To Crowdfund Research, Scientists Must Build an Audience for Their Work

PLoS ONE

Volumn 9, Issue 12, 2014, Pages

  Byrnes, Jarrett E K ^a,b   Ranganathan, Jai ^b   Walker, Barbara L E ^c   Faulkes, Zen ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON   (United States)

^b NATIONAL CENTER FOR ECOLOGICAL ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS PAN AMERICAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CROWDFUNDING; EXERCISE; FUNDING; HEALTH SERVICE; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERNET; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; SCIENTIST; CROWDSOURCING; ECONOMIC MODEL; ECONOMICS; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; PERSONNEL; SCIENCE; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; STATISTICAL MODEL;

CROWDSOURCING; FUND RAISING; HUMANS; INTERNET; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MODELS, ECONOMIC; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; RESEARCH SUPPORT AS TOPIC; SCIENCE; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR;

EID: 84916920037     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0110329     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Ordanini A, Miceli L, Pizzetti M, Parasuraman A (2011) Crowd-funding: transforming customers into investors through innovative service platforms. Journal of Service Management 22: 443-470.
2. Gamerman E (2013) The trouble with Kickstarter. Wall Street Journal D1-D2. Available: http://online.wsj. com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324021104578551313657138252.
3. Intersociety Working Group (2012) Research and development FY 2013. Washington, D.C. 290 p.
4. National Science Board (2012) Diminishing Funding and Rising Expectations: Trends and Challenges for Public Research Universities, A Companion to Science and Engineering Indicators 2012. In: National Science Foundation, editor. Arlington, Virginia: National Science Foundation.
5. Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century (2007) Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
6. Committee on Research Universities (2012) Research Universities and the Future of America: Ten Breakthrough Actions Vital to Our Nation's Prosperity and Security. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
7. Rockey S (2012) Our commitment to supporting the next generation. Rock Talk Available: http://nexus. od.nih.gov/all/2012/02/03/our-commitment-to-supporting-the-next-generation. Accessed 13 May 2014.
8. Gaggioli A, Riva G (2008) Working the crowd. Science 321: 1443.
9. Palmer A (2012) How Amanda Palmer Built An Army Of Supporters: Connecting Each And Every Day, Person By Person. Case Studies by TechDirt. Available: http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/ articles/20120502/15324918745/how-amanda-palmer-built-army-supporters-connecting-each-everyday-person-person.shtml. Accessed 14 May 2014.
10. Gobble MAM (2012) Everyone is a venture capitalist: the new age of crowdfunding. Research Technology Management 55: 4-5.
11. Wasik J (2012) The Brilliance (and Madness) Of Crowdfunding. Forbes. pp. 144-146.
12. Rubin S (2012) The wison of crowdfunding. Forbes. pp. 62.
13. Greenwald T (2012) Crowdfunding. Technology Review 116: 117-128.
14. Valanciene L, Jegeleviciute S (2013) Valuation of crowdfunding: benefits and drawbacks. Economics and Management 18: 39-48.
15. Hughes V (2012) Strapped for funding, medical researchers pitch to the crowd. Nature Medicine 18: 1307.
16. Wheat RE, Wang Y, Byrnes JE, Ranganathan J (2013) Raising money for scientific research through crowdfunding. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28: 71-72.
17. Johnson DR, Ecklund EH, Lincoln AE (2014) Narratives of science outreach in elite contexts of academic science. Science Communication 36: 81-105.
18. Burns TW, O'Connor DJ, Stocklmayer SM (2003) Science communication: a contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science 12: 183-202.
19. Pinholster G, Ham B (2013) Science communication requires time, trust, and Twitter. Science 342: 1464-1464.
20. Kouper I (2010) Science blogs and public engagement with science: Practices, challenges, and opportunities. Jcom 9: A02.
21. Stilgoe J, Lock SJ, Wilsdon J (2014) Why should we promote public engagement with science? Public Understanding of Science 23: 4-15.
22. Mitchell K (2008) Practising public scholarship: experiences and possibilities beyond the academy. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
23. Sismondo S (2008) Science and technology studies and an engaged program. In: Hackett EJ, Amsterdamska O, Lynch M, Wajcman J, editors. The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Third Edition. Cambridge: The MIT Press. pp. 13-31.
24. Russo G (2010) Outreach: Meet the press. Nature 468: 465-467.
25. Silka L (2010) Community research in other contexts: learning from sustainability science. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 5: 3-11.
26. Ellison J, Eatman TK (2008) Scholarship in public: Knowledge creation and tenure policy in the engaged university. Syracuse, New York.
27. Green R (2008) Tenure and promotion decisions: the relative importance of teaching, scholarship, and service. Journal of Social Work Education 44: 117-128.
28. Poliakoff E, Webb TL (2007) What factors predict scientists' intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities? Science Communication 29: 242-263.
29. The Royal Society (2006) Survey of factors affecting science communication by scientists and engineers. London: The Royal Society.
30. Nyden P (2003) Academic incentives for faculty participation in community-based participatory research. Journal of General Internal Medicine 18: 576-585.
31. Weigold MF (2001) Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science Communication 23: 164-193.
32. Gascoigne T, Metcalfe J (1997) Incentives and impediments to scientists communicating through the media. Science Communication 18: 265-282.
33. Holbrook JB (2005) Assessing the science-society relation: The case of the US National Science Foundation's second merit review criterion. Technology in Society 27: 437-451.
34. Holbrook JB (2009) Editor's Introduction. Social Epistemology 23: 177-181.
35. Ahmed SM, Palermo AGS (2010) Community engagement in research: frameworks for education and peer review. Journal Information 100: 1380-1387.
36. Hackett E, Rhoten D (2011) Engaged, embedded, enjoined: science and technology studies in the National Science Foundation. Science and Engineering Ethics 17: 823-838.
37. Kennedy C, Vogel A, Goldberg-Freeman C, Kass N, Farfel M (2009) Faculty perspectives on community-based research: "I see this still as a journey". Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 4: 3-16.
38. Williams K (2012) The devil is in the details: community based participatory research. Journal of Cancer Education 27: 3-4.
39. Delgado A, Lein Kjølberg K, Wickson F (2011) Public engagement coming of age: From theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science 20: 826-845.
40. Resnik DB, Kennedy CE (2010) Balancing scientific and community interests in community-based participatory research. Accountability in Research 17: 198-210.
41. Goldberg-Freeman C, Kass N, Gielen A, Tracey P, Bates-Hopkins B, et al. (2010) Faculty beliefs, perceptions, and level of community involvement in their research: a survey at one urban academic institution. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal 5: 65-76.
42. Meyer JL, Frumhoff PC, Hamburg SP, de la Rosa C (2010) Above the din but in the fray: environmental scientists as effective advocates. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8: 299-305.
43. Scott JM, Rachlow JL, Lackey RT, Pidgorna AB, Aycrigg JL, et al. (2007) Policy advocacy in science: prevalence, perspectives, and implications for conservation biologists. Conservation Biology 21: 29-35.
44. Waananen L (2012) Three years of Kickstarter projects. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/ 2012/04/30/technology/three-years-of-kickstarter-projects.html. Accessed 9 May 2012.
45. Pebble Technology (2012) Pebble: E-paper watch for iPhone and Android. Available: http://www. kickstarter.com/projects/597507018/pebble-e-paper-watch-for-iphone-and-android. Accessed 9 May 2012.
46. Portalarium Inc (2013) Shroud of the Avatar: Forsaken Virtues. Available: https://www.kickstarter.com/ projects/portalarium/shroud-of-the-avatar-forsaken-virtues-0. Accessed 14 May 2013.
47. Ecklund EH, James SA, Lincoln AE (2012) How academic biologists and physicists view science outreach. PLoS ONE 7: e36240.
48. Wilcox C (2012) It's time to e-volve: taking responsibility for science communication in a digital age. The Biological Bulletin 222: 85-87.
49. Shema H, Bar-Ilan J, Thelwall M (2012) Research blogs and the discussion of scholarly information. PLoS ONE 7: e35869.
50. Procter R, Williams R, Stewart J, Poschen M, Snee H, et al. (2010) Adoption and use of Web 2.0 in scholarly communications. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 368: 4039-4056.
51. Priem J, Piwowar HA, Hemminger BM (2012) Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact. arXiv:1203.4745 [cs.DL].
52. Open Science Federation, Byrnes J, Faulkes Z, Ranganathan J, Open Science(2012) SciFund Success and Social Media. Available: http://figshare.com/articles/SciFund-Success-and-Social-Media/ 90818. Accessed 13 May 2014.
53. Faulkes Z (2012) #SciFund Round 2 success and social media. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9. figshare.92541. Accessed 13 May 2014.
54. Faulkes Z (2012) #SciFund Round 3 success and social media. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9. figshare.104620. Accessed 13 May 2014.
55. McCullagh P, Nelder JA (1989) Generalized Linear Models, Second Edition. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
56. Ver Hoef JM, Boveng PL (2007) Quasi-Poisson vs. negative binomial regression: how should we model overdispersed count data? Ecology 88: 2766-2772.
57. R Development Core Team (2012) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna Austria.
58. Cameron AC, Windmeijer F (1996) R-squared measures for count data regression models with applications to health-care utilization. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 14: 209-220.
59. Perlstein E (2013) Microryza campaign trajectories. Perlstein Lab Available: http://www.perlsteinlab. com/slideshow/successful-science-crowdfunding-trajectories. Accessed 14 May 2014.
60. Human Food Project (2013) American Gut-what's in your gut? Available: https://www.indiegogo.com/ projects/american-gut-what-s-in-your-gut-7. Accessed 14 May 2014.
61. The uBiome Team, Richman J, Ludington W, Apte Z (2013) uBiome-Sequencing Your Microbiome. Available: http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/ubiome-sequencing-your-microbiome. Accessed 14 May 2014.
62. Planetary Resources (2013) ARKYD: A Space Telescope for Everyone. Available: http://www. kickstarter.com/projects/1458134548/arkyd-a-space-telescope-for-everyone-0. Accessed 28 October 2013.
63. Barry D, Oelschlaeger M (1996) A science for survival: values and conservation biology. Conservation Biology 10: 905-911.
64. Laursen S, Liston C, Thiry H, Graf J (2007) What good is a scientist in the classroom? Participant outcomes and program design features for a short-duration science outreach intervention in K-12 classrooms. CBE-Life Sciences Education 6: 49-64.