Search

University of Technology Sydney. Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology. Central to our inquiry is how nonprofit organisations (nonprofits) realise service co-creation using social media. Extant literature reveals that nonprofits are increasingly adopting and using social media to mobilise and integrate resources through online donations, event invites, volunteering, and attracting informational and social support. The increase in nonprofit-public interaction on social media has become a resourcing practice and functional strategy for supporting nonprofits’ funding models through collaborative practices such as service co-creation. Some studies, although still very few, have acknowledged the possibilities for nonprofit service co-creation on social media; but none provides a conceptualisation and operationalisation of service co-creation. In this regard, there is a lack of insight on two issues, which, if addressed, could enhance our understanding of how nonprofits realise service co-creation through social media. The first issue is 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 forms of service co-creation do nonprofits realise through social media; and the second is 𝘩𝘰𝘸 social media interactions contribute to the observed forms of service co-creation. Drawing on the adaptive structuration theory (AST) and perspectives on technology affordances and organisation-public relationships, we generate 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘳𝘪 propositions on how nonprofits realise service co-creation through social media. First, because co-creation is multidimensional and varies by context, we maintain that nonprofits realise multiple forms of service co-creation through social media defined by the nature of their services. Second, because social media creates a platform for public participation in nonprofit services, we argue that the emergent structures of social media (i.e., possibilities for action, meaning and values conveyed) and the structures of organisation-public interaction (OPI) (i.e., the types of relationships and patterns of interaction) provide the mechanisms for service co-creation. Lastly, the actor’s capabilities are critical in understanding these structures; therefore, we conceptualise the emergence of a new capability as organisation generativity. We suggest that organisational generativity, i.e., the ability to rejuvenate, procreate and act in new ways to challenge the status quo, explains the emergent structures in the realisation of service co-creation on social media. We conducted a convergent mixed-methods study to identify and explain the generative capabilities and mechanisms for service co-creation on social media, based on the perspectives of managers and social media personnel in nonprofits. We integrate findings from 289 survey responses and 19 semi-structured interviews from multiple case studies. Our findings reveal the forms of service co-creation realised by nonprofits through social media, explain the mechanisms provided by social media and OPI for service co-creation, and the generative capabilities for realising social media opportunities, OPI and service co-creation. Our findings suggest that nonprofits realise seven (7) forms of service co-creation through social media, including co-resourcing, co-advocating, co-assessing, co-ideating, co-progressing, co-experiencing, and co-diagnosing. This study also found that social media contributes to service co-creation in three ways. First, social media offers action possibilities, conveys meaning and promotes values surrounding its functionality that facilitate OPI and allow nonprofits to realise service co-creation. Second, OPI on social media embodies discernible relationships and patterns of interaction that will allow service co-creation. Third, organisations build generative capabilities, including learning, adaptiveness, digital spanning, and relationability to actualise social media opportunities, facilitate OPI, and realise service co-creation. This study contributes to academic knowledge by providing mechanism-based explanations (MBEs) for collaborative outcomes on social media. We operationalise service co-creation as a collaborative outcome for nonprofits on social media. First, we derive the measures for service co-creation on social media. Then, we provide a model for realising service co-creation on social media, which identifies the mechanisms provided in the structures of social media and OPI that facilitate service co-creation. Additionally, we conceptualise the emergence of organisational generativity as an organisational capability for social media interaction and explain its role in enabling the structures of social media, OPI, and collaborative outcomes, such as service co-creation. For nonprofit practitioners, we explain the value of social media by identifying organisational outcomes associated with the use of social media and the facilitating factors that should be recognised. We highlight the variations of service co-creation, which can be useful in evaluating service co-creation practices on social media. Overall, the study guides nonprofits towards identifying and utilising the opportunities offered by social media as well as building capabilities, relationships, and patterns of interaction sufficient for service co-creation.

Mobile learning (m-learning) is steadily growing and has undoubtedly derived benefits to learners and tutors in different learning environments. This paper investigates the variation in benefits derived from enhanced classroom learning through use of m-learning platforms in the context of a developing country owing to the fact that it is still in its initial stages. The study focused on how basic technology-enhanced pedagogic innovation like cell phone-based learning is enhancing classroom learning from the learners’ perspective. The paper explicitly indicates the opportunities presented by enhanced learning to a conventional learning environment like a physical classroom. The findings were obtained through a survey of two universities in Uganda in which data was quantitatively collected, analyzed and presented in a three banded diagram depicting the variation in the obtainable benefits. Learners indicated that a smartphone is the most commonly used device. Learners also indicate that straight lectures, student to student plus student to lecturer communication, accessing learning material and assignments are core activities. In a TEL environment support by smartphones, learners indicated that they conveniently achieve the prior activities plus discussions and group work. Learners seemed not attracted to the possibility of using TEL environment to take lectures, as well as make class presentations. The less attractiveness of these two factors may be due to the teacher centered approach commonly applied in the country’s education system., {"references":["Kirkwood, A & Price, L. (2014). Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education: what is 'enhanced' and how do we know? A critical literature review, Learning, Media and Technology, 39(1), 6-36, DOI: 10.1080/17439884.2013.770404.","Ouga, S. (2013 September 9th) Uganda: Ministry of Education Bans Mobile Phones in Schools. The New Vision. Retrieved from http://allafrica.com/stories/201309101261.html.","Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2010). Mobile learning for quality education and social inclusion. IITE Policy brief Published by the UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education.","Alexander, B. (2004). M-learning: Emergent pedagogical and campus issues in the mobile learning environment. Educause centre for applied research. Research Bulletin. Retrieved March 3rd 2012 from www.educause.edu/ecar/.","Sharples, M. (2007). Big issues in mobile learning: Report of a workshop by the Kaleidoscope Network of Excellence Mobile Learning Initiative. Learning Sciences Research Institute University of Nottingham Retrieved March 3rd 2012 from www.nottingham.ac.uk/lsri.","Manouselis, N., Drachsler, H., Vuorikari, R., Hummel, H., & Koper, R. (2011). Recommender systems in technology enhanced learning. In Recommender systems handbook (pp. 387-415). Springer US.","UCISA. 2008. 2008 Survey of Technology Enhanced Learning for higher education in the UK. http://www.ucisa.ac.uk/~/media/Files/publications/surveys/TEL%20survey%202008%20pdf.","HEFCE (Higher Education Funding Council for England). 2009. Enhancing Learning and Teaching Through the Use of Technology: A Revised Approach to HEFCE's Strategy for e-Learning. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England. Accessed January 18, 2014. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2009/09_12/09_12.pdf.","Chan, T. W., Roschelle, J., Hsi, S., Kinshuk, Sharples, M., Brown, T., & Hoppe, U. (2006). One-to-one technology-enhanced learning: An opportunity for global research collaboration. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(01), 3-29.\n[10]\tKlopfer, E., Squire, K., & Jenkins, H. (2002, August). Environmental detectives PDAs as a window into a virtual simulated world, In Proceedings of international workshop in wireless and mobile technologies in education (WMTE2002) (pp. 95–98). August 29–30, 2002, V¨axj¨o University, Sweden.\n[11]\tIslam, M. T, Rahman, M. M., & Rahman, K. M. R. (2006). Quality and processes of Bangladesh Open University course material development. Turkish Journal of Distance Learning, 7(2). Retrieved June 1, 2007 from: http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/.\n[12]\tLehner, F., Nosekabel, H., & Lehmann, H.(2002) \"Wireless E-Learning and Communication Environment,\" in Proceedings of the Workshop at ISMIS '02, Z. Maamar, W. Mansoor, and W.-J. van den Heuvel (eds.), Lyon 2002.\n[13]\tHlodan, O. (2010) Mobile learning, anytime, anywhere. BioScience, 60(9), 682. University of California Press on behalf of the American Institute of Biological Sciences Stable Retrieved November 4th 2012 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/bio.2010.60.9.4.\n[14]\tSharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2005). Towards a theory of mobile learning. Learning Sciences Research Institute University of Nottingham Retrieved March 3rd 2012 from www.nottingham.ac.uk/lsri.\n[15]\tAttewell, J. (2005) Mobile learning and technologies: a technology update and m-learning project summary. Learning and skills development agency. Retrieved on June 29th 2012 from www.lsda.org.uk.\n[16]\tKeenan, D. (2011). Create the new way for education with mobile learning. Mobile learning experience 2011. Visionary leadership.\n[17]\tRoschelle, J. (2003). Unlocking the learning value of wireless mobile devices. Journal of computer Assisted Learning 19(3), 260-272 Blackwell publishing Ltd.\n[18]\tPenuel, W. R, Boscardin, C. K, Masyn, K., Crawford, V. M. (2006) Teaching with student response systems in elementary and secondary education settings: A survey study. Education Tech Research Dev (2007 Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2006) 280–293.\n[19]\tLonsdale, P., Baber, C., & Sharples, M. (2004). Engaging learners with everyday technology: A participatory simulation using mobile phones. Paper presented at the Mobile. Human Computer Interaction 2004: 6th International Symposium, Glascow, UK.\n[20]\tWilensky, U., & Stroup, W. (1999, December). Learning through participatory simulations: Network-based design for systems learning in classrooms. In Proceedings of the 1999 conference on Computer support for collaborative learning (p. 80). International Society of the Learning Sciences.\n[21]\tColella, V. (2000). Participatory Simulations: Building Collaborative Understanding through Immersive Dynamic Modeling. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, (4).\n[22]\tNaismith, L., Lonsdale, P., Vavoula, G., & Sharples, M. (2004). Mobile Technologies and Learning. (report commissioned by NESTA FutureLab): NESTA FutureLab. \n[23]\tMarkett, C., Sánchez, I. A., Weber, S., & Tangney, B. (2006). Using short message service to encourage interactivity in the classroom. Computers & Education, 46(3), 280-293.\n[24]\tHwang, W. Su, J. Hsu, J. Huang, H. (2010) A study on computer supported collaborative learning with hybrid mobile discussion forum, International Journal on Mobile Learning and Organization, 4(1)\n[25]\tWei, F.H. and Chen, G.D. (2006) 'Collaborative mentor support in a learning context using a discussion forum to facilitate knowledge sharing for lifelong learning', British journal of educational technology, 37(6), 917–935.\n[26]\tEast African Business week (2011) Mobile phone subscribers hit 14 million in Uganda. East African Business Week. Retrieved November 4th 2012 from www.eastafricanbusinessweek.com.\n[27]\tITU (2015). ICT Facts and Figures Report. Retrieved May 28th, 2015 from https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2015.pdf.\n[28]\tGSMA (2015). GSMA Global Mobile Economy Report 2015. Retrieved May 28th, 2015 from http://www.gsmamobileeconomy.com/GSMA_Global_Mobile_Economy_Report_2015.pdf.\n[29]\tPark, Y. (2011). A Pedagogical Framework for Mobile Learning: Categorizing Educational Applications of Mobile Technologies into Four Types. The international Review of Research in open and distance learning Vol.12 No.2 Retrieved August 25th 2012 from www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/791/1699.\n[30]\tMotlik, S. (2008). Mobile learning in developing nations. The international Review of Research in open and distance learning 9(2).\n[31]\tRobson, R. (2003). Mobile Learning and Handheld Devices in the Classroom Eduworks Corporation, Corvallis, Oregon, USA. © 2003, IMS Australia. Retrieved March 3rd 2012 from www.eduworks.com/.../Mobile_Learning_Handheld_Classroom.pdf.\n[32]\tSankarsingh, C. (2010). Mobile phones, literacy and the developing world: How do they make it all work? LST 401-Seminar Paper\n[33]\tProject Tomorrow. (2010). Project K-Nect Evaluation Report: Students leverage the power of mobile devices through the Project K-Nect Mobile Learning Initiative in Onslow County. Retrieved August 25th 2012 from www.tomorrow.com.\n[34]\tMuyinda. P. B, Mugisa, E. & Lynch, K. (2007). Mlearning: the educational use of mobile communication devices. Strengthening the role of ICT development. Eds. Fountain Publishers, Kampala, 290-301\n[35]\tJones, A., Issroff., K., Scanlon, E., Clough, G. & McAndrew, P. (2006). Using mobile devices for learning in Informal Settings: Is it Motivating? Paper to be presented at IADIS International conference Mobile Learning. July 14-16, Dublin.\n[36]\tKeegan, D. (2002). The Future of Learning: From eLearning to mLearning: Hagen, Zentrales Institut fur Fernstudienforschung, FernUniversitat. Ziff-Papiere 119. http://www.fernuni-hagen.de/ZIFF/ZIFF_PAP_119.pdf.\n[37]\tGoodyear, P., & Retalis, S. (2010). Technology-enhanced learning. Sense Publishers.\n[38]\tAldridge, S. (2013, March 20). 3 Ways Technology-Enhanced Courses Benefit Learners (Web log comment). Retrieved from http://www.learninghouse.com/blog/publishing/3-ways-technology-enhanced-courses-benefit-learners.\n[39]\tKrejcie, R.V. & Morgan, D.W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610.\n[40]\tBrown, M. & Diaz, V. (2010). Mobile learning: contexts and prospects. A report on the ELI focus session. EDUCAUSE learning initiative. Retrieved November 24th 2014 from https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3022.pdf.\n[41]\tMuyinda, P. B. (2007). M Learning: pedagogical, technical and organizational hypes and realities. Campus-Wide Information Systems Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1065-0741 24 (2), 97-104q."]}

Nonprofit organisations use social networking platforms to interact, engage, and build productive relationships with target audiences for co-created outcomes. This chapter pursues two interrelated objectives: First, it identifies key stages in the growth of organisation-community relationships on co-creative social networking platforms. Second, it discusses the multi-levelled factors influencing these relationships at the respective stages. To achieve these objectives, we make a general review of scholarship on nonprofit use of social media, social networking platforms for co-creation, and organisation-public relationships on social media. We used the ecological systems perspective to identify the internal and external environmental influences on organisational relationships in social networking platforms. This chapter presents three abstract stages of organisation-community relationships: emergence, growth, and collapse, based on existing empirical observations and theoretical perspectives. We reveal four levels of ecological-based factors that influence different stages of organisation-community relationships on co-creative social networking platforms. We indicate the potentially strong and weaker influences on organisational relationships.