James Melton

John Prpic, Araz Taeihagh, James Melton

What is the state of the research on crowdsourcing for policy making? This article begins to answer this question by collecting, categorizing, and situating an extensive body of the extant research investigating policy crowdsourcing, within a new framework built on fundamental typologies from each field. We first define seven universal characteristics of the three general crowdsourcing techniques (virtual labor markets, tournament crowdsourcing, open collaboration), to examine the relative trade-offs of each modality. We then compare these three types of crowdsourcing to the different stages of the policy cycle, in order to situate the literature spanning both domains. We finally discuss research trends in crowdsourcing for public policy, and highlight the research gaps and overlaps in the literature. KEYWORDS: crowdsourcing, policy cycle, crowdsourcing trade-offs, policy processes, policy stages, virtual labor markets, tournament crowdsourcing, open collaboration

J. Prpic, A. Taeihagh, J. Melton

What is the state of the literature in respect to Crowdsourcing for policy making? This work attempts to answer this question by collecting, categorizing, and situating the extant research investigating Crowdsourcing for policy, within the broader Crowdsourcing literature. To do so, the work first extends the Crowdsourcing literature by introducing, defining, explaining, and using seven universal characteristics of all general Crowdsourcing techniques, to vividly draw-out the relative trade-offs of each mode of Crowdsourcing. From this beginning, the work systematically and explicitly weds the three types of Crowdsourcing to the stages of the Policy cycle as a method of situating the extant literature spanning both domains. Thereafter, we discuss the trends, highlighting the research gaps, and outline the overlaps in the research on Crowdsourcing for policy, stemming from our analysis.

J. Prpic, A. Taeihagh, J. Melton

Crowdsourcing is beginning to be used for policymaking. The wisdom of crowds [Surowiecki 2005], and crowdsourcing [Brabham 2008], are seen as new avenues that can shape all kinds of policy, from transportation policy [Nash 2009] to urban planning [Seltzer and Mahmoudi 2013], to climate policy. In general, many have high expectations for positive outcomes with crowdsourcing, and based on both anecdotal and empirical evidence, some of these expectations seem justified [Majchrzak and Malhotra 2013]. Yet, to our knowledge, research has yet to emerge that unpacks the different forms of crowdsourcing in light of each stage of the well-established policy cycle. This work addresses this research gap, and in doing so brings increased nuance to the application of crowdsourcing techniques for policymaking.

John Prpic, James Melton, Araz Taeihagh et al.

Premised upon the observation that MOOC and crowdsourcing phenomena share several important characteristics, including IT mediation, large-scale human participation, and varying levels of openness to participants, this work systematizes a comparison of MOOC and crowdsourcing phenomena along these salient dimensions. In doing so, we learn that both domains share further common traits, including similarities in IT structures, knowledge generating capabilities, presence of intermediary service providers, and techniques designed to attract and maintain participant activity. Stemming directly from this analysis, we discuss new directions for future research in both fields and draw out actionable implications for practitioners and researchers in both domains.

J. Prpic, A. Taeihagh, J. Melton

Can Crowds serve as useful allies in policy design? How do non-expert Crowds perform relative to experts in the assessment of policy measures? Does the geographic location of non-expert Crowds, with relevance to the policy context, alter the performance of non-experts Crowds in the assessment of policy measures? In this work, we investigate these questions by undertaking experiments designed to replicate expert policy assessments with non-expert Crowds recruited from Virtual Labor Markets. We use a set of ninety-six climate change adaptation policy measures previously evaluated by experts in the Netherlands as our control condition to conduct experiments using two discrete sets of non-expert Crowds recruited from Virtual Labor Markets. We vary the composition of our non-expert Crowds along two conditions: participants recruited from a geographical location directly relevant to the policy context and participants recruited at-large. We discuss our research methods in detail and provide the findings of our experiments.