Advertisement

A Process Model for Crowdsourcing Design: A Case Study in Citizen Science

  • Kazjon Grace
  • Mary Lou Maher
  • Jennifer Preece
  • Tom Yeh
  • Abigale Stangle
  • Carol Boston

Abstract

Crowdsourcing design has been applied in various areas of graphic design, software design, and product design. This paper draws on those experiences and research in diversity, creativity and motivation to present a process model for crowdsourcing experience design. Crowdsourcing experience design for volunteer online communities serves two purposes: to increase the motivation of participants by making them stakeholders in the success of the project, and to increase the creativity of the design by increasing the diversity of expertise beyond experts in experience design. Our process model for crowdsourcing design extends the meta-design architecture, where for online communities is designed to be iteratively re-designed by its users. We describe how our model has been deployed and adapted to a citizen science project where nature preserve visitors can participate in the design of a system called NatureNet. The major contribution of this paper is a model for crowdsourcing experience design and a case study of how we have deployed it for the design and development of NatureNet.

Keywords

Citizen Science Online Community Interaction Design Participatory Design Design Idea 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Wiggins A, Crowston K (2011) From conservation to crowdsourcing: a typology of citizen science. In: Syst. Sci. HICSS 2011 44th Hawaii Int. Conf. On. pp 1–10Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Page SE (2007) Making the difference: applying a logic of diversity. Acad Manag Perspect Arch 21:6–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rittel H, Webber M (1974) Wicked problems. Man Made Future. pp 272–280Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hong L, Page SE (2004) Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101:16385–16389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Silberman M, Irani L, Ross J (2010) Ethics and tactics of professional crowdwork. XRDS Crossroads ACM Mag Stud 17:39–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kittur A, Nickerson JV, Bernstein M, Gerber E, Shaw A, Zimmerman J, Lease M, Horton J (2013) The future of crowd work. In: Proc. 2013 Conf. Comput. Support. Coop. Work. ACM. pp 1301–1318Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Morris RR, Dontcheva M, Finkelstein A, Gerber E (2013) Affect and creative performance on crowdsourcing platforms. In: Affect. Comput. Intell. Interact. ACII 2013 Hum. Assoc. Conf. On. IEEE. pp 67–72Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wu W, Luther K, Pavel A, Hartmann B, Dow S, Agrawala M (2013) CrowdCritter: strategies for crowdsourcing visual design critique. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Xu A, Bailey B (2012) What do you think?: a case study of benefit, expectation, and interaction in a large online critique community. In: Proc. ACM 2012 Conf. Comput. Support. Coop. Work. ACM. pp 295–304Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fischer G, Giaccardi E (2006) Meta-design: a framework for the future of end-user development. End User Dev. Springer, pp 427–457Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brand S (1995) How buildings learn: what happens after they’re built. Penguin, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lakhani K, Wolf R (2003) Why hackers do what they do: understanding motivation and effort in free/open source software projects. MIT Sloan Working Paper No. 4425-03. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=443040 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.443040
  13. 13.
    Hertel G, Niedner S, Herrmann S (2003) Motivation of software developers in open source projects: an internet-based survey of contributors to the Linux kernel. Res Policy 32:1159–1177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nov O (2007) What motivates Wikipedians? Commun ACM 50:60–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brabham DC (2008) Moving the crowd at iStockphoto: the composition of the crowd and motivations for participation in a crowdsourcing application. First Monday 13Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chandler D, Kapelner A (2013) Breaking monotony with meaning: motivation in crowdsourcing markets. J Econ Behav Organ 90:123–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shaw AD, Horton JJ, Chen DL (2011) Designing incentives for inexpert human raters. In: Proc. ACM 2011 Conf. Comput. Support. Coop. Work. pp 275–284Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rogstadius J, Kostakos V, Kittur A, Smus B, Laredo J, Vukovic M (2011) An assessment of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on task performance in crowdsourcing markets. In: ICWSMGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Frey K, Haag S, Schneider V (2011) The role of interests, abilities, and motivation in online idea contests. Paper 71. Wirtschaftinformatik Proceedings 2011Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wasko M, Faraj S (2000) “It is what one does”: why people participate and help others in electronic communities of practice. J Strateg Inf Syst 9:155–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Antikainen M, Väätäjä H (2008) Innovating is fun–motivations to participate in online open innovation communities. In: Proc. First ISPIM Innov. Symp. Singap. Manag. Innov. Connect. World. pp 14–17Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Merrick K, Niazi M, Shafi K, Gu N Motivation (2011) Cyberworlds and collective design. In: Circuit Bend. Break. Mending Proc. 16th Int. Conf. on CAADRIA, Newcastle, Australia. CAADRIA Association, Hong Kong, pp 697–706Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Clary EG, Snyder M, Ridge RD, Copeland J, Stukas AA, Haugen J, Miene P (1998) Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: a functional approach. J Pers Soc Psychol 74:1516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lampe C, Wash R, Velasquez A, Ozkaya E (2010) Motivations to participate in online communities. In: Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. pp 1927–1936Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Maher ML, Paulini M, Murty P (2011) Scaling up: from individual design to collaborative design to collective design. Des. Comput. Cogn. Springer, pp 581–599Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Malone T, Laubacher R, Dellarocas C (2009) Harnessing crowds: mapping the genome of collective intelligence. MIT Sloan Research Paper No. 4732-09. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1381502 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1381502
  27. 27.
    Bryant SL, Forte A, Bruckman A (2005) Becoming Wikipedian: transformation of participation in a collaborative online encyclopedia. In: Proc. 2005 Int. ACM SIGGROUP Conf. Support. Group Work. pp 1–10Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Paulini M, Maher M, Murty P (2014) Motivating participation in online innovation communities. Int J Web Based Communities Accept Publ 10:94–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Muller MJ, Kuhn S (1993) Participatory design. Commun ACM 36:24–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Walsh G (2011) Distributed participatory design. CHI11 Ext Abstr Hum Factors Comput Syst 46:1061–1064Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Prahalad CK, Ramaswamy V (2004) Co-creation experiences: the next practice in value creation. J Interact Mark 18:5–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sanders EB-N, Stappers PJ (2008) Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Codes Des 4:5–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fischer G, Scharff E (2000) Meta-design: design for designers. In: Proc. 3rd Conf. Des. Interact. Syst. Process. Pract. Methods Tech. pp 396–405Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wright P, McCarthy J, Meekison L (2005) Making sense of experience. Funology. Springer, pp 43–53Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    McLellan H (2000) Experience design. Cyberpsychol Behav 3:59–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Shedroff N (2001) Experience design. New Riders, IndianaGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pine B, Gilmore JH (2011) The experience economy. Harvard Business Press, HarvardGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Paulini M, Murty P, Maher ML (2011) Understanding collective design communication in open innovation communities. J Co Creation Des Arts 9:90–112Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kim MJ, Maher ML (2008) The impact of tangible user interfaces on designers’ spatial cognition. Hum Comput Interact 23:101–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kim MJ, Maher ML (2008) The impact of tangible user interfaces on spatial cognition during collaborative design. Des Stud 29:222–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Laurel B (1991) Computers as theatre. Pearson Education Inc., Crawfordsville, USAGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fischer G, Giaccardi E, Ye Y, Sutcliffe AG, Mehandjiev N (2004) Meta-design: a manifesto for end-user development. Commun ACM 47:33–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lehman MM (1980) Programs, life cycles, and laws of software evolution. Proc IEEE 68:1060–1076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Casson T, Ryan P (2006) Open standards, open source adoption in the public sector, and their relationship to Microsoft’s market dominance. Stand Edge Unifier Divid 87Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Loeliger J, McCullough M (2012) Version control with Git: powerful tools and techniques for collaborative software development. O’Reilly Media, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Luther K (2011) Fast, accurate, and brilliant: realizing the potential of crowdsourcing and human computation. In: CHI 2011 Workshop Crowdsourcing Hum. Comput. Vanc. CanGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kazjon Grace
    • 1
  • Mary Lou Maher
    • 1
  • Jennifer Preece
    • 2
  • Tom Yeh
    • 3
  • Abigale Stangle
    • 3
  • Carol Boston
    • 2
  1. 1.University of North Carolina at CharlotteCharlotteUSA
  2. 2.University of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  3. 3.University of ColoradoBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations