Julie S. Hui
ABSTRACT
Crowdfunding is changing how, why, and which research projects are pursued. With the increasing number of crowdfunded research projects, it is important to understand what drives scientists to launch crowdfunding campaigns and how it affects their work. To better understand this re-cent phenomenon, we present a grounded theory of how and why scientists crowdfund. Through 27 semi-structured interviews, we find that scientists are motivated to crowd-fund in order to share their work and engage the public in the research process in ways traditional science work has not offered. Scientists also perceive crowdfunding as a more accessible way to get funds quickly compared to existing fundraising mechanisms, such as grant applications. However, they must learn to use more accessible language to successfully communicate their research through social media to a broad audience of non-scientists and professional peers. Based on these findings, we discuss design implications to inform future crowdfunding platforms and sup-port tools.
- Aragon, C.R., Poon, S., and Silva, C.T. The changing face of digital science: new practices in scientific collaborations. Proc. of CHI, (2009), 4819--4822. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman and Company, 1997.Google Scholar
- Belleflamme, P., Lambert, T., and Schwienbacher, A. Crowdfunding: tapping the right crowd. Journal of Business Venturing, (2013).Google Scholar
- Birnholtz, J.P. and Bietz, M.J. Data at work: supporting sharing in science and engineering. Proc. of GROUP, (2003), 339--348. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bonney, R., Cooper, C.B., Dickinson, J., et al. Citizen science: a developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. BioScience 59, 11 (2009), 977--984.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bozeman, B. and Corley, E. Scientists' collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy 33, 4 (2004), 599--616.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bucchi, M. Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: Theories of public communication of science. Handbook of public communication of science and technology, (2008), 57--76.Google Scholar
- Bucchi, M. Science and the media: alternative routes to scientific communications. Routledge, 2013.Google Scholar
- Byrnes, J.E., Ranganathan, J., Walker, B.L.E., and Faulkes, Z. To Crowdfund Research, Scientists Must Build An Audience For Their Work. PeerJ PrePrints, (in press).Google Scholar
- Cohn, J.P. Citizen science: Can volunteers do real research? BioScience 58, 3 (2008), 192--197.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Crowston, K. and Prestopnik, N.R. Motivation and data quality in a citizen science game: A design science evaluation. Proc. of HICSS, (2013), 450--459. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Davis, P.R., Horn, M.S., and Sherin, B.L. The Right Kind of Wrong: A "Knowledge in Pieces" Approach to Science Learning in Museums. Curator: The Museum Journal 56, 1 (2013), 31--46.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human Behavior. Plenum Press, NY, 1985.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Diamond, A.M. Does Federal Funding "Crowd In" Private Funding of Science? Contemporary Economic Policy 17, 4 (1999), 423--431.Google Scholar
- Farzan, R. and Kraut, R.E. Wikipedia classroom experiment: bidirectional benefits of students' engagement in online production communities. Proc. of CHI, (2013), 783--792. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Feder, T. Scientists Experiment with Crowdfunding. Physics Today 66, 4 (2013), 23--24.Google Scholar
- Finholt, T.A. Collaboratories. Annual review of information science and technology 36, 1 (2002), 73--107.Google Scholar
- Galloway, A.W., Tudor, M.T., and HAEGEN, W.M.V. The reliability of citizen science: a case study of Oregon white oak stand surveys. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34, 5 (2006), 1425--1429.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., and Thompson, L. Learning and transfer: A general role for analogical encoding. Journal of Educational Psychology 95, 2 (2003), 393.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gentner, D. The mechanisms of analogical learning. Similarity and analogical reasoning 199, (1989), 241. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gerber, E.M. and Hui, J. Crowdfunding: Motivations and Deterrents for Participation. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 20, 6 (2013), 34:1--34:32. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hagstrom, W.O. The scientific community. Southern Illinois University Press Carbondale, 1975.Google Scholar
- Hara, N., Solomon, P., Kim, S.-L., and Sonnenwald, D.H. An emerging view of scientific collaboration: scientists' perspectives on collaboration and factors that impact collaboration. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 54, 10 (2003), 952--965. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hargadon, A. and Bechky, B. When collectives of creatives become creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work. Organization Science 17, (2006), 484--500. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hargadon, A. and Sutton, R.I. Technology Brokering and Innovation in a Product Development Firm. Administrative Science Quarterly 42, (1997), 716--749.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hargittai, E. Digital Na(t)ives' Variation in Internet Skills and Uses among Members of the "Net Generation." Sociological Inquiry 80, 1 (2010), 92--113.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hattie, J. and Timperley, H. The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research 77, 1 (2007), 81--112.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hourihan, M. AAAS Report XXXVIII: Research and Development FY 2014. 2013.Google Scholar
- Hui, J., Gerber, E., and Gergle, D. Understanding and Leveraging Social Networks for Crowdfunding: Opportunities and Challenges. Proc. of DIS, (2014). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hui, J.S., Greenberg, M.D., and Gerber, E.M. Understanding the Role of Community in Crowdfunding Work. Proc. of CSCW, (2014), 62--74. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jasklowski, O. Project people distribution (from chat). 2014.Google Scholar
- Katz, J.S. and Martin, B.R. What is research collaboration? Research policy 26, 1 (1997), 1--18.Google Scholar
- Kevles, D.J. The physicists: The history of a scientific community in modern America. Harvard University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
- Kim, S., Mankoff, J., and Paulos, E. Sensr: evaluating a flexible framework for authoring mobile datacollection tools for citizen science. Proc. of CSCW, (2013), 1453--1462. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kraut, R. and Resnick, P. Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence-Based Social Design. MIT Press, Cambridge, 2012. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Law, E., Dalton, C., Merrill, N., Young, A., and Gajos, K.Z. Curio: A Platform for Supporting MixedExpertise Crowdsourcing. Proc. of HCOMP, (2013).Google Scholar
- Lemke, J.L. Talking science: Language, learning, and values. ERIC, 1990.Google Scholar
- Litt, E. Measuring users' internet skills: A review of past assessments and a look toward the future. New Media & Society 15, 4 (2013), 612--630.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mitra, T. and Gilbert, E. The language that gets people to give: Phrases that predict success on kickstarter. Proc. of CSCW, ACM (2014), 49--61. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mollick, E.R. The Dynamics of Crowdfunding: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Business Venturing 29, 1 (2013), 1--16.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Muller, M., Geyer, W., Soule, T., Daniels, S., and Cheng, L.-T. Crowdfunding inside the enterprise: employee-initiatives for innovation and collaboration. Proc. of CHI, (2013), 503--512. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nathan, M.J., Koedinger, K.R., and Alibali, M.W. Expert blind spot: When content knowledge eclipses pedagogical content knowledge. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Cognitive Science, (2001), 644--648.Google Scholar
- Nov, O., Arazy, O., Lotts, K., and Naberhaus, T. Motivation-targeted personalized UI design: a novel approach to enhancing citizen science participation. Proc. of ECSCW, (2013), 287--297.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nowotny, H., Scott, P., and Gibbons, M. Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. SciELO Argentina, 2001.Google Scholar
- Orelli, B. Biotech crowdfunding paves way for angels. Nature Biotechnology 30, 11 (2012), 1020--1020.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Peterson, I. Touring the scientific web. Science Communication 22, 3 (2001), 246--255.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Raddick, M.J., Bracey, G., Gay, P.L., et al. Galaxy zoo: Exploring the motivations of citizen science volunteers. Astronomy Education Review 9, 1 (2010), 010103.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Robson, C., Hearst, M., Kau, C., and Pierce, J. Comparing the use of social networking and traditional media channels for promoting citizen science. Proc. of CSCW, (2013), 1463--1468. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rotman, D., Preece, J., Hammock, J., et al. Dynamic changes in motivation in collaborative citizen-science projects. Proc. of CSCW, (2012), 217--226. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ryan, R. and Deci, E. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55 55, (2000), 68--78.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sheppard, S.A. and Terveen, L. Quality is a verb: The operationalization of data quality in a citizen science community. Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration, ACM (2011), 29--38. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage Publications, London, 1990.Google Scholar
- Trench, B. Science Communication and Citizen Science: How Dead is the Deficit Model. IX International Conference on Public Comunication of Science and Technology (PCST), Seoul, Korea, (2006).Google Scholar
- Trench, B. Internet: turning science communication inside-out, In Bucchi, Massimiano and Trench, Brian, (eds.) Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. Routledge, London and NY, 2008.Google Scholar
- Wheat, R.E., Wang, Y., Byrnes, J.E., and Ranganathan, J. Raising money for scientific research through crowdfunding. Trends in ecology & evolution, (2012).Google Scholar
- Wiggins, A. and Crowston, K. From conservation to crowdsourcing: A typology of citizen science. Proc. of HICSS, (2011), 1--10. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wiggins, A. Free as in puppies: compensating for ict constraints in citizen science. Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work, (2013), 1469--1480. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wulf, W.A. The national collaboratory-a white paper. Towards a national collaboratory, (1989), 17--18.Google Scholar
- Dr. No Money: The Broken Science Funding System. Scientific American, 2011. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dr-nomoney/.Google Scholar
- Rockethub. 2011. http://www.rockethub.com/.Google Scholar
- Experiment. https://experiment.com/.Google Scholar
- SciFund Challenge. http://scifundchallenge.org/.Google Scholar
- UCLA Spark. https://spark.ucla.edu/.Google Scholar
- Benefunder. http://benefunder.org/.Google Scholar
- MicroVentures. https://microventures.com.Google Scholar
- Petri Dish. http://www.petridish.org/.Google Scholar
- TED: Ideas worth spreading. http://www.ted.com/.Google Scholar
- Merit Review Criterion: Broader Impacts. National Science Foundation. http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id= 13626.Google Scholar
- Launcht. http://www.launcht.com/.Google Scholar
- Crowdfund MIT. https://crowdfund.mit.edu/.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Crowdfunding Science: Sharing Research with an Extended Audience
Recommendations
Why people participate in online political crowdfunding: A civic voluntarism perspective
Highlights- This study examines factors influencing intention to participate in political crowdfunding.
AbstractDigital technology allows people to participate in various social activities easily. In politics, online crowdfunding has been gaining attention because it gives politicians benefits to raise political funds from the public. It is also ...
Understanding crowdfunding work: implications for support tools
CHI EA '13: CHI '13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing SystemsCrowdfunding is changing the way people realize their work by providing a new way to gain support from a distributed audience. This study seeks to understand the work of crowdfunding project creators in order to inform the design of crowdfunding support ...
Factors affecting successful crowdfunding
IC4E '19: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on E-Education, E-Business, E-Management and E-LearningCrowdfunding has been used as one of the effective ways for entrepreneurs to raise funding especially in creative industries. Individuals as well as organizations are paying more attentions to the emergence of new crowdfunding platforms. This research ...
Comments