Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sustaining Open Source Communities by Understanding the Influence of Discursive Manifestations on Sentiment

  • Published:
Information Systems Frontiers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Sustaining open source (OS) communities is fundamental to the long-term success of any open source software (OSS) project. An OSS project consists of a community of software developers who are part of a larger business ecosystem involving hardware and software companies. Peer review of software code, known as patch review comments, is an important quality assurance activity for OSS development that requires developers to provide feedback concerning their degree of satisfaction. Despite the importance of feedback, which can affect sentiment of OS communities, the underlying discourse has not been studied. In this study, we use Activity Theory to identify and categorise 20,651 discursive manifestations of contradictions that occurred in patch review comments of a large, evolving OS community. Unique community-specific expressions are identified and mapped to developers’ sentiment during a software release cycle. The study contributes new insights concerning discursive manifestations of contradictions as a driving force for sustaining OS communities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Patches are sets of modifications to the existing codebase of a specific OS project.

References

  • Allen, D. K., Brown, A., Karanasios, S., & Norman, A. (2013). How Should Technology-Mediated Organizational Change Be Explained? A Comparison of the Contributions of Critical Realism and Activity Theory. MIS Quarterly, 37, 835–854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appleyard, M. M., & Chesbrough, H. W. (2017). The dynamics of open strategy: from adoption to reversion. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 310–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aue, A., & Gamon, M. (2005). Customizing sentiment classifiers to new domains: A case study. In Proceedings of recent advances in natural language processing (RANLP) 1(3), 1–2.

  • Banville, C., & Landry, M. (1989). Can the Field of MIS be Disciplined? Communications of the ACM, 32, 48–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barham, A. (2012). The impact of formal QA practices on FLOSS communities–the case of Mozilla. In Proceedings of 2012 IFIP International Conference on Open Source Systems (pp. 262–267). Berlin: Springer

  • Baysal, O., & Malton, A. J. (2007, May). Correlating social interactions to release history during software evolution. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Mining Software Repositories (MSR’07: ICSE Workshops 2007) (pp. 7–7). IEEE.

  • Bednar, P. M., & Welch, C. (2020). Socio-Technical Perspectives on Smart Working: Creating Meaningful and Sustainable Systems. Information Systems Frontiers, 22(4), 281–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-019-09921-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berns, M., Townend, A., Khayat, Z., Balagopal, B., Reeves, M., Hopkins, M. S., & Kruschwitz, N. (2009). The business of sustainability: what it means to managers now. MIT Sloan Management Review, 51(1), 20–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertelsen, O. W., & Bødker, S. (2000). Introduction: Information technology in human activity. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 12(1), 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beynon-Davies, P. (2010). The enactment of significance: a unified conception of information, systems and technology. European Journal of Information Systems, 19(4), 389–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird, C., Gourley, A., Devanbu, P., Gertz, M., & Swaminathan, A. (2006). Mining email social networks. In Proceedings of the 2006 International Workshop on Mining Software Repositories (pp. 137–143). ACM.

  • Carver, J., Capilla, R., Penzenstadler, B., Serebrenik, A., & Valdezate, A. (2018). Gender, sentiment and emotions, and safety-critical systems. IEEE Software, 35(6), 16–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, P., Clinton, J., Kerber, R., Khabaza, T., Reinartz, T., Shearer, C., & Wirth, R. (2000). CRISP-DM 1.0: Step-by-step data mining guide. Chicago: SPSS Inc, 16.

  • Chaudhury, A., Mallick, D., & Rao, H. R. (2001). Web channels in e-commerce. Communications of the ACM, 44(1), 99–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, H., Chiang, R. H., & Storey, V. C. (2012). Business intelligence and analytics: From big data to big impact. MIS Quarterly, 36(4), 1165–1188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, R., Sharman, R., Rao, H. R., & Upadhyaya, S. J. (2013). Data Model Development for Fire Related Extreme Events: An Activity Theory Approach. MIS Quarterly, 37, 125–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, M., & Engeström., Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition (pp. 1–46). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Choudhury, M., & Counts., S. (2013). Understanding affect in the workplace via social media. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (303–316). New York: ACM

  • De Dreu, C. K. W. & Van De Vliert., E. (1997). Introduction: Using conflict in organizations.

  • Dennehy, D., & Conboy, K. (2019). Breaking the flow: a study of contradictions in information systems development (ISD). Information Technology & People, 33(2), 477–501. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-02-2018-0102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dionne, P., & Bourdon, S. (2018). Contradictions as the driving force of collective and subjective development group employment programmes. Journal of Education and Work, 31(3), 277–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ditsa, G. (2003). Activity theory as a theoretical foundation for information systems research. Information Management: Support Systems & Multimedia Technology,192–231.

  • Ducheneaut, N. (2005). Socialization in an open source software community: A socio-technical analysis. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 14(4), 323–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engestrom, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.

  • Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. Perspectives on activity theory, 19(38), 19–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engestrom, Y. (2000). Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work. Ergonomics, 43(7), 960–974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of education and work, 14(1), 133–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y., & Kerosuo, H. (2007). From workplace learning to inter-organizational learning and back: the contribution of activity theory. Journal of Workplace Learning, 19(6), 336–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2011). Discursive manifestations of contradictions in organizational change efforts: A methodological framework. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(3), 368–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, B., & Adam, F. (2000). The status of the IS field: historical perspective and practical orientation.

  • Foot, K. A. (2001). Cultural-historical activity theory as practice theory: Illuminating the development of conflict-monitoring network. Communication Theory, 11(1), 56–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamalielsson, J., & Lundell, B. (2014). Sustainability of Open Source software communities beyond a fork: How and why has the LibreOffice project evolved? Journal of Systems and Software, 89, 128–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García-Cumbreras, M., Montejo-Ráez, A., & Díaz-Galiano, M. C. (2013). Pessimists and optimists: Improving collaborative filtering through sentiment analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(17), 6758–6765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Germonprez, M., Kendall, J. E., Kendall, K. E., Mathiassen, L., Young, B., & Warner, B. (2017). A theory of responsive design: A field study of corporate engagement with open source communities. Information Systems Research, 28(1), 64–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A., Deokar, A., Iyer, L., Sharda, R., & Schrader, D. (2018). Big data and analytics for societal impact: Recent research and trends. Information Systems Frontiers, 20(2), 185–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzman, E., Azócar, D., & Li, Y. (2014). Sentiment analysis of commit comments in GitHub: an empirical study. In Proceedings of the 11th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (352–355). New York: ACM.

  • Guzzi, A., Bacchelli, A., Lanza, M., Pinzger, M., & Deursen, A.-V. (2013). Communication in open source software development mailing lists. In Proceedings of the 10th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (277–286). Piscataway: IEEE Press.

  • Hasan, H., & Banna, S. (2012). The unit of analysis in IS theory: The case for activity. Information Systems Foundations, 191.

  • Hasan, H., Gould, E., & Hyland, P. (1998). Information systems and activity theory: tools in context. Wollongong: University of Wollongong Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasan, H., Kazluaskas, A., & Crawford, K. P. (2010). Blending complexity and activity frameworks for a broader and deeper understanding of IS. In Proceedings of the Thirty First International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), St. Louis, USA.

  • Helle, M. (2000). Disturbances and contradictions as tools for understanding work in the newsroom. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 12(1), 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemetsberger, A., & Reinhardt, C. (2009). Collective development in open-source communities: An activity theoretical perspective on successful online collaboration. Organization Studies, 30(9), 987–1008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hertel, M., & Wiesent, J. (2013). Investments in information systems: A contribution towards sustainability. Information Systems Frontiers, 15(5), 815–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschheim, R., Klein, H. K., & Lyytinen, K. (1996). Exploring the intellectual structures of information systems development: a social action theoretic analysis. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 6(1–2), 1–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, S. Y., & Rai, A. (2017). Continued voluntary participation intention in firm-participating open source software projects. Information Systems Research, 28(3), 603–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, S. Y., & Richardson, A. (2013). Trust and distrust in open source software development. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 54(1), 84–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Igira, F. T. (2008). The situatedness of work practices and organizational culture: implications for information systems innovation uptake. Journal of Information Technology, 23(2), 79–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilyenkov, E. V. (1974). Activity and knowledge. Philosophy and culture.

  • Jensen, C., & Scacchi, W. (2007). Role migration and advancement processes in OSSD projects: A comparative case study. In Proceedings of the 29th international conference on Software Engineering (pp. 364–374). Washington, D.C.: IEEE Computer Society.

  • Jongeling, R., Datta, S., & Serebrenik, A. (2015). Choosing your weapons: On sentiment analysis tools for software engineering research. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME) (531–535). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSM.2015.7332508.

  • Karanasios, S. (2018). Toward a unified view of technology and activity: The contribution of activity theory to information systems research. Information Technology & People, 31(1), 134–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karanasios, S., & Allen, D. (2014). Mobile technology in mobile work: contradictions and congruencies in activity systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 23(5), 529–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karanasios, S., Riisla, K., & Simeonova, B. (2017). Exploring the use of contradictions in activity theory studies: An interdisciplinary review.

  • Kietzmann, J. (2008). Interactive innovation of technology for mobile work. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(3), 305–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klievink, B., Romijn, B. J., Cunningham, S., & de Bruijn, H. (2017). Big data in the public sector: Uncertainties and readiness. Information systems frontiers, 19(2), 267–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korpela, M., Mursu, A., & Soriyan, H. A. (2001). Information systems development as an activity. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 11(1–2), 111–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction, 1744.

  • Kuutti, K. (1999) Activity theory, transformation of work, and information systems design. Perspectives on activity theory: 360.

  • Kuutti, K., & Molin-Juustila, T. (1998). Information System Support for ‘Loose’Co-ordination in a Network Organisation: an Activity Theory perspective. Information Systems and Activity Theory: Tools in Context: 73–92.

  • Lakhani, K. R., & Von Hippel, E. (2004). How open source software works:“free” user-to-user assistance. In Porceedings of the Produktentwicklung mit virtuellen Communities (pp. 303–339). Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag.

  • Lin, B., Zampetti, F., Bavota, G., Di Penta, M., Lanza, M., & Oliveto, R. (2018). Sentiment analysis for software engineering: How far can we go? In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE/ACM 40th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) (94–104). Piscataway: IEEE.

  • Malaurent, J., & Karanasios, S. (2020). Learning from workaround practices: The challenge of enterprise system implementations in multinational corporations. Information Systems Journal, 30(4), 639–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, M. (2004). Theory: Seeking a plain English explanation. JITTA: Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 6(2), 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikalef, P., Pappas, I. O., Krogstie, J., & Pavlou, P. A. (2020). Big data and business analytics: A research agenda for realizing business value. Information & Management, 57(1), 103237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mistrík, I., Grundy, J., Van der Hoek, A., & Whitehead, J. (2010). Collaborative software engineering: challenges and prospects. In Collaborative Software Engineering (389–403). Berlin: Springer.

  • Mockus, A., Fielding, R. T., & Herbsleb, J. (2000). A case study of open source software development: the Apache server,” ICSE ‘00: In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 263―272). New York: ACM Press.

  • Mursu, A., Luukkonen, I., Toivanen, M., & Korpela, M. (2007). Activity Theory in information systems research and practice: theoretical underpinnings for an information systems development model. Information Research: An International Electronic Journal, 12(3), 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nardi, B. A. (1996). Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (Vol. 436, pp. 7–16). Cambridge: MIT Press.

  • Novielli, N., Girardi, D., & Lanubile, F. (2018). A Benchmark Study on Sentiment Analysis for Software Engineering Research. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (pp. 364–375). New York: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3196398.3196403.

  • Nurolahzade, M., Nasehi, S. M., Khandkar, S. H., & Rawal, S. (2009). The role of patch review in software evolution: an analysis of the mozilla firefox. In Proceedings of the joint international and annual ERCIM workshops on Principles of software evolution (IWPSE) and software evolution (Evol) workshops (pp. 9–18). New York: ACM.

  • Ogawa, M., Ma, K. L., Bird, C., Devanbu, P., & Gourley, A. (2007). Visualizing social interaction in open source software projects. In Proceedings of the 2007 6th International Asia-Pacific Symposium on Visualization (pp. 25–32). Piscataway: IEEE.

  • Ortu, M., Destefanis, G., Adams, B., Murgia, A., Marchesi, M., & Tonelli, R. (2015). The jira repository dataset: Understanding social aspects of software development. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on predictive models and data analytics in software engineering (pp. 1–4).

  • Ozer, M., & Vogel, D. (2015). Contextualized relationship between knowledge sharing and performance in software development. Journal of Management Information Systems, 32, 134–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pappas, I.-O., Mikalef, P., Giannakos, M.-N., Krogstie, J., & Lekakos, G. (2018). Big data and business analytics ecosystems: paving the way towards digital transformation and sustainable societies. Berlin: Springer.

  • Paul, R., Bosu, A., & Sultana, K. Z. (2018). Expressions of Sentiments During Code Reviews: Male vs. Female. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 26th International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER) (pp. 26–37). Piscataway: IEEE.

  • Perrini, F., & Tencati, A. (2006). Sustainability and stakeholder management: the need for new corporate performance evaluation and reporting systems. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(5), 296–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pletea, D., Vasilescu, B., & Serebrenik, A. (2014). Security and emotion: sentiment analysis of security discussions on GitHub. In Proceedings of the 11th working conference on mining software repositories (pp. 348–351). New York: ACM.

  • Popovič, A., Hackney, R., Tassabehji, R., & Castelli, M. (2018). The impact of big data analytics on firms’ high value business performance. Information Systems Frontiers, 20(2), 209–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy & Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigby, P. C., German, D. M., & Storey, M. A. (2008). Open source software peer review practices: a case study of the apache server. In Proceedings of the 30th international conference on Software engineering (pp. 541–550). New York: ACM.

  • Rogers, D. S., Duraiappah, A. K., Antons, D. C., Munoz, P., Bai, X., Fragkias, M., & Gutscher, H. (2012). A vision for human well-being: transition to social sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4(1), 61–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousinopoulos, A., Robles, G., & González-Barahona, J. (2014). Sentiment Analysis Of Free / Open Source Developers: Preliminary Findings From a Case Study. Electronic Journal of Information Systems, 13(2), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rückriem, G. (2009). Digital technology and mediation: A challenge to activity theory. Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp. 88–111).

  • Ryu, C., Kim, Y. J., Chaudhury, A., & Rua, H.-R. (2005). Knowledge acquisition via three learning processes in enterprise information portals: Learning-by-investment, learning-by-doing, and learning-from-others. MIS Quarterly, 29, 245–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sannino, A. (2008). Experiencing conversations: Bridging the gap between discourse and activity. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 38(3), 267–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sethanandha, B. D. (2011). Improving open source software patch contribution process: methods and tools. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 1134–1135). New York: ACM.

  • Sethanandha, B. D., Massey, B., & Jones, W. (2010a). Managing Open Source Contributions For Software Project Sustainability. Management of Engineering & Technology, 2010. In Proceedings of the Technology Management for Global Economic Growth (pp. 1–9). IEEE. Portland International.

  • Sethanandha, B. D., Massey, B., & Jones, W. (2010b). On the need for OSS patch contribution tools. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Building Sustainable Open Source Communities (Notre Dame, IN, USA, June 2010)..

  • Shaikh, M., & Vaast, E. (2016). Folding and unfolding: Balancing openness and transparency in open source communities. Information Systems Research, 27(4), 813–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharif, K. Y., English, M., Ali, N., Exton., C., Collins, J. J., & Buckley, J. (2015). An empirically-based characterization and quantification of information seeking through mailing lists during open source developers’ software evolution. Information and Software Technology, 57(3), 77–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shearer, C. (2000). The CRISP-DM model: the new blueprint for data mining. Journal of Data Warehousing, 5(4), 13–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shihab, E., Bettenburg, N., Adams, B., & Hassan, A. E. (2009). On the central role of mailing lists in open source projects: An exploratory study. In Proceedings of the JSAI International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 91–103). Berlin: Springer.

  • Sholler, D., Steinmacher, I., Ford, D., Averick, M., Hoye, M., & Wilson, G. (2019). Ten simple rules for helping newcomers become contributors to open projects. PLoS Computational Biology, 15(9), e1007296.

  • Sinha, V., Lazar, A., & Sharif, B. (2016). Analyzing developer sentiment in commit logs. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (pp. 520–523). New York: ACM.

  • Slavova, M., & Karanasios, S. (2018). When Institutional Logics Meet Information and Communication Technologies: Examining Hybrid Information Practices in Ghana’s Agriculture. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 19(9), 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solow, R. M. (1993). Sustainability: An economists perspective. Published in Dorfman, R. & Dorfman, NS (eds.) Selected readings in environmental economics.

  • Sowe, S. K., Stamelos, I., & Angelis, L. (2008). Understanding knowledge sharing activities in free/open source software projects: An empirical study. Journal of Systems and Software, 81(3), 431–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tourani, P., Jiang, Y., & Adams, B. (2014). Monitoring sentiment in open source mailing lists: exploratory study on the apache ecosystem. In Proceedings of 24th Annual International Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering (pp. 34–44). Armonk: IBM Corp.

  • Turney, P. D. (2002). Thumbs up or thumbs down?: semantic orientation applied to unsupervised classification of reviews. In Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting on association for computational linguistics (pp. 417–424). Stroudsburg: Association for Computational Linguistics.

  • Valecha, R., Rao, R., Upadhyaya, S., & Sharman, R. (2019). An activity theory approach to modeling dispatch-mediated emergency response. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 20(1), 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeulen, H., Gain, J., Marais, P., & O’Donovan, S. (2016). Reimagining gamification through the lens of Activity Theory. In Proceedings of the 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS)..

  • Wang, J., Shih, P. C., Wu, Y., & Carroll, J. M. (2015). Comparative case studies of open source software peer review practices. Information and Software Technology, 67(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of management review, 14, 516–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weißgerber, P., Neu, D., & Diehl, S. (2008). Small patches get in! In Proceedings of the 2008 international working conference on Mining software repositories (pp. 67–76). Leipzig: ACM.

  • White, L., Burger, K., & Yearworth, M. (2016). Understanding behaviour in problem structuring methods interventions with activity theory. European Journal of Operational Research, 249(3), 983–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, T., Wiebe, J., & Hoffmann, P. (2005). Recognizing contextual polarity in phrase-level sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the Human Language Technology and Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 347–354). Stroudsburg: Association for Computational Linguistics.

  • Wiredu, G. O., & Sørensen, C. (2006). The dynamics of control and mobile computing in distributed activities. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(3), 307–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, I., & Matusiak, K. (2016). Discover digital libraries: Theory and practice. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported with the financial support of the Science Foundation Ireland grant 13/RC/2094 and co-funded under the European Regional Development Fund through the Southern & Eastern Regional Operational Programme to Lero - the Science Foundation Ireland Research Centre for Software (www.lero.ie).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland

    Denis Dennehy, Kieran Conboy & Jaganath Babu

  2. Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

    Jennifer Ferreira

Authors
  1. Denis Dennehy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kieran Conboy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jennifer Ferreira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jaganath Babu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Denis Dennehy.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dennehy, D., Conboy, K., Ferreira, J. et al. Sustaining Open Source Communities by Understanding the Influence of Discursive Manifestations on Sentiment. Inf Syst Front 25, 241–257 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-020-10059-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-020-10059-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation