Crowdfunding science: Sharing research with an extended audience

CSCW 2015 - Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing

Volumn , Issue , 2015, Pages 31-43

  Hui, Julie S ^a   Gerber, Elizabeth M ^a  

^a Northwestern University   (United States)

Author keywords

Citizen Science; Computer Mediated Communication; Crowdfunding; Design

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATION THEORY; COMPUTER SUPPORTED COOPERATIVE WORK; DESIGN; INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SYSTEMS;

CITIZEN SCIENCE; COMPUTER MEDIATED COMMUNICATION; CROWDFUNDING; DESIGN IMPLICATIONS; GROUNDED THEORY; RESEARCH PROCESS; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS; TRADITIONAL SCIENCE;

GROUPWARE;

EID: 84968725242     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/2675133.2675188     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (70)

1. 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.
2. Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman and Company, 1997.
3. Belleflamme, P., Lambert, T., and Schwienbacher, A. Crowdfunding: Tapping the right crowd. Journal of Business Venturing, (2013).
4. Birnholtz, J.P. and Bietz, M.J. Data at work: supporting sharing in science and engineering. Proc. of GROUP, (2003), 339-348.
5. 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.
6. Bozeman, B. and Corley, E. Scientists collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy 33, 4 (2004), 599-616.
7. Bucchi, M. Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: Theories of public communication of science. Handbook of public communication of science and technology, (2008), 57-76.
8. Bucchi, M. Science and the media: Alternative routes to scientific communications. Routledge, 2013.
9. 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).
10. Cohn, J.P. Citizen science: Can volunteers do real research? BioScience 58, 3 (2008), 192-197.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human Behavior. Plenum Press, New York, 1985.
14. Diamond, A.M. Does Federal Funding "Crowd In" Private Funding of Science? Contemporary Economic Policy 17, 4 (1999), 423-431.
15. Farzan, R. and Kraut, R.E. Wikipedia classroom experiment: bidirectional benefits of students engagement in online production communities. Proc. of CHI, (2013), 783-792.
16. Feder, T. Scientists Experiment with Crowdfunding. Physics Today 66, 4 (2013), 23-24.
17. Finholt, T.A. Collaboratories. Annual review of information science and technology 36, 1 (2002), 73-107.
18. 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.
19. Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., and Thompson, L. Learning and transfer: A general role for analogical encoding. Journal of Educational Psychology 95, 2 (2003), 393.
20. Gentner, D. The mechanisms of analogical learning. Similarity and analogical reasoning 199, (1989), 241.
21. 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.
22. Hagstrom, W.O. The scientific community. Southern Illinois University Press Carbondale, 1975.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. Hargadon, A. and Sutton, R.I. Technology Brokering and Innovation in a Product Development Firm. Administrative Science Quarterly 42, (1997), 716-749.
26. 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.
27. Hattie, J. and Timperley, H. The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research 77, 1 (2007), 81-112.
28. Hourihan, M. AAAS Report XXXVIII: Research and Development FY 2014. 2013.
29. Hui, J., Gerber, E., and Gergle, D. Understanding and Leveraging Social Networks for Crowdfunding: Opportunities and Challenges. Proc. of DIS, (2014).
30. Hui, J.S., Greenberg, M.D., and Gerber, E.M. Understanding the Role of Community in Crowdfunding Work. Proc. of CSCW, (2014), 62-74.
31. Jasklowski, O. Project people distribution (from chat). 2014.
32. Katz, J.S. and Martin, B.R. What is research collaboration? Research policy 26, 1 (1997), 1-18.
33. Kevles, D.J. The physicists: The history of a scientific community in modern America. Harvard University Press, 1995.
34. Kim, S., Mankoff, J., and Paulos, E. Sensr: evaluating a flexible framework for authoring mobile data-collection tools for citizen science. Proc. of CSCW, (2013), 1453-1462.
35. Kraut, R. and Resnick, P. Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence-Based Social Design. MIT Press, Cambridge, 2012.
36. Law, E., Dalton, C., Merrill, N., Young, A., and Gajos, K.Z. Curio: A Platform for Supporting Mixed-Expertise Crowdsourcing. Proc. of HCOMP, (2013).
37. Lemke, J.L. Talking science: Language, learning, and values. ERIC, 1990.
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. Mollick, E.R. The Dynamics of Crowdfunding: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Business Venturing 29, 1 (2013), 1-16.
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., and Gibbons, M. Re-Thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. SciELO Argentina, 2001.
45. Orelli, B. Biotech crowdfunding paves way for angels. Nature Biotechnology 30, 11 (2012), 1020-1020.
46. Peterson, I. Touring the scientific web. Science Communication 22, 3 (2001), 246-255.
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. Rotman, D., Preece, J., Hammock, J., et al. Dynamic changes in motivation in collaborative citizen-science projects. Proc. of CSCW, (2012), 217-226.
50. 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.
51. 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.
52. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage Publications, London, 1990.
53. 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).
54. 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 New York, 2008.
55. Wheat, R.E., Wang, Y., Byrnes, J.E., and Ranganathan, J. Raising money for scientific research through crowdfunding. Trends in ecology & evolution, (2012).
56. Wiggins, A. and Crowston, K. From conservation to crowdsourcing: A typology of citizen science. Proc. of HICSS, (2011), 1-10.
57. 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.
58. Wulf, W.A. The national collaboratory-A white paper. Towards a national collaboratory, (1989), 17-18.
59. Dr. No Money: The Broken Science Funding System. Scientific American, 2011. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dr-nomoney/.
60. Rockethub. 2011. http://www.rockethub.com/.
61. Experiment. https://experiment.com/.
62. SciFund Challenge. http://scifundchallenge.org/.
63. UCLA Spark. https://spark.ucla.edu/.
64. Benefunder. http://benefunder.org/.
65. MicroVentures. https://microventures.com.
66. Petri Dish. http://www.petridish.org/.
67. TED: Ideas worth spreading. http://www.ted.com/.
68. Merit Review Criterion: Broader Impacts. National Science Foundation. http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm-summ.jsp?pims-id=1 3626.
69. Launcht. http://www.launcht.com/.
70. Crowdfund MIT. https://crowdfund.mit.edu/.