IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/rvmgts/v19y2025i5d10.1007_s11846-024-00797-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Antecedents of researchers’ behavioral intentions to use crowdsourcing in science: a multilevel approach

Author

Listed:
  • Regina Lenart-Gansiniec

    (Jagiellonian University in Krakow)

  • Wojciech Czakon

    (Jagiellonian University in Krakow)

  • Natanya Meyer

    (University of Johannesburg)

Abstract

Crowdsourcing in science is a collaborative online process through which scientists involve a group of self-selected individuals of varying, diverse knowledge and skills via an open call on the Internet and/or online platforms to undertake a specified research task or set of tasks. It is a response to the call for more inclusive, responsive and transparent research in science. Despite the growing importance of crowdsourcing in science, little is known about which factors influence researchers’ behavioural intentions to use crowdsourcing in science. This study aims to identify factors that influence researchers’ behavioural intentions to use crowdsourcing in science, as well as to develop and test a theoretical multilevel model of researchers’ behavioural intentions to use crowdsourcing in science. We use a sequential mixed method: (1) focus group interviews with 36 researchers from six fields of science, in line with the OECD classification; and (2) partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM), using a survey of 552 management researchers to test the model. Managerial and theoretical results show that the antecedents to perceived usefulness and perceived organizational support positively impact the intention to use crowdsourcing in science. Our study offers a new conceptual framework that presents antecedents relevant to scholars’ intention to use crowdsourcing in science. The results bring implications for researchers, managerial staff of institutions of higher education and decision-makers that can encourage researchers of crowdsourcing in science to further develop scientific knowledge in the field.

Suggested Citation

  • Regina Lenart-Gansiniec & Wojciech Czakon & Natanya Meyer, 2025. "Antecedents of researchers’ behavioral intentions to use crowdsourcing in science: a multilevel approach," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 19(5), pages 1411-1445, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:rvmgts:v:19:y:2025:i:5:d:10.1007_s11846-024-00797-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11846-024-00797-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11846-024-00797-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11846-024-00797-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Luciano Augusto Toledo & Felix Hugo Aguero Diaz Leon, 2019. "Crowdsourcing as production model that uses collective intelligence, the collaborative culture and the formation of communities," Innovation & Management Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 16(4), pages 344-356, August.
    2. Abramo, Giovanni & D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Di Costa, Flavia, 2019. "Diversification versus specialization in scientific research: Which strategy pays off?," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 82, pages 51-57.
    3. Chiara Franzoni & Marion Poetz & Henry Sauermann, 2022. "Crowds, citizens, and science: a multi-dimensional framework and agenda for future research," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(2), pages 251-284, February.
    4. repec:plo:pone00:0224262 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Jennifer Edgar & Joe Murphy & Michael Keating, 2016. "Comparing Traditional and Crowdsourcing Methods for Pretesting Survey Questions," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(4), pages 21582440166, October.
    6. Joseph F. Hair & G. Tomas M. Hult & Christian M. Ringle & Marko Sarstedt & Kai Oliver Thiele, 2017. "Mirror, mirror on the wall: a comparative evaluation of composite-based structural equation modeling methods," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 45(5), pages 616-632, September.
    7. Alicia Mas-Tur & Sascha Kraus & Mario Brandtner & Ralf Ewert & Wolfgang Kürsten, 2020. "Advances in management research: a bibliometric overview of the Review of Managerial Science," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 14(5), pages 933-958, October.
    8. Linek, Stephanie B. & Fecher, Benedikt & Friesike, Sascha & Hebing, Marcel, 2017. "Data sharing as social dilemma: Influence of the researcher’s personality," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 12(8), pages 1-24.
    9. Marek Kwiek & Wojciech Roszka, 2022. "Academic vs. biological age in research on academic careers: a large-scale study with implications for scientifically developing systems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3543-3575, June.
    10. Livio Cricelli & Michele Grimaldi & Silvia Vermicelli, 2022. "Crowdsourcing and open innovation: a systematic literature review, an integrated framework and a research agenda," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 16(5), pages 1269-1310, July.
    11. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    12. Nils Kruse, 2024. "How does corporate social performance affect (prospective) employees? A systematic literature review of experimental studies," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 18(11), pages 3085-3140, November.
    13. Stephanie B Linek & Benedikt Fecher & Sascha Friesike & Marcel Hebing, 2017. "Data sharing as social dilemma: Influence of the researcher’s personality," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-24, August.
    14. Koppman, Sharon & Leahey, Erin, 2019. "Who moves to the methodological edge? Factors that encourage scientists to use unconventional methods," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    15. Kim, Youngseek & Adler, Melissa, 2015. "Social scientists’ data sharing behaviors: Investigating the roles of individual motivations, institutional pressures, and data repositories," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 408-418.
    16. Roman Lukyanenko & Andrea Wiggins & Holly K. Rosser, 2020. "Citizen Science: An Information Quality Research Frontier," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 961-983, August.
    17. Susanne Beck & Carsten Bergenholtz & Marcel Bogers & Tiare-Maria Brasseur & Marie Louise Conradsen & Diletta Di Marco & Andreas P. Distel & Leonhard Dobusch & Daniel Dörler & Agnes Effert & Benedikt F, 2022. "The Open Innovation in Science research field: a collaborative conceptualisation approach," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(2), pages 136-185, February.
    18. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    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. Regina Lenart-Gansiniec & Wojciech Czakon & Łukasz Sułkowski & Jasna Pocek, 2023. "Understanding crowdsourcing in science," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 17(8), pages 2797-2830, November.
    2. Mehmet Bağış & Levent Altınay & Liridon Kryeziu & Mehmet Nurullah Kurutkan & Volkan Karaca, 2024. "Institutional and individual determinants of entrepreneurial intentions: evidence from developing and transition economies," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 883-912, March.
    3. Kareem M. Selem & Muhammad Haroon Shoukat & Syed Asim Shah & Marianny Jessica Brito Silva, 2023. "The dual effect of digital communication reinforcement drivers on purchase intention in the social commerce environment," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-12, December.
    4. Francis Osei & Gertrude Agyemang & Collins Kankam-Kwarteng & Ofosu Amofah, 2021. "Customer use of online order for food delivery service: the application of UTAUT2 Model," Technium Social Sciences Journal, Technium Science, vol. 25(1), pages 496-514, November.
    5. repec:plo:pone00:0231086 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Wolsko, Christopher & Marino, Elizabeth & Keys, Susan, 2020. "Affirming cultural values for health: The case of firearm restriction in suicide prevention," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 248(C).
    7. Shanmugavel, Nagarajan & Balakrishnan, Janarthanan, 2023. "Influence of pro-environmental behaviour towards behavioural intention of electric vehicles," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    8. Olawole Fawehinmi & M. Y. Yusliza & Wan Zulkifli Wan Kasim & Zaleha Mohamad & Muhammad Abi Sofian Abdul Halim, 2020. "Exploring the Interplay of Green Human Resource Management, Employee Green Behavior, and Personal Moral Norms," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(4), pages 21582440209, December.
    9. Kasim, Kabir O. & Winter, Scott R. & Liu, Dahai & Keebler, Joseph R. & Spence, Tyler B., 2021. "Passengers’ perceptions on the use of biometrics at airports: A statistical model of the extended theory of planned behavior," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    10. Imran Hossain & Md. Nekmahmud & Maria Fekete-Farkas, 2022. "How Do Environmental Knowledge, Eco-Label Knowledge, and Green Trust Impact Consumers’ Pro-Environmental Behaviour for Energy-Efficient Household Appliances?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-16, May.
    11. Ting Chi & Anastasia Frattali & Hang Liu & Yini Chen, 2023. "Regenerated Cellulose Fibers (RCFs) for Future Apparel Sustainability: Insights from the U.S. Consumers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-13, March.
    12. Beck, Susanne & Brasseur, Tiare-Maria & Poetz, Marion & Sauermann, Henry, 2022. "Crowdsourcing research questions in science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(4).
    13. Nekmahmud, Md. & Naz, Farheen & Ramkissoon, Haywantee & Fekete-Farkas, Maria, 2022. "Transforming consumers' intention to purchase green products: Role of social media," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    14. Ashraf, Mohammad Ali & Alam, Mirza Mohammad Didarul & Alexa, Lidia, 2021. "Making decision with an alternative mind-set: Predicting entrepreneurial intention toward f-commerce in a cross-country context," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    15. Cristina Fleșeriu & Smaranda Adina Cosma & Vlad Bocăneț, 2020. "Values and Planned Behaviour of the Romanian Organic Food Consumer," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-21, February.
    16. Pan, Jing Yu & Liu, Dahai, 2022. "Mask-wearing intentions on airplanes during COVID-19 – Application of theory of planned behavior model," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 32-44.
    17. Chen, Xia & Miraz, Mahadi Hasan & Gazi, Md. Abu Issa & Rahaman, Md. Atikur & Habib, Md. Mamun & Hossain, Abu Ishaque, 2022. "Factors affecting cryptocurrency adoption in digital business transactions: The mediating role of customer satisfaction," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    18. Md. Mahabub Alom, 2025. "Halal Food Products Adoption in Bangladesh: A Study Based on the Theory of Reasoned Action," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 9(14), pages 795-806, April.
    19. Imran Hossain & Maria Fekete-Farkas & Md. Nekmahmud, 2022. "Purchase Behavior of Energy-Efficient Appliances Contribute to Sustainable Energy Consumption in Developing Country: Moral Norms Extension of the Theory of Planned Behavior," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-20, June.
    20. Alberto Bertello & Paola Bernardi & Francesca Ricciardi, 2024. "Open innovation: status quo and quo vadis - an analysis of a research field," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 633-683, February.
    21. Harper, Lindsey M. & Kim, Youngseek, 2018. "Attitudinal, normative, and resource factors affecting psychologists’ intentions to adopt an open data badge: An empirical analysis," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 23-32.

    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:spr:rvmgts:v:19:y:2025:i:5:d:10.1007_s11846-024-00797-3. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.