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.
BeckerHS (2008) Art Worlds, 25th anniv. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
5.
BenklerY (2006) The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
6.
BenklerY (2016) Degrees of freedom, dimensions of power. Daedalus145(1): 18–32.
7.
BornmannL (2011) Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology45(1): 197–245.
8.
BourdieuP (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.
9.
CurridE (2007) The Warhol Economy: How Fashion, Art, and Music Drive New York City. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
10.
DavidsonRPoorND (2015) The barriers facing artists’ use of crowdfunding platforms: Personality, emotional labor, and going to the well one too many times. New Media & Society17(2): 289–307.
11.
DavidsonRPoorND (2018) Location, location, location: How digital platforms reinforce the importance of spatial proximity. Information, Communication & Society22: 1464–1478.
12.
DonohueGATichenorPJOlienCN (1975) Mass media and the knowledge gap: A hypothesis reconsidered. Communication Research2(1): 3–23.
13.
DoyleG (2013) Understanding Media Economics. London: SAGE.
14.
FriedmanSO’BrienDLaurisonD (2016) ‘Like skydiving without a parachute’: How class origin shapes occupational trajectories in British acting. Sociology51: 992–1010.
GreenbergJMollickE (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.
GreveHRSongSY (2017) Amazon warrior: How a platform can restructure industry power and ecology. In: FurmanJGawerASilvermanBSSternS (eds) Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Platforms (vol. 37, pp. 299–335, SE – 9). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.
21.
HayesAF (2013) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-based Approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
22.
HildebrandTPuriMRochollJ (2016) Adverse incentives in crowdfunding. Management Science63(3): 587–608.
23.
HuiJSGerberEM (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.
HuiJSGreenbergMDGerberEM (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.
JensenP (2011) A statistical picture of popularization activities and their evolutions in France. Public Understanding of Science20(1): 26–36.
26.
KhanLM (2016) Amazon’s antitrust paradox. Yale Law Journal126: 710–805.
MollickE (2014) The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing29(1): 1–16.
32.
MollickENandaR (2015) Wisdom or madness? Comparing crowds with expert evaluation in funding the arts. Management Science62(6): 1533–1553.
33.
MullerMKeoughMWaferJGeyerWSaezAALeipD, 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 deS (1983) Technologies of Freedom. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
35.
RobinsonLCottenSROnoHQuan-HaaseAMeschGChenW, et al. (2015) Digital inequalities and why they matter. Information, Communication & Society18(5): 569–582.
VelthuisO (2005) Talking Prices: Symbolic Meanings of Prices on the Market for Contemporary Art. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
45.
WaldfogelJ (2017) How digitization has created a golden age of music, movies, books, and television. Journal of Economic Perspectives31(3): 195–214.
46.
WangC (2016) The promise of Kickstarter: Extents to which social networks enable alternate avenues of economic viability for independent musicians through crowdfunding. Social Media + Society2(3). Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2056305116662394
47.
WheatREWangYByrnesJERanganathanJ (2013) Raising money for scientific research through crowdfunding. Trends in Ecology & Evolution28(2): 71–72.
48.
YounkinPKashkooliK (2016) What problems does crowdfunding solve?California Management Review58(2): 20–43.
49.
YounkinPKuppuswamyV (2017) The colorblind crowd? Founder race and performance in crowdfunding. Management Science64: 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.
