When citizens judge science: Crowd evaluations in Mode 2 knowledge production

Emerging crowdsourcing and crowdfunding mechanisms enable citizens to decide which research projects should be funded. By transferring control from professional scientists, these mechanisms reflect a broader shift towards more open “Mode 2” knowledge production that allows non-academic stakeholders to shape the direction of science. Although this may lead to a greater emphasis on the social impact of research, there is no systematic evidence on how crowd evaluators weigh social impact relative to other criteria such as scientific merit or team qualifications. There are also concerns that the personal financial costs associated with crowdfunding prevent certain socio-economic groups from participating, reducing the representativeness of opinions. Similarly, it is not clear what role citizens’ personal interest in particular topics plays in shaping their evaluations. We provide empirical evidence using data from over 2,300 crowd evaluators who assessed four research proposals in different fields and could express their support using a crowdsourcing mechanism (i.e., recommendation) and a crowdfunding mechanism (i.e., donation of own money). We confirm that crowd evaluators give significant weight to perceived social impact, although this weight is not larger than that of scientific merit. Compared to crowdsourcing, crowdfunding gives greater voice to citizens with higher income and education. Personal interest in a topic tends to be associated with greater project support, which may partly reflect an inflated assessment of social impact. Despite these general patterns, we also observe differences across projects – illustrating context-specificity and variability that make open Mode 2 processes difficult to predict and control.