References Ef fo rt R e p u tati on Spe ci fi c / R isky R e sea rch Exp e n si ve R e sea rch Skil ls Eq u ip m e n t
Wheat et al. (2013) X
Byrnes, J.E.K. et al. (2014) X X X X X
Hui and Gerber (2015) XX
Vachelard, J. et al. (2016) X Dey, S., Karahalios, K. and Fu,
W.-T. (2017)
Pappalepore, G. et al. (2017) X X XX X X
Ikkatai, Y., McKay, E. and
Yoko-yama, H.M. (2018) X X
Schäfer, M.S. et al. (2018) X X X
Sauermann, Franzoni and Shafi
(2019) XXX X XX X
Davidson, R. and Tsfati, Y. (2019) X XXX
Sum 5 7 4 5 5 5
almost all of them. Networking is considered a motive for crowdfunding by eight out of ten articles. This indicates the importance of the motive for the researchers. A re-searchers existing network is a key success factor, because the more people see the campaign, the more likely it is to reach its funding goal (Vachelard et al., 2016, p. 4). At the same time, the scientist's motive is the expansion of this network, since a greater social capital also brings further advantages, including the desirable peer collaboration.
The status autonomy arises from the fact that the traditional grant-based system is arguably biased, meaning that scientists with higher status are more likely to succeed in acquiring funding (Sauermann, Franzoni and Shafi, 2019, p. 16). Consequently, the barrier of the traditional favors the motive of the alternative.
With the barriers, a focus as clear as for the motives could not be identified. However, this indicates that the barriers receive significantly less attention than the motives, which argues for the inclusion of the barriers in the research objectives of this thesis. A possible reason for less attention could be that the analyses are mainly based on data resulting from crowdfunding campaigns or interviewing experts who have already had experience with crowdfunding. As a result, the motives were superior to the barriers for these people, resulting in fewer barriers being identified. However, the aim of this study is to formulate recommendations for research institutions for which the barriers are of elementary importance. Consequently, this will have an impact on the design of the interview guide (see section 4.1.1), so that barriers can also be identified and veri-fied.
Moreover, the choice of the methodology of the publications offers a further insight.
The majority of the publications examined are of quantitative nature, while qualitative
contributions are in the minority. This confirms the decision in this thesis to conduct a
qualitative study to identify further motives and barriers in addition to the existing
ones by means of specific questions. The articles have the most in common in their last
sections: While they express cautions about legal grey zones and unethical research
(Sauermann, Franzoni and Shafi, 2019, p. 20), all of them see a great opportunity in the
alternative funding through crowdfunding. They encourage research institutions to
develop and enrich policies and practices that foster active outreach and engagement
(Byrnes et al., 2014, p. 24) and demand further education in terms of communication
skills (Sauermann, Franzoni and Shafi, 2019, p. 21). An appeal that needs motives and
barriers for scientific crowdfunding as a basis for the development process. These con-cepts will be further investigated in the following empirical chapter through semi-structured expert interviews.
Implications
On the basis of these findings, initial suggestions can be made to answer the second research question, namely recommendations for research institutions (see section 1.2), which are then merged in chapter 5 with the results and implications of the em-pirical research. The first step should be to raise awareness on the subject of scientific crowdfunding. The review has shown that the motives and barriers as well as the out-comes of a crowdfunding campaign are more diverse than initially assumed. The con-tact with other people, referred to as social capital, can be divided into four different motives. It is doubtful whether scientists who have dealt with the topic of research funding are fully aware of the associated benefits. Motives such as speed may be antic-ipatable, but findings such as easier funding for young scientists are probably not. Con-sequently, it is advisable to raise awareness on the topic of scientific crowdfunding, which focuses on the advantages of a crowdfunding campaign.
In addition, raising awareness of the issue would also help to overcome some barriers.
For example, the lack of reputation of crowdfunding as research funding is an often-cited barrier, as not all platforms have a quality assurance authority and thus fake-science projects could be initiated. However, if one contrasts this with the fact that there is a large number of platforms (see Appendix A) and the researcher can choose a platform of his choice, this barrier recedes in importance. The German platform Start-next
1, for example, does have some form of legitimation and a project consultant who verifies the campaign for content conformity, even if this cannot replace a panel of experts as in traditional research funding. Consequently, raising awareness of the issue might even enhance the general reputation of crowdfunding.
The barriers Effort, Lack of Skills and Equipment plead for support by the research in-stitution. While scientists are experts in their field of research, they do not have to be in other disciplines such as video editing and marketing. However, most research
1 FAQ of Startnext.com; available at https://www.startnext.com/hilfe/FAQ.html [Accessed: 06/27/2020]
tutions have departments that specialize in video creation or content promotion.
Of-ten this service is even free of charge, as it is allocated within the financials of the
uni-versity. Consequently, a trivial implication of these barriers is that a researcher does
not have to create the entire campaign himself. The above mentioned advantages of a
crowdfunding campaign also arise when the researchers receive help and divide the
work between an interdisciplinary team. In addition, the size of the team creates
net-work effects which can be beneficial for the course of a campaign by leading to more
visibility.
4 Empirical Research
Im Dokument
Crowdfunding - A way to finance science?
(Seite 40-44)