Kickstarting science? Crowdfunded research, public engagement, and the participatory condition
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12205671 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Chris Hesselbein (0000-0003-4258-6671, Politecnico di Milano, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2023 |
| Volume | 32 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 583-608 |
| Publication date | 2023-06-08 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Science as Culture (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0950-5431 • E-ISSN: 1470-1189 |
| Publisher | Taylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/09505431.2023.2222741 |
| OpenAlex | W4379881074 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 23 |
Crowdfunding for science has been hailed both as an important means of funding early-career scholars and innovative research projects, and as a novel approach to communicating with and enabling participation by members of the public. The experiences of scientists who have sought crowdfunding and the opportunities and challenges that this entails are analyzed to critically examine claims (by platforms and in previous studies) about the democratizing potential of crowdfunding for ‘opening up’ research funding and ‘engaging’ members of the public in scientific research. Interview accounts of scientists indicate that crowdfunding can provide crucial support for under-resourced researchers as well as research projects, and that it offers a relatively unique opportunity for communicating science and enabling public participation in several aspects of the scientific research process. However, these accounts also reveal that seeking crowdfunding gives rise to several practical, social, and professional issues, such as increasing the burden of labour on already disadvantaged researchers, straining relationships with colleagues, tarnishing one’s professional status, and ultimately exacerbating inequalities among scientists. Moreover, the ostensible promise of crowdfunding for enhancing science communication and public engagement in science is undercut by the failure of both crowdfunding platforms and campaigners to take the potential non-monetary contributions or expertise of non-scientists seriously. Rather than acknowledging the potential for two-way dialogue and public participation that crowdfunding platforms can potentially provide, public input is formatted as a financial transaction, which reduces the ability of publics to influence crowdfunded projects in a meaningful manner and therefore greatly diminishes their democratic potential
Business · Citizen journalism · Citizen science · Disadvantaged · Political science · Process (computing · Public engagement · Public relations · Science communication · Science education · Sociology · FinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance · Microfinance and Financial Inclusion · Private Equity and Venture Capital
Scientists’ incentives and attitudes toward public communication
Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science – Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music?
Three provocations for civic crowdfunding
Selling science 2.0
Why should we promote public engagement with science
Misunderstanding Science
The backer–developer connection
Crowdfunding independent and freelance journalism
The future(s) of open science
The policy consequences of defining rewilding
The Participatory Condition in the Digital Age
"Citizen Science"? Rethinking Science and Public Participation
Crowdfunding Conservation Science
Remaking Participation in Science and Democracy
Getting the crowd to care
Like a Grinding Stone
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |