Thanks to its ability to directly connect funders and fundraisers by overcoming the intermediation of financial institutions, over the last 20 years crowdfunding has established itself as one of the main alternatives to economically support entrepreneurial, artistic, and social causes. This alternative is becoming increasingly relevant even in the field of scientific research, not only for its ability to remove the barriers that preclude funding in traditional systems, but also for its potential to connect scientists and crowds in a new more transparent and collaborative way. Along with enthusiasm for crowdfunding's growing ability to inject new financial resources into the pool of funds for scientific research, there is hope that involving the public in funding decisions can also have positive implications for the social and environmental relevance of science. Moreover, given the mechanisms and logic that govern crowdfunding platforms, there is the possibility that they represent a fertile ground for the manifestation of the wisdom of crowds, a phenomenon according to which the collective choice of a large group of individuals is smarter than that of a single accredited expert. Despite these hopes, at the moment no study has investigated the ability of crowds to direct economic resources towards the most impactful (socially and environmentally) scientific research projects, and this study aims to cover this gap. To this end, we analyzed 792 scientific research projects belonging to the fields of health and biodiversity research published on Experiment.com, the largest online crowdfunding platform for scientific research. The results show that, despite hopes, virtual crowds are not inclined to consider impact in their funding choices, ultimately failing in donating more funds to projects dealing with the most severe and urgent problems (of health or biodiversity). This finding has a number of implications for the role of crowdfunding in the scientific research funding landscape. Prominent among these is the acknowledgement that this tool should not be seen as an alternative to traditional systems, but rather as a complementary option.
Grazie alla sua capacità di connettere donatori e richiedenti evitando la mediazione di istituzioni finanziarie, negli ultimi 20 anni il crowdfunding si è affermato come una delle più valide alternative per sostenere cause imprenditoriali, artistiche e sociali. Questa opzione sta acquisendo rilievo anche nel campo della ricerca scientifica, non solo per la sua capacità di rimuovere le barriere che precludono il finanziamento nei sistemi tradizionali, ma anche per il suo potenziale di connettere scienziati e pubblico in modo più trasparente e collaborativo. All'entusiasmo derivato dalla capacità del crowdfunding di raccogliere nuove risorse per la ricerca scientifica, si unisce la speranza che coinvolgere il pubblico nelle decisioni di sovvenzione possa avere implicazioni positive per la rilevanza sociale e ambientale della scienza. Inoltre, dati i meccanismi e le dinamiche che le governano, le piattaforme di crowdfunding si presentano come un oggetto di studio appropriato per indagare la manifestazione della «saggezza delle folle», un fenomeno secondo il quale la scelta collettiva sarebbe più accurata di quella del singolo esperto. Ad oggi, l’applicabilità di questo modello teorico al campo scientifico non è ancora stata esaminata. Questo studio si propone di colmare questa lacuna, verificando quale sia la capacità delle folle di indirizzare le proprie risorse economiche verso i progetti di ricerca scientifica più impattanti. Abbiamo dunque analizzato 792 progetti di ricerca su salute e biodiversità pubblicati su Experiment.com, la più grande piattaforma online di crowdfunding scientifico. I risultati mostrano che le folle virtuali non sono inclini a valutare l'impatto nelle loro scelte di finanziamento, e di conseguenza non devolvono maggiori fondi ai progetti che si occupano dei problemi più gravi e urgenti (riguardanti salute o biodiversità). Questa scoperta ha una serie di implicazioni per il ruolo del crowdfunding nel panorama dei finanziamenti rivolti alla ricerca. Tra queste spicca il fatto che questo strumento non dovrebbe essere visto come un'alternativa ai sistemi tradizionali, ma piuttosto come un'opzione complementare.
Investigating the wisdom of virtual crowds in crowdfunding for scientific research
ZURLI, MATILDE;VERONESI, GIORGIA
2020/2021
Abstract
Thanks to its ability to directly connect funders and fundraisers by overcoming the intermediation of financial institutions, over the last 20 years crowdfunding has established itself as one of the main alternatives to economically support entrepreneurial, artistic, and social causes. This alternative is becoming increasingly relevant even in the field of scientific research, not only for its ability to remove the barriers that preclude funding in traditional systems, but also for its potential to connect scientists and crowds in a new more transparent and collaborative way. Along with enthusiasm for crowdfunding's growing ability to inject new financial resources into the pool of funds for scientific research, there is hope that involving the public in funding decisions can also have positive implications for the social and environmental relevance of science. Moreover, given the mechanisms and logic that govern crowdfunding platforms, there is the possibility that they represent a fertile ground for the manifestation of the wisdom of crowds, a phenomenon according to which the collective choice of a large group of individuals is smarter than that of a single accredited expert. Despite these hopes, at the moment no study has investigated the ability of crowds to direct economic resources towards the most impactful (socially and environmentally) scientific research projects, and this study aims to cover this gap. To this end, we analyzed 792 scientific research projects belonging to the fields of health and biodiversity research published on Experiment.com, the largest online crowdfunding platform for scientific research. The results show that, despite hopes, virtual crowds are not inclined to consider impact in their funding choices, ultimately failing in donating more funds to projects dealing with the most severe and urgent problems (of health or biodiversity). This finding has a number of implications for the role of crowdfunding in the scientific research funding landscape. Prominent among these is the acknowledgement that this tool should not be seen as an alternative to traditional systems, but rather as a complementary option.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
2021_10_Veronesi_Zurli.pdf
solo utenti autorizzati dal 09/09/2022
Descrizione: Investigating the wisdom of virtual crowds in crowdfunding for scientific research
Dimensione
9.23 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
9.23 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in POLITesi sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
https://hdl.handle.net/10589/179341