Dataset Information

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

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.

SUBMITTER: Hase V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9630956 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Hase Valerie V Schäfer Mike S MS Metag Julia J Bischofberger Mirko M Henry Luc L

Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) 20220802 8

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 <i>wemakeit</i> (<i>N</i> = 576). Results illustrate that a small, non-representative segment of the public engages with science through crowdfunding. Com ...[more]

PMID: 35916455

Similar Datasets

Project description:Scientists are required to communicate science and research not only to other experts in the field, but also to scientists and experts from other fields, as well as to the public and policymakers. One fundamental suggestion when communicating with non-experts is to avoid professional jargon. However, because they are trained to speak with highly specialized language, avoiding jargon is difficult for scientists, and there is no standard to guide scientists in adjusting their messages. In this research project, we present the development and validation of the data produced by an up-to-date, scientist-friendly program for identifying jargon in popular written texts, based on a corpus of over 90 million words published in the BBC site during the years 2012-2015. The validation of results by the jargon identifier, the De-jargonizer, involved three mini studies: (1) comparison and correlation with existing frequency word lists in the literature; (2) a comparison with previous research on spoken language jargon use in TED transcripts of non-science lectures, TED transcripts of science lectures and transcripts of academic science lectures; and (3) a test of 5,000 pairs of published research abstracts and lay reader summaries describing the same article from the journals PLOS Computational Biology and PLOS Genetics. Validation procedures showed that the data classification of the De-jargonizer significantly correlates with existing frequency word lists, replicates similar jargon differences in previous studies on scientific versus general lectures, and identifies significant differences in jargon use between abstracts and lay summaries. As expected, more jargon was found in the academic abstracts than lay summaries; however, the percentage of jargon in the lay summaries exceeded the amount recommended for the public to understand the text. Thus, the De-jargonizer can help scientists identify problematic jargon when communicating science to non-experts, and be implemented by science communication instructors when evaluating the effectiveness and jargon use of participants in science communication workshops and programs.

Project description:IntroductionThe emergence of COVID-19 and the importance of behaviour change to limit its spread created an urgent need to apply behavioural science to public health. Knowledge mobilisation, the processes whereby research leads to useful findings that are implemented to affect positive outcomes, is a goal for researchers, policy makers and practitioners alike. This study aimed to explores the experience of using behavioural science in public health during COVID-19, to discover barriers and facilitators and whether the rapidly changing context of COVID-19 influenced knowledge mobilisation.MethodsWe conducted a semi-structured interview study, with ten behavioural scientists and seven public health professionals in England, Scotland, Wales, The Netherlands and Canada. We conducted an inductive thematic analysis.ResultsWe report three key themes and 10 sub-themes: 1.Challenges and facilitators of translation of behavioural science into public health (Methods and frameworks supported translation, Lack of supportive infrastructure, Conviction and sourcing of evidence and Embracing behavioural science) 2. The unique context of translation (Rapid change in context, the multi-disciplinary team and the emotional toll). 3. Recommendations to support future behavioural science translation (Embedding experts into teams, Importance of a collaborative network and showcasing the role of behavioural science).DiscussionBarriers and facilitators included factors related to relationships between people, such as networks and teams; the expertise of individual people; and those related to materials, such as the use of frameworks and an overwhelming amount of evidence and literature.ConclusionPeople and frameworks were seen as important in facilitating behavioural science in practice. Future research could explore how different frameworks are used. We recommend a stepped competency framework for behavioural science in public health and more focus on nurturing networks to facilitate knowledge mobilisation in future emergencies.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Genetic sequencing is critically important to diagnostic health care efforts in the United States today, yet it is still inaccessible to many. Meanwhile, the internet and social networking have made crowdfunding a realistic avenue for individuals and groups hoping to fund medical and research causes, including patients in need of whole exome genetic sequencing (WES). OBJECTIVE:Amplify Hope is an educational program designed to investigate what factors affect the success of medical crowdfunding campaigns. We conducted a needs assessment, a series of 25 interviews concerning crowdfunding, and provided training on best practices identified through our assessment for 11 individuals hoping to run their medical crowdfunding campaigns to raise money for patients to access trio WES to identify the mutated proteins that caused their apparent inherited disease. METHODS:The crowdfunding education was given in a 30-day training period with resources such as webinars, fact sheets and a crowdfunding training guide emailed to each participant. All campaigns were launched on the same date and were given 30 days to raise the same goal amount of US $5000. Reviewing the 4 crowdfunding campaigns that raised the goal amount within the 30-day period, we sought to identify features that made the 4 crowdfunding campaigns successful. In addition, we sought to assess which factors the resulting 75 donors report as influencing their decision to donate to a campaign. Finally, we investigated whether crowdfunding campaigns for exome sequencing had an impact on increasing applicant's and donors' knowledge of genomics. RESULTS:Of the 86 study inquiries, 11 participants submitted the required forms and launched their crowdfunding campaigns. A total of 4 of the 11 campaigns raised their goal amounts within 30 days. CONCLUSIONS:We found that social media played an important role in all campaigns. Specifically, a strong social media network, an active outreach process to networks, as well as engagement within the study all correlated with a higher success rate. Amplify Hope donors were more likely to support projects that were near their fundraising goals, and they found video far more effective for learning about genomics than any other medium.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets