English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Crowdfunding for science has been hailed both as an important means of funding early-career scholars and innovative research projects, and as a novel approach to communicating with and enabling participation by members of the public. The experiences of scientists who have sought crowdfunding and the opportunities and challenges that this entails are analyzed to critically examine claims (by platforms and in previous studies) about the democratizing potential of crowdfunding for ‘opening up’ research funding and ‘engaging’ members of the public in scientific research. Interview accounts of scientists indicate that crowdfunding can provide crucial support for under-resourced researchers as well as research projects, and that it offers a relatively unique opportunity for communicating science and enabling public participation in several aspects of the scientific research process. However, these accounts also reveal that seeking crowdfunding gives rise to several practical, social, and professional issues, such as increasing the burden of labour on already disadvantaged researchers, straining relationships with colleagues, tarnishing one’s professional status, and ultimately exacerbating inequalities among scientists. Moreover, the ostensible promise of crowdfunding for enhancing science communication and public engagement in science is undercut by the failure of both crowdfunding platforms and campaigners to take the potential non-monetary contributions or expertise of non-scientists seriously. Rather than acknowledging the potential for two-way dialogue and public participation that crowdfunding platforms can potentially provide, public input is formatted as a financial transaction, which reduces the ability of publics to influence crowdfunded projects in a meaningful manner and therefore greatly diminishes their democratic potential.

Kickstarting science? Crowdfunded research, public engagement, and the participatory condition