6 Responses to Innovative use of crowdsourcing technology presents novel prospects for research to interact with much larger audiences, and much more effectively than ever before

  1. Pat says:

    Stuff like http://dailycrowdsource.com/2011/01/11/technology/new-game-taps-crowdsourcing-to-help-scientists/ has led to crowdsourced data being referenced in academic papers, though, might be harder to make social sciences games.

  2. Thank you for this; a very insightful post. It’s very good to see incredible research projects highlighted. I also enjoyed your recent post on crowdsourcing for the Guardian Higher Education Network, by the way.

    I’m glad you’ve addressed an essential point, which is the importance of engagement and a sensitivity towards contributors. I’m an enthusiast of crowdsourcing and its research potential, but in practice I miss more awareness of what Chris Batt alludes to in his report. This “two-way conversation” needs to take place within clear guidelines and terms of reference. I am worried about how crowdsourcing fits within a current devaluation or lack of appreciation of intellectual work (in terms of its symbolic and financial recognition, not its quality).

    In academic research, the stimulus seems to be both funding (the money that makes the project possible) and credit (reputation, impact, authority). Someone benefits from the funding and someone benefits from signing the publications. When “the crowd” is essential for this work, what systems are implemented to ensure that the work relationship remains ethical and fair? When can crowdsourcing be seen as a cheeky exploitation of free intellectual labour and a remedial means to “make do” in the context of budget cuts, and how can we ensure it is not?

    Crowdsourcing is openly seen as an effective way of saving time and money, but the level of time, expertise and money employed in the engagement strategy that a large project would require with its voluntary contributors should not be underestimated. If “the crowd” will not be paid for their time, expertise and work, the least they can get is public acknowledgement and credit… or at the very least, depending on the case, polite thanks. Implementing good practice strategies to ensure ethical and fair collaboration with ‘external’ contributors seems to me something that should no longer be postponed.

  3. Pingback: LG Electronics Adds Innovative 'Touch' to Plasma Home Entertainment

  4. Pingback: Willis Develops Innovative New Coverage for Nuclear Exclusion Risk

  5. Pat Loria says:

    Article on the ABC Science website on citizen science: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/04/15/2872493.htm.

  6. Pingback: Innovative use of crowdsourcing technology presents novel prospects for research to interact with much larger audiences, and much more effectively than ever before | British Politics and Policy at LSE

Comments are closed.