Antecedents of researchers’ behavioral intentions to use crowdsourcing in science: a multilevel approach

IF 7.8 3区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT Review of Managerial Science Pub Date : 2024-08-15 DOI:10.1007/s11846-024-00797-3
Regina Lenart-Gansiniec, Wojciech Czakon, Natanya Meyer
{"title":"Antecedents of researchers’ behavioral intentions to use crowdsourcing in science: a multilevel approach","authors":"Regina Lenart-Gansiniec, Wojciech Czakon, Natanya Meyer","doi":"10.1007/s11846-024-00797-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Crowdsourcing in science is a collaborative online process through which scientists involve a group of self-selected individuals of varying, diverse knowledge and skills via an open call on the Internet and/or online platforms to undertake a specified research task or set of tasks. It is a response to the call for more inclusive, responsive and transparent research in science. Despite the growing importance of crowdsourcing in science, little is known about which factors influence researchers’ behavioural intentions to use crowdsourcing in science. This study aims to identify factors that influence researchers’ behavioural intentions to use crowdsourcing in science, as well as to develop and test a theoretical multilevel model of researchers’ behavioural intentions to use crowdsourcing in science. We use a sequential mixed method: (1) focus group interviews with 36 researchers from six fields of science, in line with the OECD classification; and (2) partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM), using a survey of 552 management researchers to test the model. Managerial and theoretical results show that the antecedents to perceived usefulness and perceived organizational support positively impact the intention to use crowdsourcing in science. Our study offers a new conceptual framework that presents antecedents relevant to scholars’ intention to use crowdsourcing in science. The results bring implications for researchers, managerial staff of institutions of higher education and decision-makers that can encourage researchers of crowdsourcing in science to further develop scientific knowledge in the field.</p>","PeriodicalId":20992,"journal":{"name":"Review of Managerial Science","volume":"157 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Managerial Science","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-024-00797-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Crowdsourcing in science is a collaborative online process through which scientists involve a group of self-selected individuals of varying, diverse knowledge and skills via an open call on the Internet and/or online platforms to undertake a specified research task or set of tasks. It is a response to the call for more inclusive, responsive and transparent research in science. Despite the growing importance of crowdsourcing in science, little is known about which factors influence researchers’ behavioural intentions to use crowdsourcing in science. This study aims to identify factors that influence researchers’ behavioural intentions to use crowdsourcing in science, as well as to develop and test a theoretical multilevel model of researchers’ behavioural intentions to use crowdsourcing in science. We use a sequential mixed method: (1) focus group interviews with 36 researchers from six fields of science, in line with the OECD classification; and (2) partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM), using a survey of 552 management researchers to test the model. Managerial and theoretical results show that the antecedents to perceived usefulness and perceived organizational support positively impact the intention to use crowdsourcing in science. Our study offers a new conceptual framework that presents antecedents relevant to scholars’ intention to use crowdsourcing in science. The results bring implications for researchers, managerial staff of institutions of higher education and decision-makers that can encourage researchers of crowdsourcing in science to further develop scientific knowledge in the field.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
研究人员在科学领域使用众包的行为意向前因:一种多层次方法
科学众包是一个在线协作过程,科学家通过互联网和/或在线平台上的公开征集,让一群自选的、拥有不同知识和技能的个人参与进来,承担一项或一组特定的研究任务。这是响应科学研究更具包容性、响应性和透明度的号召。尽管众包在科学领域的重要性与日俱增,但对于哪些因素会影响研究人员在科学领域使用众包的行为意向却知之甚少。本研究旨在确定影响研究人员在科学领域使用众包的行为意向的因素,并开发和测试研究人员在科学领域使用众包的行为意向的多层次理论模型。我们采用了一种顺序混合法:(1)根据经合组织的分类,对来自六个科学领域的 36 名研究人员进行焦点小组访谈;(2)利用对 552 名管理研究人员的调查,建立偏最小二乘法结构方程模型(PLS-SEM),对模型进行检验。管理和理论研究结果表明,感知有用性和感知组织支持的前因对在科学领域使用众包的意向有积极影响。我们的研究提供了一个新的概念框架,提出了与学者在科学领域使用众包的意向相关的前因。研究结果为研究人员、高等院校管理人员和决策者带来了启示,可以鼓励科学众包研究人员进一步发展该领域的科学知识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
14.50%
发文量
86
期刊介绍: Review of Managerial Science (RMS) provides a forum for innovative research from all scientific areas of business administration. The journal publishes original research of high quality and is open to various methodological approaches (analytical modeling, empirical research, experimental work, methodological reasoning etc.). The scope of RMS encompasses – but is not limited to – accounting, auditing, banking, business strategy, corporate governance, entrepreneurship, financial structure and capital markets, health economics, human resources management, information systems, innovation management, insurance, marketing, organization, production and logistics, risk management and taxation. RMS also encourages the submission of papers combining ideas and/or approaches from different areas in an innovative way. Review papers presenting the state of the art of a research area and pointing out new directions for further research are also welcome. The scientific standards of RMS are guaranteed by a rigorous, double-blind peer review process with ad hoc referees and the journal´s internationally composed editorial board.
期刊最新文献
Does CSR facilitate access to trade credit? The role of family ownership Game on: curbing impulse buying and returns in apparel e-tailers Breaking or making futures: How laws and regulations shape innovation in emerging innovation systems From green HRM to SDG success: pathways through exploratory innovation and developmental culture Pathways to survive in abrupt adversities: a configurational approach to understanding the resilience of new venture teams
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1