Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Nov;31(8):993-1011.
doi: 10.1177/09636625221113134. Epub 2022 Aug 2.

Engaging the public or asking your friends? Analysing science-related crowdfunding using behavioural and survey data

Valerie Hase  1 , Mike S Schäfer  2 , Julia Metag  3 , Mirko Bischofberger, Luc Henry  4
Affiliations

Engaging the public or asking your friends? Analysing science-related crowdfunding using behavioural and survey data

Valerie Hase et al. Public Underst Sci. 2022 Nov.

Abstract

Science-related crowdfunding enables public engagement with science. However, we know little about citizens engaging with science this way: Who are the people engaging with and donating to science through crowdfunding - and how do they decide how much to give? This study analyses behavioural and survey data from the Swiss crowdfunding platform wemakeit (N = 576). Results illustrate that a small, non-representative segment of the public engages with science through crowdfunding. Compared to the general public in Switzerland, these backers have an above-average education and income. Science-related crowdfunding mainly reaches citizens with an existing interest in science, personal ties to project initiators or the scientific community. The size of backers' donations correlates with perceived personal appeals in campaigns or connections to initiators rather than projects' scientific merit. While science-related crowdfunding thus opens up new avenues for public outreach by the scientific community, its potential for broader public engagement with science seems limited.

Keywords: crowdfunding; digital platforms; funding; public engagement; science communication.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: Mirko Bischofberger and Luc Henry are administrators of the Science Booster channel and receive financial compensation from wemakeit.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Regressing Donation (log) on independent variables. REML estimation with random intercepts using Donation (log) as the dependent variable. Effects describe expected change in Donation (log) with a one-unit increase in independent variables. Consistent effects (p < .05) depicted in black, inconsistent effects in grey. For full models underlying Figure 1, refer to the Supplemental Material (Appendix A, Table A1, Model 3).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Ahlers GKC, Cumming D, Günther C, Schweizer D. (2015) Signaling in equity crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 39(4): 955–980.
    1. Aitamurto T. (2011) The impact of crowdfunding on journalism: Case study of Sport US, a platform for community-funded reporting. Journalism Practice 5(4): 429–445.
    1. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker SC. (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1): 1–48.
    1. Belleflamme P, Omrani N, Peitz M. (2015) The economics of crowdfunding platforms. Information Economics and Policy 33: 11–28.
    1. Besley JC, Newman TP, Dudo A, Tiffany LA. (2020) Exploring scholars’ public engagement goals in Canada and the United States. Public Understanding of Science 29(8): 855–867. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources