contests, we analyze textual data from 2,149 answers to five open-ended narrative questions embedded in a large-scale solver survey, as well as 43 in-depth interviews of solvers. Our findings indicate that individual solvers face fundamental sharing-protecting tensions that carry considerable economic and psychological costs. We also document how solvers attempt to navigate the paradox of openness by employing three formal and four informal value appropriation practices. They build elaborate configurations of these practices, which they tailor to the idiosyncrasies of each contest. They also dynamically adjust these configurations over time, as the contest and the interaction with the seeker unfold. We end by outlining how these findings contribute to a more multifaceted conceptualization and a richer understanding of the paradox of openness.
AB - The paradox of openness describes the fundamental tension between knowledge sharing and knowledge protection in open innovation. While sharing is vital for value creation, protecting is critical for value appropriation. Prior research has examined this paradox of openness from the perspective of the seeking firm, focusing on the firm-level challenges of inbound open innovation. In this article, we complement that research by illuminating the tensions between sharing and protecting in individual-level outbound open innovation, where we argue that the paradox of openness is most prevalent, yet much less well understood. Drawing on the experience of individual participants, or solvers, in intermediated crowdsourcing contests, we analyze textual data from 2,149 answers to five open-ended narrative questions embedded in a large-scale solver survey, as well as 43 in-depth interviews of solvers. Our findings indicate that individual solvers face fundamental sharing-protecting tensions that carry considerable economic and psychological costs. We also document how solvers attempt to navigate the paradox of openness by employing three formal and four informal value appropriation practices. They build elaborate configurations of these practices, which they tailor to the idiosyncrasies of each contest. They also dynamically adjust these configurations over time, as the contest and the interaction with the seeker unfold. We end by outlining how these findings contribute to a more multifaceted conceptualization and a richer understanding of the paradox of openness.
KW - Crowdsourcing
KW - Open innovation
KW - Paradox of openness
KW - Value appropriation
KW - Value capture
U2 - 10.1016/j.respol.2019.01.013
DO - 10.1016/j.respol.2019.01.013
M3 - Journal article
AN - SCOPUS:85060873817
VL - 48
SP - 1323
EP - 1339
JO - Research Policy
JF - Research Policy
SN - 0048-7333
IS - 6
ER -
ID: 241438682