The contribution of supply and demand factors to the reproduction of hierarchies online: The case of crowdfunding of scientific research

Abstract

We conceptualize mechanisms that explain how social uses of media technologies, especially online platforms and crowds, reproduce, or modify inequalities, and explore these in the context of the crowdfunding of science. We distinguish between “supply side” factors related to the ability of actors given their institutional standing to use this funding approach, and “demand side” factors related to the crowd’s sensitivity to the institutional standing of those actors. We collected data on scientists requesting funding for their studies on Experiment.com , arguably the most popular scientific crowdfunding platform, and investigated the factors contributing to initiation and success. Supply side factors were important: crowdfunding appeals tended to come from scientists affiliated with larger, wealthier, and more active and prestigious institutions. However, demand side factors were not as important at the institutional level. Crowdfunding projects’ success was not predicted by the institution’s status, but rather by the number of appeals from an institution.

Keywords

crowdfunding knowledge industries inequality media and science science and economics

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ahlers

GKC

Cumming

Günther

Schweizer

(2015) Signaling in equity crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 39(4): 955–980.

Aspers

(2009) Knowledge and valuation in markets. Theory and Society 38(2): 111–131.

Association of American Universities (2015) By the numbers. Available at: http://www.aau.edu/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=13460 (accessed 18 May 2016).

Becker

(2008) Art Worlds, 25th anniv. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Benkler

(2006) The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Benkler

(2016) Degrees of freedom, dimensions of power. Daedalus 145(1): 18–32.

Bornmann

(2011) Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 45(1): 197–245.

Bourdieu

(1975) The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason. Information (International Social Science Council) 14(6): 19–47.

Currid

(2007) The Warhol Economy: How Fashion, Art, and Music Drive New York City. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

10.

Davidson

Poor

(2015) The barriers facing artists’ use of crowdfunding platforms: Personality, emotional labor, and going to the well one too many times. New Media & Society 17(2): 289–307.

11.

Davidson

Poor

(2018) Location, location, location: How digital platforms reinforce the importance of spatial proximity. Information, Communication & Society 22: 1464–1478.

12.

Donohue

Tichenor

Olien

(1975) Mass media and the knowledge gap: A hypothesis reconsidered. Communication Research 2(1): 3–23.

13.

Doyle

(2013) Understanding Media Economics. London: SAGE.

14.

Friedman

O’Brien

Laurison

(2016) ‘Like skydiving without a parachute’: How class origin shapes occupational trajectories in British acting. Sociology 51: 992–1010.

15.

Frydrych

Bock

Kinder

Koeck

(2014) Exploring entrepreneurial legitimacy in reward-based crowdfunding. Venture Capital 16(3): 247–269.

16.

Gambetta

(1994) Inscrutable markets. Rationality and Society 6(3): 353–368.

17.

Gillespie

(2015) Platforms intervene. Social Media + Society 1(1). Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2056305115580479

18.

Grant

(2014) To find seed money, Canadian startups follow the crowd. Available at: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/small-business/to-find-seed-money-canadian-startups-follow-the-crowd/article17631251/

19.

Greenberg

Mollick

(2015) Leaning in or leaning on? Gender, homophily, and activism in crowdfunding. Academy of Management Proceedings. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2015.18365abstract

20.

Greve

Song

(2017) Amazon warrior: How a platform can restructure industry power and ecology. In: Furman

Gawer

Silverman

Stern

(eds) Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Platforms (vol. 37, pp. 299–335, SE – 9). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.

21.

Hayes

(2013) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-based Approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

22.

Hildebrand

Puri

Rocholl

(2016) Adverse incentives in crowdfunding. Management Science 63(3): 587–608.

23.

Hui

Gerber

(2015) Crowdfunding science: Sharing research with an extended audience. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 14–18 March, pp. 31–43. New York, NY: ACM.

24.

Hui

Greenberg

Gerber

(2014) Understanding the role of community in crowdfunding work. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing, Baltimore, MD, 15–19 February.

25.

Jensen

(2011) A statistical picture of popularization activities and their evolutions in France. Public Understanding of Science 20(1): 26–36.

26.

Khan

(2016) Amazon’s antitrust paradox. Yale Law Journal 126: 710–805.

27.

Kickstarter.com (2018) Stats. Available at: https://www.kickstarter.com/help/stats

28.

Koppman

(2015) Different like me: Why cultural omnivores get creative jobs. Administrative Science Quarterly 61(2): 291–331.

29.

Lamont

(2009) How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

30.

Merton

(1968) The Matthew effect in science. Science 159(3810): 56–63. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1723414

31.

Mollick

(2014) The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing 29(1): 1–16.

32.

Mollick

Nanda

(2015) Wisdom or madness? Comparing crowds with expert evaluation in funding the arts. Management Science 62(6): 1533–1553.

33.

Muller

Keough

Wafer

Geyer

Saez

Leip

, et al. (2016) Social ties in organizational crowdfunding: Benefits of team-authored proposals. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work & social computing, San Francisco, CA, 27 February–2 March, pp. 1246–1259. New York, NY: ACM.

34.

Pool I de

(1983) Technologies of Freedom. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.

35.

Robinson

Cotten

Ono

Quan-Haase

Mesch

Chen

, et al. (2015) Digital inequalities and why they matter. Information, Communication & Society 18(5): 569–582.

36.

Rosen

(1983) The economics of superstars. The American Scholar 52(4): 449–460. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41210977

37.

Sauermann

Franzoni

Shafi

(2018) Crowdfunding Scientific Research. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

38.

Schäfer

Metag

Feustle

Herzog

(2016) Selling science 2.0: What scientific projects receive crowdfunding online? Public Understanding of Science 27: 496–514.

39.

Scott

(2014) Beyond the creative city: Cognitive–cultural capitalism and the new urbanism. Regional Studies 48(4): 565–578.

40.

Sorenson

Assenova

G-C

Boada

Fleming

(2016) Expand innovation finance via crowdfunding. Science 354(6319): 1526–1528. Available at: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6319/1526.abstract

41.

Srnicek

(2017) Platform Capitalism. Cambridge, MA: Polity.

42.

Stephan

(2012) How Economics Shapes Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

43.

The Center for Measuring University Performance (2018) American Research University Data. Available at: https://mup.umass.edu/University-Data

44.

Velthuis

(2005) Talking Prices: Symbolic Meanings of Prices on the Market for Contemporary Art. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

45.

Waldfogel

(2017) How digitization has created a golden age of music, movies, books, and television. Journal of Economic Perspectives 31(3): 195–214.

46.

Wang

(2016) The promise of Kickstarter: Extents to which social networks enable alternate avenues of economic viability for independent musicians through crowdfunding. Social Media + Society 2(3). Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2056305116662394

47.

Wheat

Wang

Byrnes

Ranganathan

(2013) Raising money for scientific research through crowdfunding. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28(2): 71–72.

48.

Younkin

Kashkooli

(2016) What problems does crowdfunding solve? California Management Review 58(2): 20–43.

49.

Younkin

Kuppuswamy

(2017) The colorblind crowd? Founder race and performance in crowdfunding. Management Science 64: 2973–3468.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB

15.28 MB

0.14 MB