IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ein/tuecis/1405.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Crowd science: it is not just a matter of time (or funding)

Author

Listed:
  • Eleftheria Vasileiadou

Abstract

The last years, citizen science, or crowd science, has increased tremendously, both in number of projects, and number of participants. Most literature on crowd science focuses on its advantages, for both scientists, and the participating citizens. The challenges of crowd science come mainly from limited organizational capacity of some of these projects. As a result of this line of reasoning, the main issue becomes, how we can facilitate citizen science, and help it expand to more projects, and involve more (types of) participants. My aim in this discussion note is to make two points: first, that, most recent work on citizen science fails to elaborate on the new types of relationships, practices and interactions that are facilitated by information and communication technologies, when compared to traditional volunteer science. The second point is that there are pronounced disciplinary differences among citizen science projects, something that, again, is generally being missed in much recent work. Missing these points can lead us to imagine that it’s only a matter of time (and of course funding) before all sciences catch up with citizen science. Such a line of thought can result in investing resources (money, time, effort) in projects and infrastructures that are doomed to fail, because of their topic. I conclude by offering some thoughts on a research agenda.

Suggested Citation

  • Eleftheria Vasileiadou, 2014. "Crowd science: it is not just a matter of time (or funding)," Working Papers 14-05, Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies, revised Mar 2014.
    • Handle: RePEc:ein:tuecis:1405
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dana Rotman & Kezia Procita & Derek Hansen & Cynthia Sims Parr & Jennifer Preece, 2012. "Supporting content curation communities: The case of the Encyclopedia of Life," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(6), pages 1092-1107, June.
    2. Rob Kling & Geoffrey McKim, 2000. "Not just a matter of time: Field differences and the shaping of electronic media in supporting scientific communication," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 51(14), pages 1306-1320.
    3. Franzoni, Chiara & Sauermann, Henry, 2014. "Crowd science: The organization of scientific research in open collaborative projects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 1-20.
    4. Dana Rotman & Kezia Procita & Derek Hansen & Cynthia Sims Parr & Jennifer Preece, 2012. "Supporting content curation communities: The case of the Encyclopedia of Life," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(6), pages 1092-1107, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yu Wu & Jessica Kropczynski & Raquel Prates & John M. Carroll, 2018. "Understanding How GitHub Supports Curation Repositories," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-15, March.
    2. Julian Koch & Simon Stisen, 2017. "Citizen science: A new perspective to advance spatial pattern evaluation in hydrology," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-20, May.
    3. Yang, Jialiang & Li, Yaokuang & Calic, Goran & Shevchenko, Anton, 2020. "How multimedia shape crowdfunding outcomes: The overshadowing effect of images and videos on text in campaign information," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 6-18.
    4. JinHyo Joseph Yun & EuiSeob Jeong & Xiaofei Zhao & Sung Deuk Hahm & KyungHun Kim, 2019. "Collective Intelligence: An Emerging World in Open Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-15, August.
    5. Marcia J. Bates, 2021. "Search foundations: Toward a science of technology‐mediated experience. Sachi Arafat and Elham Ashoori. Boston, MA: MIT Press, 2019. 448, pp. $65.00 (hardback). (ISBN 9780262038591)," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(3), pages 377-383, March.
    6. Carolin Haeussler & Henry Sauermann, 2016. "The Division of Labor in Teams: A Conceptual Framework and Application to Collaborations in Science," NBER Working Papers 22241, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Benedikt Fecher & Sascha Friesike & Marcel Hebing, 2014. "What Drives Academic Data Sharing?," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 655, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    8. Bergemann, Dirk & Ottaviani, Marco, 2021. "Information Markets and Nonmarkets," CEPR Discussion Papers 16459, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    9. Héloïse Berkowitz, 2020. "Participatory Governance for the Development of the Blue Bioeconomy in the Mediterranean Region," Working Papers hal-02555685, HAL.
    10. Jorge Faleiro & Edward Tsang, 2018. "Supporting Crowd-Powered Science in Economics: FRACTI, a Conceptual Framework for Large-Scale Collaboration and Transparent Investigation in Financial Markets," Papers 1808.07959, arXiv.org.
    11. Sauermann, Henry & Vohland, Katrin & Antoniou, Vyron & Balázs, Bálint & Göbel, Claudia & Karatzas, Kostas & Mooney, Peter & Perelló, Josep & Ponti, Marisa & Samson, Roeland & Winter, Silvia, 2020. "Citizen science and sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(5).
    12. Stefan Thomas & David Scheller & Susan Schröder, 2021. "Co-creation in citizen social science: the research forum as a methodological foundation for communication and participation," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.
    13. Qin Ye & Xiaolei Xu, 2021. "Determining factors of cities’ centrality in the interregional innovation networks of China’s biomedical industry," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 2801-2819, April.
    14. Jiancheng Guan & Lanxin Pang, 2018. "Bidirectional relationship between network position and knowledge creation in Scientometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 201-222, April.
    15. Daniel Mietchen, 2014. "The Transformative Nature of Transparency in Research Funding," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-3, December.
    16. Haeussler, Carolin & Sauermann, Henry, 2013. "Credit where credit is due? The impact of project contributions and social factors on authorship and inventorship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 688-703.
    17. Francesco Cappa & Stefano Franco & Federica Rosso, 2022. "Citizens and cities: Leveraging citizen science and big data for sustainable urban development," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(2), pages 648-667, February.
    18. Villani, Elisa & Rasmussen, Einar & Grimaldi, Rosa, 2017. "How intermediary organizations facilitate university–industry technology transfer: A proximity approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 86-102.
    19. Quignon, Aurelien, 2023. "Crowd-based feedback and early-stage entrepreneurial performance: Evidence from a digital platform," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(7).
    20. Ethan Mollick & Ramana Nanda, 2016. "Wisdom or Madness? Comparing Crowds with Expert Evaluation in Funding the Arts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(6), pages 1533-1553, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    crowd science; funding;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ein:tuecis:1405. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ectuenl.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.