Between Demoncratization and Panda Bear Science: What Scientific Projects Succeed on Crowdfunding Platforms?
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•352 views
Keynote tTalk by Mike S. Schäfer at the First Swiss Crowdfunding Science Festival - https://www.sciencecrowdfunding.ch - at Kunsthalle Zurich, Oct. 12, 2018
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Between Demoncratization and Panda Bear Science: What Scientific Projects Succeed on Crowdfunding Platforms?
Similar to Between Demoncratization and Panda Bear Science: What Scientific Projects Succeed on Crowdfunding Platforms? (20)
More from Mike Schäfer
More from Mike Schäfer (15)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Between Demoncratization and Panda Bear Science: What Scientific Projects Succeed on Crowdfunding Platforms?
- 1. IKMZ – Department of Communication and Media Research Seite 1 Mike S. Schäfer m.schaefer@ipmz.uzh.ch, Twitter: @mss7676 www.ikmz.uzh.ch/en/research/divisions/science-crisis-and-risk-communication.html Between Democratization & “Panda Bear Science” What Scientific Projects Succeed on Crowdfunding Platforms?
- 2. IKMZ – Department of Communication and Media Research Roadmap of the talk 1. Crowdfunding science as a research topic 2. What did we do? Research design 3. What exactly did we test? 4. Results 5. What does this mean?
- 3. IKMZ – Department of Communication and Media Research 1. Crowdfunding science as a research topic Seite 3 Diagnoses of a «societalization» of science (Weingart 2001, cf. Gibbons et al. 1994, Nowotny et al. 2001, Etzkowitz/Leydesdorff 2000) 1. increases in third-party funding (BfS 2012, OECD 2015 et al.) 2. online and social media as new interfaces between society and science (e.g. Brossard 2013, Neuberger 2014)
- 4. IKMZ – Department of Communication and Media Research 1. Crowdfunding science as a research topic Seite 4 Crowdfunding: „internet-based method of fundraising in which individuals solicit contributions for projects on specialized crowdfunding websites … focus is gathering many small donations … runs over a limited timeframe.” (Wheat et al. 2013: 71)
- 5. IKMZ – Department of Communication and Media Research 1. Crowdfunding science as a research topic Seite 5 Crowdfunding: „internet-based method of fundraising in which individuals solicit contributions for projects on specialized crowdfunding websites … focus is gathering many small donations … runs over a limited timeframe.” (Wheat et al. 2013: 71) • Hopes for a democratization of research & new funding opportunities, including small and medium-sized contributions, especially for younger researchers
- 6. IKMZ – Department of Communication and Media Research 1. Crowdfunding science as a research topic Seite 6 Crowdfunding: „internet-based method of fundraising in which individuals solicit contributions for projects on specialized crowdfunding websites … focus is gathering many small donations … runs over a limited timeframe.” (Wheat et al. 2013: 71) • Hopes for a democratization of research & new funding opportunities, including small and medium-sized contributions, especially for younger researchers • Concerns about scientific quality: Will «Panda Bear Science» be supported?
- 7. IKMZ – Department of Communication and Media Research 1. Crowdfunding science as a research topic Seite 7 interesting for scicomm scholars: Scientists need to communicate their project to the public at an unusually early stage – in an engaging way that motivates the crowd to donate • jargon vs. colloquial language • different presentations of credentials • pictures and videos • “perks” for high donations Research question: Which presentations of scientific projects are successful on crowdfunding sites?
- 8. IKMZ – Department of Communication and Media Research 2. What did we do? Research design Seite 8 Keyword search on 11 German and English crowdfunding platforms for scientific projects Content analysis of platform, project and applicant characteristics of 371 projects Regression analysis to explain the success of these projects
- 9. IKMZ – Department of Communication and Media Research 2. What did we do? Research design Seite 9 Keyword search on 11 German and English crowdfunding platforms for scientific projects Content analysis of platform, project and applicant characteristics of 371 projects Regression analysis to explain the success of these projects
- 10. IKMZ – Department of Communication and Media Research 2. What did we do? Research design Seite 10 Keyword search on 11 German and English crowdfunding platforms for scientific projects Content analysis of platform, project and applicant characteristics of 371 projects Regression analysis to explain the success of these projects
- 11. IKMZ – Department of Communication and Media Research 2. What did we do? Research design Seite 11 Keyword search on 11 German and English crowdfunding platforms for scientific projects Content analysis of platform, project and applicant characteristics of 371 projects Regression analysis to explain the success of these projects
- 12. IKMZ – Department of Communication and Media Research 3. Which projects get funded? Seite 12 66% of projects are successful On average, they receive 4000 US$ Applicants typically are individual, early career, STEM scholars They mostly fund data aquisition, research materials or trips They have 39 donors on average
- 13. IKMZ – Department of Communication and Media Research 3. What exactly did we test? Seite 13 Success = “% of a project's goal that is raised” (Mollick 2014: 5)
- 14. IKMZ – Department of Communication and Media Research 3. What exactly did we test? Seite 14 Success = “% of a project's goal that is raised” (Mollick 2014: 5) Control variables - Project discipline - Number of platform users - Science-only platform
- 15. IKMZ – Department of Communication and Media Research 3. What exactly did we test? Seite 15 Success = “% of a project's goal that is raised” (Mollick 2014: 5) Success = “% of a project's goal that is raised” (Mollick 2014: 5) Control variables - Project discipline - Number of platform users - Science-only platform “Quality Signals” (Mollick 2014, see Saxton & Wang, 2013; Schmiedgen, 2014) - Text complexity - Text length - Interactivity - Applicant‘s academic degree - Academic titles or awards - Connection to university - Scientific supporters
- 16. IKMZ – Department of Communication and Media Research 3. What exactly did we test? Seite 16 Success = “% of a project's goal that is raised” (Mollick 2014: 5) Success = “% of a project's goal that is raised” (Mollick 2014: 5) Control variables - Project discipline - Number of platform users - Science-only platform “Quality Signals” (Mollick 2014, see Saxton & Wang, 2013; Schmiedgen, 2014) - Text complexity - Text length - Interactivity - Applicant‘s academic degree - Academic titles or awards - Connection to university - Scientific supporters News value theory (Badenschier/Wormer 2012) - Visualization - Humour - Exaggeration - Celebrities - Personalization - Scientific scope
- 17. IKMZ – Department of Communication and Media Research 3. What exactly did we test? Seite 17 Success = “% of a project's goal that is raised” (Mollick 2014: 5) Control variables - Project discipline - Number of platform users - Science-only platform “Quality Signals” (Mollick 2014, see Saxton & Wang, 2013; Schmiedgen, 2014) - Text complexity - Text length - Interactivity - Applicant‘s academic degree - Academic titles or awards - Connection to university - Scientific supporters News value theory (Badenschier/Wormer 2012) - Visualization - Humour - Exaggeration - Celebrities - Personalization - Scientific scope Willingness to pay online (see Dou 2004; Wang et al. 2005; Herbert & Thurman 2007; Rademacher & Siegert 2007) - Amount of money - Consideration: „perks“ - Personal data - Cumbersome payment
- 18. IKMZ – Department of Communication and Media Research 4. Results (explained variance: 41%) Seite 18 Control variables - Project discipline - Number of platform users - Science-only platform “Quality Signals” (Mollick 2014, see Saxton & Wang, 2013; Schmiedgen, 2014) - Text complexity - Text length - Interactivity - Applicant‘s academic degree - Academic titles or awards - Connection to university - Scientific supporters News value theory (Badenschier/Wormer 2012) - Visualization - Humour - Exaggeration - Celebrities - Personalization - Scientific scope Willingness to pay online (see Dou 2004; Wang et al. 2005; Herbert & Thurman 2007; Rademacher & Siegert 2007) - Amount of money - Consideration: „perks“ - Personal data - Cumbersome payment Success = “% of a project's goal that is raised” (Mollick 2014: 5)
- 19. IKMZ – Department of Communication and Media Research 4. Results (explained variance: 41%) Seite 19 Control variables - Project discipline - Number of platform users - Science-only platform “Quality Signals” (Mollick 2014, see Saxton & Wang, 2013; Schmiedgen, 2014) - Text complexity - Text length - Interactivity - Applicant‘s academic degree - Academic titles or awards - Connection to university - Scientific supporters News value theory (Badenschier/Wormer 2012) - Visualization - Humour - Exaggeration - Celebrities - Personalization - Scientific scope Willingness to pay online (see Dou 2004; Wang et al. 2005; Herbert & Thurman 2007; Rademacher & Siegert 2007) - Amount of money - Consideration: „perks“ - Personal data - Cumbersome payment Success = “% of a project's goal that is raised” (Mollick 2014: 5)
- 20. IKMZ – Department of Communication and Media Research 4. Results (explained variance: 41%) Seite 20 Control variables - Project discipline - Number of platform users - Science-only platform “Quality Signals” (Mollick 2014, see Saxton & Wang, 2013; Schmiedgen, 2014) - Text complexity - Text length - Interactivity - Applicant‘s academic degree - Academic titles or awards - Connection to university - Scientific supporters News value theory (Badenschier/Wormer 2012) - Visualization - Humour - Exaggeration - Celebrities - Personalization - Scientific scope Willingness to pay online (see Dou 2004; Wang et al. 2005; Herbert & Thurman 2007; Rademacher & Siegert 2007) - Amount of money - Consideration: „perks“ - Personal data - Cumbersome payment Success = “% of a project's goal that is raised” (Mollick 2014: 5)
- 21. IKMZ – Department of Communication and Media Research 4. Results (explained variance: 41%) Seite 21 Control variables - Project discipline - Number of platform users - Science-only platform “Quality Signals” (Mollick 2014, see Saxton & Wang, 2013; Schmiedgen, 2014) - Text complexity - Text length - Interactivity - Applicant‘s academic degree - Academic titles or awards - Connection to university - Scientific supporters News value theory (Badenschier/Wormer 2012) - Visualization - Humour - Exaggeration - Celebrities - Personalization - Scientific scope Willingness to pay online (see Dou 2004; Wang et al. 2005; Herbert & Thurman 2007; Rademacher & Siegert 2007) - Amount of money - Consideration: „perks“ - Personal data - Cumbersome payment Success = “% of a project's goal that is raised” (Mollick 2014: 5)
- 22. IKMZ – Department of Communication and Media Research 4. Results (explained variance: 41%) Seite 22 Control variables - Project discipline - Number of platform users - Science-only platform “Quality Signals” (Mollick 2014, see Saxton & Wang, 2013; Schmiedgen, 2014) - Text complexity - Text length - Interactivity - Applicant‘s academic degree - Academic titles or awards - Connection to university - Scientific supporters News value theory (Badenschier/Wormer 2012) - Visualization - Humour - Exaggeration - Celebrities - Personalization - Scientific scope Willingness to pay online (see Dou 2004; Wang et al. 2005; Herbert & Thurman 2007; Rademacher & Siegert 2007) - Amount of money - Consideration: „perks“ - Personal data - Cumbersome payment Success = “% of a project's goal that is raised” (Mollick 2014: 5)
- 23. IKMZ – Department of Communication and Media Research 4. Results (explained variance: 41%) Seite 23 Control variables - Project discipline - Number of platform users - Science-only platform “Quality Signals” (Mollick 2014, see Saxton & Wang, 2013; Schmiedgen, 2014) - Text complexity - Text length - Interactivity - Applicant‘s academic degree - Academic titles or awards - Connection to university - Scientific supporters News value theory (Badenschier/Wormer 2012) - Visualization - Humour - Exaggeration - Celebrities - Personalization - Scientific scope Willingness to pay online (see Dou 2004; Wang et al. 2005; Herbert & Thurman 2007; Rademacher & Siegert 2007) - Amount of money - Consideration: „perks“ - Personal data - Cumbersome payment Success = “% of a project's goal that is raised” (Mollick 2014: 5)
- 24. IKMZ – Department of Communication and Media Research 4. Results (explained variance: 41%) Seite 24 Control variables - Project discipline - Number of platform users - Science-only platform “Quality Signals” (Mollick 2014, see Saxton & Wang, 2013; Schmiedgen, 2014) - Text complexity - Text length - Interactivity - Applicant‘s academic degree - Academic titles or awards - Connection to university - Scientific supporters News value theory (Badenschier/Wormer 2012) - Visualization - Humour - Exaggeration - Celebrities - Personalization - Scientific scope Willingness to pay online (see Dou 2004; Wang et al. 2005; Herbert & Thurman 2007; Rademacher & Siegert 2007) - Amount of money - Consideration: „perks“ - Personal data - Cumbersome payment Success = “% of a project's goal that is raised” (Mollick 2014: 5)
- 25. IKMZ – Department of Communication and Media Research 4. Results (explained variance: 41%) Seite 25 Control variables - Project discipline - Number of platform users - Science-only platform “Quality Signals” (Mollick 2014, see Saxton & Wang, 2013; Schmiedgen, 2014) - Text complexity - Text length - Interactivity - Applicant‘s academic degree - Academic titles or awards - Connection to university - Scientific supporters News value theory (Badenschier/Wormer 2012) - Visualization - Humour - Exaggeration - Celebrities - Personalization - Scientific scope Willingness to pay online (see Dou 2004; Wang et al. 2005; Herbert & Thurman 2007; Rademacher & Siegert 2007) - Amount of money - Consideration: „perks“ - Personal data - Cumbersome payment Success = “% of a project's goal that is raised” (Mollick 2014: 5)
- 26. IKMZ – Department of Communication and Media Research 4. Results (explained variance: 41%) Seite 26 Control variables - Project discipline - Number of platform users - Science-only platform “Quality Signals” (Mollick 2014, see Saxton & Wang, 2013; Schmiedgen, 2014) - Text complexity - Text length - Interactivity - Applicant‘s academic degree - Academic titles or awards - Connection to university - Scientific supporters News value theory (Badenschier/Wormer 2012) - Visualization - Humour - Exaggeration - Celebrities - Personalization - Scientific scope Willingness to pay online (see Dou 2004; Wang et al. 2005; Herbert & Thurman 2007; Rademacher & Siegert 2007) - Amount of money - Consideration: „perks“ - Personal data - Cumbersome payment Success = “% of a project's goal that is raised” (Mollick 2014: 5)
- 27. IKMZ – Department of Communication and Media Research 5. What does this mean? Implications Seite 27 Influences on the success of scientific projects on crowdfunding sites? • presentation on science-only platform • funny, visual, understandable presentation; interactivity • easy, anonymous donations „Panda Bear Science“?
- 28. IKMZ – Department of Communication and Media Research 5. What does this mean? Implications Seite 28 Influences on the success of scientific projects on crowdfunding sites? • presentation on science-only platform • funny, visual, understandable presentation; interactivity • easy, anonymous donations But: • how to measure project quality? • what are donor motivations? • crowdfunding volume still very low compared to traditional funding „Panda Bear Science“?
- 29. IKMZ – Department of Communication and Media Research Mike S. Schäfer m.schaefer@ipmz.uzh.ch, Twitter: @mss7676 www.ikmz.uzh.ch/en/research/divisions/science-crisis-and-risk-communication.html Thank you for your attention! … and thanks to Jessica Feustle, Livia Herzog, Angela Landolt, Sabine Lorencez and Tobias Füchslin for participation and support!
- 30. IKMZ – Department of Communication and Media Research Herzlichen Dank für Ihre Aufmerksamkeit!
- 31. IKMZ – Department of Communication and Media Research Operationalisierung Crowdfunding (I) Seite 31 Variable Operationalization Range M SD Independent variable Funding Level Percentage of project's initial goal that was eventually raised 0-577 85.88 5 58.97 3 Control variables Discipline (dummies) Natural Science 0=no, 1=yes 0/1 .556 .497 Medicine 0=no, 1=yes 0/1 .181 .385 Engineering 0=no, 1=yes 0/1 .091 .289 Social Science/Humanities 0=no, 1=yes 0/1 .121 .327 Reference: Arts 0=no, 1=yes 0/1 .048 .215 News value theory Astonishment Number of superlatives and hyperbolical adjectives in project description (0=none, 1=few, 2=medium, 3=many) 0-3 .80 .981 Visualization No of pictures and videos in project description 0-118 4.134 7.077 Personalization Does project description focus on researcher as a private person (e.g. mentioning hobbies, family etc.)? (0=none, 1= 1 mention, 2=2 mentions, 3=3 or more mentions) 0-3 .84 .928 Reference to elite persons Are elite persons mentioned in project description, i.e. decisions makers, heads of state, celebrities? (0=no, 1=yes) 0/1 .080 .272 Scientific scope How is project’s scientific scope presented? (0=relevance beyond proect not mentioned, 1=relevant for 1 specific research field, 2= relvant for an entire discipline, 3= relevant for several disciplines) 0-3 1.53 .690 Humor Does proposal contain humor? (0=none, 1=weak, 2=medium, 3=strong) 0-3 .19 .582
- 32. IKMZ – Department of Communication and Media Research Operationalisierung Crowdfunding (II) Seite 32 Variable Operationalization Range M SD Reputation Signalling Quality Signals Academic title of applicant 1=none, 2=BA (or equivalent), 3=PhD candidate, 4=Postdoc (or equivalent), 5=Professor 1-5 1.905 .977 Prices and honors of applicant Does project description contain prices/honors applicant has received? (0=no, 1=yes) 0/1 .06 .231 Project description: complexity How complex is project description for non-scientist? (1=very high - 5=very low) 1-5 2.36 1.090 Project description: length No. of words in project description; excluding platform- specific standardized parts of presentation 0 - 4087 718.2 1 414.3 06 Perks Are rewards offered to donors for making a donation of a given size? 0-1 .37 .483 Feedback Mechanisms Interactivity Can potential donors interact directly with project applicants? (0=no, 1=yes, via one-way lab notes from applicants, 2=yes, two-way via commentaries, 3= yes, via lab notes and commentaries) 0-3 2.09 .700 Trustworthy Intermediaries Media features/testimonials of project Does project description contain media features/testimonials about project? (0=no, 1=yes) 0/1 .21 .410 Media features/testimonials of platform Does platform contain media features/testimonials? 0/1 .17 .389
- 33. IKMZ – Department of Communication and Media Research Operationalisierung Crowdfunding (III) Seite 33 Variable Operationalization Range M SD Online payment Targeted amount Initially targeted amount in US Dollars 60 - 50000 00 4563 0.570 3845 75.57 1 Security of payment Amount of personal information (e.g. name, e-mail address) donors have to relinquish before payment 2 - 6 3.361 .622 Convenience of payment No. of clicks/text boxes from project to payment 6-25 9.47 4.859 Crowdfunding- specific variables Site traffic No of platform’s monthly users, according to alexa.com 350 – 13‘983‘ 346 11740 06.19 2632 975.2 53 Platform focus 0=general crowdfunding platform, 1=science-only platform 0/1 .517 .500
Editor's Notes
- I will give you a short introduction to crowdfunding what it is what ist role is and can be in science funding The related rationales, hopes and fears And then one of our projects here in Zurich Not because everywhere I go I only talk about my own research But because there is very little out there yet The study is rather small and limited in many ways, which will make for a good discussion, however, because you can all point out the flaws ;-)
- Allgemeiner Rahmen: Das Verhältnis von Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft ändert sich Beschreiben mehrere Autoren, u.a. Peter Weingart in «Stunde der Wahrheit», der von einer «Vergesellschaftung» der Wissenschaft spricht: einen Prozess der zunehmenden und wechselseitigen Durchdringung von Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft, der politische, ökonomische und auch mediale bzw. öffentliche Ansprüche stärker in die Wissenschaft hinein trägt. This has many facets – two of which are important here: Firstly, research funding is changing. Funding levels have stagnated or been cut in many countries third-party funding from agencies like the US National Science Foundation, private foundations, enterprises etc. has become more important in relation to public funding in many OECD countries Secondly, Internet und v.a. Social Media schaffen neue Interfaces zwischen Gesellschaft und Wissenschaft – citizens are getting new opportunities and new roles Observers: Sie können Beobachter sein, die in Live-Streams „Science in the Making“ verfolgen Dialogue partners: Sie können Gesprächspartner sein, wenn sie in wissenschaftlichen Diskussionsforen aktiv sind. Watchdogs: plagiarism websites Communicators for science: join wikipedia Co-researchers: Sie können Mit-Forschende sein, wenn sie an Citizen Science-Projekten wie GalaxyZoo mitarbeiten And funders: Und sie können Finanziers sein, wenn sie Geld für die Realisierung wissenschaftlicher Projekte per Crowdfunding spenden und das will ich mir mit ihnen ansehen
- Nach Wheat et al. eine „“internet-based method of fundraising in which individuals solicit contributions for projects on specialized crowdfunding websites. The focus in crowd-funding is gathering many small donations (the ‘crowd’ in crowdfunding) rather than requesting a single large sum from a funding agency. Crowdfunding drives run over a limited timeframe, anywhere from a single day to several weeks, and attempt to meet a funding goal before the end of the campaign.” ” Man beschreibt sein Projekt auf einer einschlägigen Plattform unter Nutzung unterschiedlicher Mittel (Text, Bilder, Videos, Testimonials, Grafiken etc.), definiert die Aspekte, die man finanziert haben will, nennt seinen Preis und lässt das Projekt dann eine bestimmte Zeit laufen, während der Nutzer Geld spenden können. Four crowdfunding variants (cf. Hollow, 2013, p. 71; Schwarz, 2013, p. 12): equity-based crowdfunding, donors invest in business projects and receive dividends or shares in case of success lending-based crowdfunding, donors lend money to applicants and get interest in return Reward-based crowdfunding rewards donor contributions in non-monetary ways, e.g. by providing services or products donation-based crowdfunding, donors do not receive a material return The latter 2 are the most common variant with regards to scientific projects Gaining in importance generally Crowdfunding has become increasingly important in recent years, with a global volume estimated at more than five billion US dollars in 2014 (Broderick, May 8, 2014). Crowdfunding projects have been used to finance businesses, music albums and movies, novel forms of journalism and more (for overviews see Bennett, Chin, & Jones, 2015; Lambert & Schwienbacher, 2010). Crowdfunding is also receiving more attention within science. A number of partly high-profile scientific projects have been crowdfunded already, including an orbital space telescope which has received 1.5 million US dollars (Sich 2015). Some institutions have made concerted efforts to use crowdfunding to acquire research funds, like the Australian Deakin University which received 125,000 Dollars for 14 projects from online donors (Doyle 2015). General-interest crowdfunding sites such as indiegogo.com, kickstarter.com or rockethub.com have hosted numerous scientific projects already, and they have been supplemented by platforms focusing exclusively on crowdfunding proposals from the scientific community, such as experiment.com, petridish.org or sciencestarter.de In Switzerland the Science Booster at Wemakeit has hosted some 30 successful projects connecting nearly 3000 supporters and researchers. Furthermore, the surrounding communication activities reached at least another 500’000 people via the website, newsletters and social media
- HOPES: scientists have to explore new avenues to acquire research money, as science is getting more elaborate and costly, and as funding is harder to come by CF can be a viable alternative for certain types of research projects, e.g. small projects of early career researchers and researchers in developing countries Also: crowdfunding has been described as a way to alleviate alleged problems in the traditional grant system, which has been characterized as tending to fund “lower-risk, longer term projects, given to older scientists” and as “inefficient, risk-averse, and often times political” (Frood, 2015), whereas crowdfunding is portrayed as reaching a broader audience, as being more „democratic“ and as allowing the public to decide directly what kind of science should get financed (e.g. Davidson & Poor, 2016, p. 127; Sciencestarter, 2016; Wheat et al., 2013, p. 71).
- CONCERNS In contrast, a number of concerns have been voiced about crowdfunding science, mainly with regards to quality control and the importance of peer evaluation (cf. Agrawal, Catalini, & Goldfarb, 2013, p. 8f.). If research funding is decided by non-experts, it is argued, quality control is lacking and certain kinds of necessary, but complex or seemingly less appealing projects might not receive enough funds (cf. Bennett et al., 2015; Patel, 2015). The result might be that only „panda bear science“ gets funded, i.e. research that is “super sexy or [has] to do with cuddly animals” (Siva, 2014, p. 1086), but may lack scientific substance.
- Kommunikativ interessant an Crowdfunding ist, dass Wissenschaftler zu einer ungewöhnlich frühen Zeit ihr Projekt öffentlich kommunizieren müssen – nämlich bevor es gestartet sind – und dass sie das in einer Weise tun müssen, die das Publikum zu einer Spende motiviert. Und Wissenschaftler versuchen das in sehr unterschiedlicher Weise: Einige eher mit wissenschaftlicher Sprache, andere sehr locker. Viele nutzen Bilder und teils Filme, wie sie hier sehen. Einige versprechen “perks”, also Boni bei hohen Spenden, andere nicht. Die Frage ist daher: Welche Präsentationen wissenschaftlicher Crowdfunding-Projekte sind eigentlich erfolgreich? Wie muss man sein Projekt also präsentieren? This question has not yet been answered. Compared to the increasing importance of crowdfunding outside and within science, “there has been very little published peer-reviewed work to date on the topic” (Mollick 2014: 4).
- Wie haben wir hier eine Antwort gesucht? Das ist das Grunddesign unseres Projektes:
- Erstens haben wir auf 11 deutschen und englischen Crowdfunding-Seiten nach wissenschaftlichen Projekten gesucht. Dabei waren sowohl Seiten, die nur wissenschaftliche Projekte anbieten als auch Seiten, die ein breites Spektrum, aber auch wiss. Projekte anbieten. Dazu wurde eine Liste von Schlagwörtern verwendet, die wir iterativ (induktiv/deduktiv) entwickelt und geprüft haben. Die gefundenen Projekte wurden dann noch einmal manuell daraufhin überprüft, ob es wirklich um Projekte ging, bei denen es um die Finanzierung von Forschung, ihrer Konzeption, Abwicklung oder auch Präsentation etwa in Form von Konferenzreisen ging. Ergebnis waren 371 Projekte.
- Zweitens haben wir für all diese 371 Projekte per Inhaltsanalyse Informationen auf der Ebene der Plattformen, der Projekte & der Antragsteller codiert – welche genau das waren und welche theoretischen Überlegungen dem zugrunde lagen, stelle ich gleich noch vor.
- Drittens haben wir den «Erfolg» dieser Projekte erfasst – auch dazu gleich mehr – und regressionsanalytisch versucht zu erklären, welche Darstellungsmerkmale mit diesem Erfolg zusammenhängen.
- Descriptive results
- Welche theoretischen Ansätze und Maße haben wir dabei nun warum verwendet? Maß des Erfolgs ist für uns die eingeworbene Summe – wobei wir nicht einfach erfassen, ob der Zielbetrag erreicht wurde, sondern den, wie Mollick das nennt, “funding level”, d.h. den Anteil der angestrebten Zielsumme, den ein Projekt erreicht hat. Der funding level bewegt sich bei den Projekten zwischen 0% und mehr als 300%. The most relevant measure of success from the perspective of the applicants is whether they acquire the requested amount of funding (which is also an important threshold as some crowdfunding platforms withhold payment to the applicants if they only receive part of the requested funding). While this would indicate a dichotomous (yes/no) variable, the extent to which applicants reach their self-defined goal can also be measured in more detail. Mollick (2014: 5) has proposed to use the “funding level” as a measure of crowdfunding success, i.e. the “percentage of a project's goal that is actually raised by founders. Projects that raise at least their goal are considered successful or funded projects, and they are paid the total pledged to them by the crowdfunding site. Projects can raise more than their goal, these projects are overfunded.” (Mollick 2014: 5). The advantage of this measure – which we decided to use here – is that it is highly relevant for applicants themselves, that it is equally applicable to successful and unsuccessfully projects and, in addition, that it was available on all coded platforms (while other potential measures, like the number of donors, were not available across all platforms). Und dann haben wir wie gesagt unterschiedliche Informationen über die Plattformen, die Projekte und deren Antragsteller erfasst und auf dieses “funding level” bezogen.
- Drei Kontrollvariablen: die disziplinäre Zugehörigkeit des Projektes. die Nutzerzahl der Plattform, die Frage ob es sich um eine Plattform nur für wissenschaftliche Projekte handelt, Disziplin it can be expected that not all disciplines are equally attractive for donors (cf. Wheat et al. 2013: 72). Numerous studies on media reporting have shown that media take up scientific topics to different degrees, likely due to the different appeals these disciplines (presumably) have to their audiences. The disciplines that have been represented most extensively are medicine and biology in recent decades, with other natural sciences and engineering science following behind (Nelkin, 1995: 9f, Bauer, 1998, anonymized). This has been shown, for example, for German (Elmer et al. 2008), British (e.g. Bauer 1998), US (e.g. Pellechia 1997), Canadian (Einsiedel 1992) and Italian press (Bucchi and Mazzolini 2003) and also for television coverage (Gregory and Miller 1998; for an overview see Dunwoody 2008). Accordingly, we include the discipline of the proposed research project in our model as well, hypothesizing that scientific projects’ success on crowdfunding sites differs depending on their disciplinary background (H8). additional factors have to be taken into account when assessing success on crowdfunding sites. They are related to characteristics of the ‘crowd’ that is drawn towards a specific project, namely to its size and interests. Wheat et al. argue that the “probability of reaching a fundraising goal depends upon a successful outreach campaign, with a larger crowd translating into more money raised” and with applicants having to “appeal to potential funders and to channel these individuals directly to a proposal” (Wheat et al. 2013: 72). Firstly, this points towards the importance of many people coming across a particularly project. It can be hypothesized – and has been shown empirically in crowdfunding studies apart from scientific projects (cf. Byrnes et al. 2014: 12; Mollick 2014; cf. Ordanini 2011: 444) – that the more users are likely to see a project, the more likely it is to be successful (H6). Secondly, Wheat et al. also touch upon another relevant factor – the question whether a particular crowd is likely to be specifically interested in a project (cf. Byrnes et al. 2014: 12). This is likely to increase if potential donors visit crowdfunding platforms which offer scientific projects only. Accordingly, we hypothesize that the stronger a platform focuses on scientific projects, the more likely these projects are to be successful (H7).
- Die aus normativer Sicht vielleicht zentrale Grösse wäre ja die Qualität dessen, was finanziert werden soll. Aber diese zu bestimmen ist für uns – aber eben auch für Spender – nicht einfach. Einerseits ist es Crowdfunding inhärent, dass es eben noch kein „Produkt“, kein Projekt gibt. Man kann nur Pläne vorzeigen. Andererseits ist auch die Einschätzung der Qualität dieser Pläne nicht einfach, weil diese ja aus sehr unterschiedlichen Disziplinen stammen und sich häufig mit komplexer Materie befassen. Zudem gibt es Meta-Analyse der Gutachten zu mehr als 8000 Projektanträgen bei «offiziellen» Projektförderern, die eine Korrelation der Gutachterurteile von nur 0.25 zeigt (Team HDD, PLoS One, 2012). And there is a “particularly high degree of information asymmetry” (Agrawal et al., 2013, p. 18) inherent in crowdfunding. Donors have less information about the projects and their chances of realization available than applicants. Crowdfunding scholars have therefore argued that the best solutions for applicants is to “signal” their reputation and quality – with three mechanisms being important “quality signals”: scientific products are complex, often presented with a certain nomenclature, need an understanding of certain concepts or methodologies, and do not usually produce immediate, tangible results. This is why they are traditionally evaluated by peers – and even they have difficulties doing so consistently Under these circumstances, it is likely that potential donors base their quality assessments at least partly on “quality signals” instead of robust judgments. Quality signals that have been demonstrated to be effective in other areas are the brands to which a product belongs, the education level of the applicant or his/her earlier achievements such as patents For scientific projects, equivalent quality signals might be the academic titles or honors of an applicant, or the length and complexity of the project presentation itself, i.e. its ‘scientific-ness’ “feedback systems” effective signals for improving reputation in online auctions, where elaborate feedback mechanisms such as buyer/seller rating systems are available These are usually not available on crowdfunding platforms and would apply less to them anyway, as interactions there are less frequent But crowdfunding scholars have still argued that feedback mechanisms signal transparency, applicants’ commitment to a project and their “accountability to funders” “trustworthy intermediaries”, “endorsements” or “social recommendations” have been shown to be effective reputation signals Applicants and project descriptions can profit from the “conferred credibility” of peer or media testimonials, as donors are more “inclined to perceive information and sources as credible if others do so also”
- Zudem haben wir uns der Nachrichtenwerttheorie bedient ist eine Theorie der Nachrichtenauswahl durch Journalisten, die besagt, dass Ereignisse oder Themen mit bestimmten Eigenschaften eher zum Berichterstattungs-Gegenstand werden interessant, weil Nachrichtenfaktoren für Journalisten Operationalisierungen des Publikumsinteresses sind, und weil Studien von Christiane Eilders und anderen auch gezeigt haben, dass sich das Publikum diesen Themen eher zuwendet they “embody assumptions about audiences[, i.e.] about the composition, wants or tastes of those who are being addressed“ (Schlesinger 1978: 115f.) Have been shown to work, also in online environments Auch wenn es dabei nie dezidiert um Zahlungsentscheidungen, sondern um Aufmerksamkeitszuwendung geht, vermuten wir, dass Nachrichtenfaktoren eine Rolle dafür spielen können, ob bestimmte Projekte gefördert werden, weil sie dafür sorgen, dass sich Nutzer bestimmten Projekten zuwenden. scientific issues have their own news factors list of news factors will be adjusted for our study, as crowdfunding projects differ from news media content in that they do not present daily or weekly news from various fields of society, but specific scientific projects which are not finished at the time of presentation
- Schliesslich gibt es eine beträchtliche Literatur zu Zahlungsbereitschaft online aus der Ökonomie zu Kaufentscheidungen und teils auch zu Crowdfunding selbst (e.g. Dou 2004; Wang et al. 2005) aus der Journalismusforschung zu journalistischen Angeboten im Netz (e.g. Herbert & Thurman 2007; Rademacher & Siegert 2007). Studies in these fields generally argue that “[t]he influence of various task-related or contextual variables should be carefully evaluated in cyberspace.” (Dou 2004: 349), as the conditions with which consumers or users are faced when paying online differ from those they face when paying offline: They have to relinquish personal and potentially sensitive information in online contexts they do not know well and that may be insecure, for example (e.g. Wang et al. 2005: 307) Diese weist einerseits darauf hin, dass Qualität wichtig ist – das hatten wir schon. Darüber hinaus weist sie darauf hin, dass es wichtig ist, Wie hoch der anvisierte Betrag eines Projektes und damit seine Realisierungswahrscheinlichkeit ist: we expect that the price of a scientific project influences its success on crowdfunding platforms. This is in line with the assumption that crowdfunding may be particularly suitable for small to medium-sized projects (Schmiedgen 2014: 136ff.), and that empirically, “increasing goal size is negatively associated with success” (Mollick 2014: 8). Therefore, we hypothesize that the lower the price of a scientific project, the more successful it is on crowdfunding platforms (H2). Ob es eine Gegenleistung für die Spende gibt, wenn es schon kein Produkt gibt und wie convenient der Kauf ist, also konkret: wie viele persönliche Daten man von sich preisgeben muss und wie umständlich die Zahlung ist.
- Diese Variablen wurden in einem studentischen Forschungsprojekt von 4 Codiererinnen codiert. A team of four coders coded these variables for all 371 projects. Coding was pre-tested using 20 project descriptions. Intercoder reliability for the coding of the 371 projects across all variables was 0.901 (Holsti coefficient of reliability), and no single variable had a reliability coefficient below 0.7. Mit diesen Variablen haben wir dann eine lineare Regressionsanalyse gerechnet, mit der insgesamt wir einen recht hohen Anteil der Erfolgs erklären können.
- Was sind die Ergebnisse: Die Disziplin der Projekte und die Nutzerzahl der Plattform zeigen keine Effekte
- Aber es macht einen deutlichen Unterschied, auf welcher Plattform man beantragt – auf rein wissenschaftlichen Plattformen ist der Erfolg viel höher ( .217***)
- Many quality Signals spielen interessanterweise keine wesentliche Rolle
- Interaktivität (.189**) Und Text-Komplexität spielen eine Rolle (letzeres nur schwach)
- Only few of the news factors seem to be important
- But: Die Art der Darstellung spielt aber eine recht grosse Rolle: Visualisierungen (.089*) und v.a. Humor (.121**) haben einen klaren Effekt auf den Erfolg von Projekten.
- Perks don’t seem to play a role
- But the price and payment variables are important: The amount of personal information potential donors have to relinquish, in particular, is strongly and negatively correlated with funding levels: When donors are forced to provide a lot of personal information, they are less likely to make a donation. Additionally, the targeted sum also negatively influences funding levels: Projects which apply for large sums have systematically lower funding levels.
- These results suggest that potential donors choose the crowdfunding platform they visit based on a scientific criterion – i.e. whether it is a crowdfunding platform specifically focused on scientific projects or not. But this focus on scientific characteristics does not seem to last once the respective platform has been selected. Further scientific indicators and credentials of the platform (such as the question whether it is sponsored by scientific institutions), the applicants (such as their scientific titles, prices or honors) or the project itself (such as its scientific range or the discipline it comes from) do not yield significant effects or – in the case of message complexity, i.e. a high degree of scientific jargon - even decrease crowdfunding success. After donors have decided on a platform, factors unrelated to science seem to matter more for funding decisions: Whether proposals are presented in a fashionable and easily approachable way through adding a human touch to the project and an interactive presentation is more important for receiving donations than a proposal’s scientific content, relevance or discipline. Furthermore, the security of the payment process has a strong influence on crowdfunding success, which was measured as the amount the personal information potential donors have to relinquish before being able to donate money. n the contrary, there are fears associated with scientific crowdfunding, e.g. that it might favor “sexy” but scientifically insubstantial “panda bear science” (Siva 2014), that it could give (further) advantages to more distinguished and reputable researchers, that ethical questions of research projects remain unanswered and that no independent assessment of the quality of the research projects is taking place before funding is secured (cf. Bennett et al. 2015; Sich 2015). The empirical evidence presented here underlines these seemingly problematic aspects These results need to be substantiated further. Our study represents an exploratory foray into the explanation of crowdfunding success - which has not yet been analyzed empirically with regards to scientific projects, and has been neglected also beyond the crowdfunding of science (cf. Mollick 2014; Wheat et al. 2013). As such, we were certainly not able to identify, operationalize and sufficiently measure all factors which are potentially relevant for donors' decisions to spend money for scientific projects. It would have been useful, for example, to include additional information about the researchers which is publicly available, such as their Facebook or Twitter profiles (e.g. Byrnes et al. 2014: 12), in order to assess their prominence, or to use the amount of spelling mistakes found in project descriptions as additional quality signals (cf. Mollick 2014). More importantly, further studies should develop a more elaborate, integrated explanatory model not only identifying the relevant factors but also modelling the interrelations between them. Analyses of the applicants and their intentions as well as of the funders and their motifs would also be helpful additions to the evidence on why certain scientific projects are more successful on crowdfunding platforms than others. wir machen Experiment
- Crowdfunding noch marginal: in all unseren 371 Projekten wurden insgesamt 1,5 Millionen USD umgesetzt Aber a) könnte Trend sein, b) betrifft junge Wissenschaftler die stärker so sozialisiert werden und zeigt c) möglicherweise Auch den Fluchtpunkt von Entwicklungen, die auch "reguläre" Projektanträge tangieren: Auswirkungen einer medialisierung der Wissenschaft (Schäfer) die auch die Forschung andernorts verändert (Ivanova et al)