Trade-offs in motivating volunteer effort: Experimental evidence on voluntary contributions to science.

Digitization has facilitated the proliferation of crowd science by lowering the cost of finding individuals with the willingness to participate in science without pay. However, the factors that influence participation and the outcomes of voluntary participation are unclear. We report two findings from a field experiment on the world's largest crowd science platform that tests how voluntary contributions to science are affected by providing clarifying information on either the desired outcome of a scientific task or the labor requirements for completing the task. First, there is significant heterogeneity in the motivations and ability of contributors to crowd science. Second, both of the information interventions lead to significant decreases in the quantity and increases in the quality of contributions. Combined, our findings are consistent with the information interventions improving match quality between the task and the volunteer. Our findings suggest that science can be democratized by engaging individuals with varying skill levels and motivations with small changes in the information provided to participants

Crowd Science: The Organization of Scientific Research in Open Collaborative Projects

A growing amount of scientific research is done in an open collaborative fashion, in projects sometimes referred to as "crowd science", "citizen science", or "networked science". This paper seeks to gain a more systematic understanding of crowd science and to provide scholars with a conceptual framework and an agenda for future research. First, we briefly present three case examples that span different fields of science and illustrate the heterogeneity concerning what crowd science projects do and how they are organized. Second, we identify two fundamental elements that characterize crowd science projects - open participation and open sharing of intermediate inputs - and distinguish crowd science from other knowledge production regimes such as innovation contests or traditional "Mertonian" science. Third, we explore potential knowledge-related and motivational benefits that crowd science offers over alternative organizational modes, and potential challenges it is likely to face. Drawing on prior research on the organization of problem solving, we also consider for what kinds of tasks particular benefits or challenges are likely to be most pronounced. We conclude by outlining an agenda for future research and by discussing implications for funding agencies and policy makers

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

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

Open science and crowd science: Selected sites and resources

Diane Dawson, Natural Sciences Liaison Librarian, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, [email protected]

Open science and crowd science: Selected sites and resources

Diane Dawson, Natural Sciences Liaison Librarian, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, [email protected]

Theoretical Underpinnings and Practical Challenges of Crowdsourcing as a Mechanism for Academic Study

Researchers in a variety of fields are increasingly adopting crowdsourcing as a reliable instrument for performing tasks that are either complex for humans and computer algorithms. As a result, new forms of collective intelligence have emerged from the study of massive crowd-machine interactions in scientific work settings as a field for which there is no known theory or model able to explain how it really works. Such type of crowd work uses an open participation model that keeps the scientific activity (including datasets, methods, guidelines, and analysis results) widely available and mostly independent from institutions, which distinguishes crowd science from other crowd-assisted types of participation. In this paper, we build on the practical challenges of crowd-AI supported research and propose a conceptual framework for addressing the socio-technical aspects of crowd science from a CSCW viewpoint. Our study reinforces a manifested lack of systematic and empirical research of the symbiotic relation of AI with human computation and crowd computing in scientific endeavors

Working the crowd for forensic research: A review of contributor motivation and recruitment strategies used in crowdsourcing and crowdfunding for scientific research

Crowdsourcing and crowdfunding have been successfully used in a range of scientific disciplines and present opportunities for forensic researchers to draw on the power of large numbers of people to contribute to research projects through participation or by providing an alternative source of funding. This review aimed to examine whether contributors to crowd science and crowdfunding for scientific research are motivated to participate or provide financial support by the same factors, and to examine recruitment strategies in an attempt to identify a potential crowd for forensic researchers to approach. There was found to be limited research into crowdfunding for scientific research that addressed the motivations of contributors or recruitment strategies used, and no conclusions could be made. There is a need to overcome low response rates and high attrition over the lifetime of a crowd science project or crowdfunding appeal. It is necessary to target a large number of people who are interested in the subject studied and who want to make a difference in some way and contribute to science. True crime podcast audiences are proposed as they present large numbers of listeners who are interested in forensic science, criminal investigation or law enforcement. These audiences have been targeted for successful fundraising efforts and invitations to participate in crowd activities previously. They should be considered by forensic researchers who are looking to venture into crowdsourcing or crowdfunding for research projects