Crowdsourcing as Practice and Method in the Smithsonian Transcription Center

Abstract

This article employs qualitative research design and methods to examine volunteer motivation and continued experiences of participation in the Smithsonian Institution's Transcription Center (TC), a large-scale crowdsourcing project and space for engagement with collections, Smithsonian Institution staff, and peer volunteers, or volunpeers. Data were obtained from two focus groups conducted on August 24 and 25, 2015. Following these discussions, an experimental method of crowdsourced authorship was developed by the researchers and participants wherein seven volunteers involved in the focus groups became participant researchers who collaborated with the two lead researchers to analyze and interpret the data. This authorship method mirrors the very nature of crowdsourcing by gaining investment and contribution from several volunteers as a means both of collaborating and sharing authority and of distributing labor and yielding a broader perspective in terms of point of view and thus a more diverse result. The purpose of this article is twofold: first, to highlight five reasons volunteers participate in the TC and, second, to present an experimental methodology of crowdsourced authorship in conjunction with qualitative research. Participatory projects, such as crowdsourcing among cultural heritage institutions and research conducted through citizen science initiatives, rely on the activity of volunteers, amateurs, and nonexperts to achieve goals of the projects undertaken. These projects, commonly referred to as GLAM (galleries, libraries, archives, and museums) crowdsourcing, are grounded in the need as well as the desire to engage, gain assistance from, and share with the public. Opportunities for the public to transcribe, review, research, and share information within the space of the Smithsonian Institution's Transcription Center (TC) are constantly emerging. Many hands can certainly make light work, but what brings the hands to the table? And how can we keep them there to continue contributing? This article answers the first question and begins to posit answers to the second. Writing collectively as two lead researchers and seven participant researchers, we detail the reasons volunteers contribute to the TC before turning to reflections on the ways that a flexible space such as the TC can meet many motivations at once. But Why Participate? Motivations in Many Contexts For the TC, participation and motivation appear to be tightly connected. Understanding one may offer insight into the other. Studying motivation can lead to actionable insights for sustaining, improving, and designing better activity and en-O MEGHAN FERRITER, ET AL.

A History of Participation in Museums and Archives

“…(3) the materials are unique and of cultural value: and (4) participating in a team effort is rewarding. These results largely concur with those observed by other researchers (Ferriter et al, 2016;Oomen & Aroyo, 2011;Raddick et al, 2009). But the homogeneity of the responses also corresponds to the ideas and incentives featured in publicity about CWW on the radio and TV, online, and in print, suggesting that the publicity materials were read and remembered by the participants.…”

“…Quantitative methods, namely, participant surveys and log data analysis in combination with other indirect methods, such as exploration of user profile pages (Lane, 2017;Raddick et al, 2009;Wood et al, 2011), are used most frequently to explore user involvement. Focus groups are an additional and productive way to collect more individualized points of view (Ferriter et al, 2016).…”