Developer experience · Online survey measuring demographics, intrinsic/extrinsic/internalized-extrinsic motivations, and open-ended responses; comparative analysis with prior general-OSS findings.

The characteristics and motivations of library open source software developers: An empirical study

Library & Information Science Research · 2015

Namjoo Choi, Joseph A. Pruett

Original paper ↗

Summary

LOSS developers showed high intrinsic (altruism, fun) and internalized-extrinsic (learning, personal needs) motivation, greater gender diversity, higher formal education, prior library work experience, and a strong library ethos; they joined later in their careers than general OSS peers.

For your marketing

Possible founder application

For OSS products with domain communities, recruit credible domain practitioners, emphasize learning/altruism and mission, and tailor governance and recognition to the community’s professional identity.

Reported result

What the study found

Research question

What the authors investigated

What are the characteristics and motivations of developers participating in library open-source software (LOSS) projects, and how do they compare with the general OSS community?

Design

Online survey measuring demographics, intrinsic/extrinsic/internalized-extrinsic motivations, and open-ended responses; comparative analysis with prior general-OSS findings.

Sample and setting

126 LOSS developers associated with SourceForge, Foss4Lib, and Code4Lib.

Scope and transfer

Limitations to keep in view

Specialized library OSS sample and online self-report survey constrain generalization to commercial OSS and establish associations rather than causal drivers; comparison relies partly on prior general-OSS literature.

Research sources

Elsevier/ScienceDirect publisher page supplies title, authors, year, volume/pages, DOI, sample, method and findings: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0740818815000341 Firecrawl research job 01a14371-854f-71aa-ba3d-455ec397717d returned this citation and metadata.

Study strength

3.5/5 Abstract-level evidence is useful for framing questions; verify full methods before transfer.

How this was assessed

The 1–5 evidence-check score is a practical reading aid, not a formal peer review or a probability that a conclusion is true. It combines design strength (2 points), sample reporting (1), comparison/control clarity (1), and how much of the paper could be checked (1). Access affects how confidently this directory can assess a study, not the study's underlying quality. Blinding is reported separately because it is not relevant to every design.

Design transparency · 2/2

Based on the reported study design in the retrieved source.

Sample and setting · 1/1

The sample context is stated; a numerical count is preserved only when reported.

Outcome clarity · 1/1

The finding is summarized from publisher or article metadata.

Access for checking · 0.5/1

Only abstract or bibliographic access was confirmed.

Double-blind? The retrieved publisher record does not establish whether participants or outcome assessors were blinded.