Share:


Crowdsourcing creativity in government: state of the field in the four research paradigms

    Łukasz Sułkowski Affiliation
    ; Regina Lenart-Gansiniec   Affiliation
    ; Svitlana Bilan   Affiliation

Abstract

Creativity, innovation, openness and involving citizens in decision making belong to a set of efforts undertaken by the government. This is possible thanks to crowdsourcing that is a tool to communicate with citizens and that is a source of knowledge and that provides new, creative ideas. However, despite the research intensity in the area of crowdsourcing creativity in government, the research results obtained to date are still ambiguous and fragmentary. Research on crowdsourcing government is often limited to interpretive traditions. This gives an incomplete picture of government crowdsourcing since three additional research paradigms are omitted: interpretative, post-modern, and critical. Our ambition is to raise awareness about the presence of many paradigms in crowdsourcing government research. The aim of this article is to present crowdsourcing government from the perspective of four paradigms by Gibson Burrell and Gareth Morgan. We are trying to achieve this by presenting a review of research on crowdsourcing government taking into consideration four paradigms: positivist, interpretative, critical, and postmodern. We suggest that a single paradigm is not able to provide a complete picture of crowdsourcing government, and thus we seek interactions between the paradigms and postulate multi-paradigmatic research that may lead to further development of knowledge.

Article in English.


Bendradarbiavimu grindžiamas kūrybiškumas vyriausybėje: keturių mokslinių tyrimų paradigmų būklė

Santrauka

Vyriausybė, priimdama sprendimus, siekia kūrybiškumo, inovacijų, atvirumo ir piliečių įtraukimo. Tai įmanoma plėtojant bendradarbiavimą, kuris yra komunikavimo su piliečiais priemonė ir žinių šaltinis, teikiantis naujų kūrybinių idėjų. Tačiau, nepaisant to, kad vyriausybėje intensyviai tiriamas kūrybinis bendradarbiavimas, iki šiol gauti tyrimų rezultatai vis dar tebėra neapibrėžti ir fragmentiški. Visuomenės valdymo tyrimai neretai apsiriboja interpretavimo tradicijomis. Kadangi nepaisoma trijų papildomų tyrimų paradigmų – interpretacinės, postmoderniosios ir kritinės, sudaromas neišsamus vyriausybės minėtų išteklių vaizdas. Mūsų tikslas – informuoti apie daugelio paradigmų buvimą vyriausybės tyrimuose. Šio straipsnio tikslas – pristatyti bendradarbiavimą vyriausybėje iš keturių Gibsono Burrello ir Garetho Morgano išplėtotų paradigmų perspektyvos. Svarstydami keturias paradigmas – pozityvistinę, interpretacinę, kritinę ir postmoderniąją, bandome šį tikslą pasiekti, pristatydami visuomenės sluoksnių valdymo apžvalgą. Teigiame, kad paskiros paradigmos nepakanka, siekiant pateikti išsamų bendradarbiavimo vyriausybėje vaizdą, todėl ieškome sąveikų tarp paradigmų pateikdami daugiaparadigmius tyrimus, kurie galėtų paskatinti tolesnę žinių plėtrą.

Reikšminiai žodžiai: kūrybinis bendradarbiavimas, bendradarbiavimas vyriausybėje, daugybinė paradigma, tyrimų paradigma.

Keyword : crowdsourcing creativity, crowdsourcing government, multiparadigm, research paradigm

How to Cite
Sułkowski, Łukasz ., Lenart-Gansiniec, R. ., & Bilan, S. . (2020). Crowdsourcing creativity in government: state of the field in the four research paradigms. Creativity Studies, 13(2), 419-436. https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2020.12265
Published in Issue
Jul 9, 2020
Abstract Views
113
PDF Downloads
65
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

References

Afuah, A., & Tucci, Ch. L. (2013). Value capture and crowdsourcing. Academy of Management Review, 38(3), 457–460. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0423

Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S. (1996). Critical theory and postmodernism approaches to organizational studies. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of Organization Studies (pp. 191–217). SAGE Publications.

Amankwatia, T. B. (2019). Massive open program evaluation: Crowdsourcing’s potential to improve e-learning quality. In Information Resources Management Association (Ed.), Crowdsourcing: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 53–74). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-8362-2.ch004

Antoniuk, L., Gernego, I., Dyba, V., Polishchuk, Y., & Sybirianska, Y. (2017). Barriers and opportunities for hi-tech innovative small and medium enterprises development in the 4th industrial revolution era. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 15(4), 100–113. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.15(4).2017.09

Bandura, A. (1978). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1(4), 139–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/0146-6402(78)90002-4

Bayus, B. L. (2013). Crowdsourcing new product ideas over time: An Analysis of the Dell IdeaStorm Community. Management Science, 59(1), 226–244. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1599

Blohm, I., Leimeister, J. M., & Krcmar, H. (2013). Crowdsourcing: How to benefit from (Too) many great ideas. MIS Quarterly Executive, 12(4), 199–211.

Bobbitt, L. M., & Dabholkar, P. A. (2001). Integrating attitudinal theories to understand and predict use of technology-based self-service: The internet as an illustration. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 12(5), 423–450. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006092

Brabham, D. C. (2008). Crowdsourcing as a model for problem solving: An Introduction and cases. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 14(1), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856507084420

Brabham, D. C. (2012). The myth of amateur crowds: A Critical discourse analysis of crowdsourcing coverage. Information, Communication and Society, 15(3), 394–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2011.641991

Briggs, R. O. (2006). On theory-driven design and deployment of collaboration systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(7), 573–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.02.003

Bryer, Th. A., & Cooper, T. L. (2012). H. George Frederickson and the dialogue on citizenship in public administration. Public Administration Review, 72(1), 108–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02632.x

Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis: Elements of the sociology of corporate life. Series: Routledge Revivals. Heinemann Educational Books.

Castillo, C., Mendoza, M., & Poblete, B. (2013). Predicting Information credibility in time-sensitive social media. Internet Research, 23(5), 560–588. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-05-2012-0095

Choy, K., & Schlagwein, D. (2016). Crowdsourcing for a better world: On the relation between IT affordances and donor motivations in charitable crowdfunding. Information Technology and People, 29(1), 221–247. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-09-2014-0215

Chrons, O., & Sundell, S. (2011, August). Digitalkoot: Making old archives accessible using crowdsourcing. In von L. Ahn, & P. G. Ipeirotis (Eds.), Human computation: Papers from the 2011 AAAI workshop (pp. 20–25). San Francisco, California, United States.

Chua, R. Y.-J., & Iyengar, Sh. S. (2008). Creativity as a matter of choice: Prior experience and task instruction as boundary conditions for the positive effect of choice on creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(3), 164–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2008.tb01293.x

Costa, J., Silva, C., Antunes, M., & Ribeiro, B. (2013). Customized crowds and active learning to improve classification. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(18), 7212–7219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.06.072

Ebner, W., Leimeister, J. M., & Krcmar, H. (2009). Community engineering for innovations: The ideas competition as a method to nurture a virtual community for innovations. R&D Management, 39(4), 342–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00564.x

Estellés-Arolas, E., & González-Ladrón-de-Guevara, F. (2012). Towards an integrated crowdsourcing definition. Journal of Information Science, 38(2), 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551512437638

Fayard, A.-L., & DeSanctis, G. (2005). Evolution of an online forum for knowledge management professionals: A language game analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00265.x

Fernandez, S., & Pitts, D. W. (2011). Understanding employee motivation to innovate: Evidence from front line employees in United States federal agencies. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 70(2), 202–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2011.00726.x

Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. (1990). Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 584–602. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1990.4310758

Grant, D., Iedema, R., & Oswick, C. (2009). Discourse and critical management studies. In M. Alvesson, T. Bridgman, & H. Wilmott (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of critical management studies (pp. 213–231). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199237715.003.0010

Hardy, C., & Clegg, S. (1997). Relativity without relativism: Reflexivity in post-paradigm organization studies. British Journal of Management, 8(s1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.8.s1.2

Harrison, M. I., & Shirom, A. (1999). Organizational diagnosis and assessment: Bridging theory and practice. Sage Publications, Inc.

Hills, Th. T. (2015). Crowdsourcing content creation in the classroom. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 27(1), 47–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-015-9089-2

Hossain, M., & Kauranen, I. (2015). Crowdsourcing: A comprehensive literature review. Strategic Outsourcing: An International Journal, 8(1), 2–22. https://doi.org/10.1108/SO-12-2014-0029

Howe, J. (2010). Crowdsourcing. https://crowdsourcing.typepad.com/cs/2006/06/neo_neologisms.html

Kačerauskas, T. (2018). Indices of creative economy: Critique of R. Florida’s creativity indices. Economics and Sociology, 11(4), 280–288. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2018/11-4/18

Kelemen, M., & Hassard, J. (2003). Paradigm plurality: Exploring past, present, and future trends. In R. Westwood & S. Clegg (Eds.), Debating organization: Point-counterpoint in organization studies (pp. 73–82). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226458106.001.0001

Lakhani, K. R., Jeppesen, L. B., Lohse, P. A., & Panetta, J. A. (2007). The value of openness in scientific problem solving. Working knowledge: Business research for business leaders (Working Paper No. 07-050). https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/07-050_1b57659d-78f0-4686-a764-925531f05a7b.pdf

Leimeister, J. M., Huber, M., Bretschneider, U., & Krcmar, H. (2009). Leveraging crowdsourcing: Activation-supporting components for IT-based ideas competition. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26(1), 197–224. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222260108

Lenart-Gansiniec, R., & Sułkowski, Ł. (2018). Crowdsourcing – A new paradigm of organizational learning of public organization. Sustainability, 10, 3359. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints201808.0467.v1

Lenart-Gansiniec, R., & Sułkowski, Ł. (2018). Organizational learning and value creation in local governance: The mediating role of crowdsourcing. The Learning Organization. (Forthcoming).

Liu, Ch.-Ch., Liang, T.-P., Rajagopalan, B., & Sambamurthy, V. (2011, 7–11 July). The crowding effect of rewards on knowledge-sharing behavior in virtual communities. In Proceedings of the Pacific Asia Conference on the 15th Information Systems (PACIS) (pp. 1–15). Brisbane, Australia.

Nečadová, M., & Scholleová, H. (2011). Motives and barriers of innovation behaviour of companies. Economics and Management, 16, 832–838.

Noveck, B. S. (2009). Wiki government: How technology can make government better, democracy stronger, and citizens more powerful. Brookings Institution Press.

Piezunka, H., & Dahlander, L. (2015). Distant search, narrow attention: How crowding alters organizations’ filtering of suggestions in crowdsourcing. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 856–880. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0458

Pittaway L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D., & Neely, A. (2004). Networking and innovation: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5–6(3–4), 137–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-8545.2004.00101.x

Pozzebon, M., & Pinsonneault, A. (2005). Challenges in Conducting empirical work using structuration theory: Learning from IT research. Organization Studies, 26(9), 1353–1376. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840605054621

Redi, J., Hoßfeld, T., Korshunov, P., Mazza, F., Povoa, I., & Keimel, Ch. (2013, 21 October). Crowdsourcing-based multimedia subjective evaluations: A case study on image recognizability and aesthetic appeal. In Proceedings of the 2nd International ACM Workshop on Crowdsourcing for Multimedia, CrowdMM’13 (pp. 29–34). Barcelona, Spain. https://doi.org/10.1145/2506364.2506368

Rehman Shahid, A., & Elbanna, A. (2015, 26–29 May). The impact of crowdsourcing on organizational practices: The case of crowdmapping. In Proceedings of the 23rd European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2015) (pp. 1–16). Münster, Germany.

Riedl, Ch., Blohm, I., Leimeister, J. M., & Krcmar, H. (2013). The effect of rating scales on decision quality and user attitudes in online innovation communities. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 17(3), 7–36. https://doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086-4415170301

Sandy Tsai, H., Jiang, M., Alhabash, S., LaRose, R., Rifon, N. J., & Cotton, Sh. R. (2016). Understanding online safety behaviors: A protection motivation theory perspective. Computers and Security, 59, 138–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2016.02.009

Schlagwein, D., & Bjørn-Andersen, N. (2014). Organizational learning with crowdsourcing: The revelatory case of LEGO. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 15(11), 754–778. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00380

Shkolnyk, I., Melnyk T., & Mershchii, B. (2018). Transparency of the budget process as a prerequisite for financial decentralization in Ukraine. Public and Municipal Finance, 7(1), 12–20. https://doi.org/10.21511/pmf.07(1).2018.02

Shtuler, I., Cherlenyak, I., Domyshche-Medyanik, A., & Voitovych, S. (2017). Conditions of formation and stimulation of the activators of innovative development of Ukraine. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 15(4), 150–160. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.15(4).2017.13

Sivula, A., & Kantola, J. (2015). Ontology focused crowdsourcing management. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 632–638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.286

Spinuzzi, C. (2008). Network: Theorizing knowledge work in telecommunications. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511509605

Stasiulis, N. (2017). The idea of the creative society and the development of creative industries. Economics and Sociology, 10(2), 217–226. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2017/10-2/16

Stefanick, L., & LeSage Jr., E. (2005). Limitations to developing virtual communities in the public sector: A local government case study. Canadian Public Administration, 48(2), 231–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-7121.2005.tb02189.x

Stewart, O., Huerta, J. M., & Sader, M. (2009, 28 June). Designing crowdsourcing community for the enterprise. HCOMP ’09: Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD Workshop on Human Computation (pp. 50–53). New York City, United States. https://doi.org/10.1145/1600150.1600168

Stewart, O., Lubensky, D., & Huerta, J. M. (2010, 25 July). Crowdsourcing participation inequality: A SCOUT model for the enterprise domain. In HCOMP ’10: Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD Workshop on Human Computation (pp. 30–33). Washington, D.C., United States. https://doi.org/10.1145/1837885.1837895

Sułkowski, Ł. (2012). Epistemologia i metodologia zarządzania. Polskie Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne.

Sułkowski, Ł. (2013). Metodologia zarządzania – od fundamentalizmu do pluralizmu. In W. Czakon (Ed.), Podstawy metodologii badań w naukach o zarządzaniu (pp. 35–36, 38–39, 43). Wolters Kluwer.

Trompette, P., Chanal, V., & Pelissier, C. (2009, 10–12 July). Crowdsourcing as a way to access external knowledge for innovation: Control, incentive and coordination in hybrid forms of innovation. In Proceedings of 24th EGOS Colloquium. Amsterdam, Netherlands. https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00367373/document

Vance, A., Lowry, P. B., & Eggett, D. L. (2015). Increasing accountability through the user interface design artifacts: A new approach to addressing the problem of access-policy violations. MIS Quarterly, 39(2), 345–366. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.2.04

Vries, de R. A. J., Truong, K. P., Kwint, S., Drossaert, C. H. C., & Evers, V. (2016, 7–12 May). Crowd-designed motivation: Motivational messages for exercise adherence based on behavior change theory. CHI ’16: Proceedings of the 2016 34th Annual CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp 297–308). San Jose, California, United States.

Vukovic, M., & Bartolini, C. (2010, October). Towards a research agenda for enterprise crowdsourcing. In T. Margaria, & B. Steffen (Eds.), Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation: Technologies for Mastering Change (pp. 425–434). In 4th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications, ISoLA 2010. Heraklion, Crete, Greece. Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16558-0_36

Willmott, H. (2003). Organization theory as a critical science? Forms of analysis and “New Organizational Forms”. In H. Tsoukas & Ch. Knudsen (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organization theory: Meta-theoretical perspectives (pp. 88–112). Oxford University Press.

Yu-Min Lin, A., Huynh, A., Lanckriet, G., & Barrington, L. (2014). Crowdsourcing the unknown: The satellite search for Genghis Khan. PloS One, 9(12). https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0121045&type=printable

Zachorowska-Mazurkiewicz, A., & Sierotowicz, T. (2017). Women, men and creativity in higher education sector – Comparative studies of leading EU and ECE countries. Journal of International Studies, 10(3), 105–119. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-8330.2017/10-3/8

Zhao, Y. Ch., & Zhu, Q. (2014). Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on participation in crowdsourcing contest: A perspective of self-determination theory. Online Information Review, 38(7), 896–917. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-08-2014-0188

Zhao, Y., Zhang, X., & Song, X. (2018). Crowdsourcing in the digital humanities: An action research on the Shengxuanhuai manuscript transcription. Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship. https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/100244/Zhao-Yux-iang_20180417_V01.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Zhao, Y., & Zhu, Q. (2012, 16–19 December). Exploring the motivation of participants in crowdsourcing contest. In Proceedings of 33rd International Conference on Information Systems (Vol. V, pp. 3976–3988). Orlando, Florida, United States.

Zheng, H., Li, D., & Hou, W. (2011). Task design, motivation, and participation in crowdsourcing contests. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 15(4), 57–88. https://doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086-4415150402