Motivating Participation in Crowdsourced Policymaking

Abstract

In this paper, we examine the changes in motivation factors in crowdsourced policymaking. By drawing on longitudinal data from a crowdsourced law reform, we show that people participated because they wanted to improve the law, learn, and solve problems. When crowdsourcing reached a saturation point, the motivation factors weakened and the crowd disengaged. Learning was the only factor that did not weaken. The participants learned while interacting with others, and the more actively the participants commented, the more likely they stayed engaged. Crowdsourced policymaking should thus be designed to support both epistemic and interactive aspects. While the crowd's motives were rooted in self-interest, their knowledge perspective showed common-good orientation, implying that rather than being dichotomous, motivation factors move on a continuum. The design of crowdsourced policymaking should support the dynamic nature of the process and the motivation factors driving it.

Crowdsourcing: a systematic review of the literature using text mining

“…Individual factors always create a thirst for action, for example, the need to satisfy a personal interest (Solemon and Bakar, 2018). The satisfaction of accepting a problem-solving challenge is also mentioned as mobilising participation (Aitamurto and Saldivar, 2017;Brabham, 2010;Lee et al, 2015;Taylor and Joshi, 2019). Furthermore, participation itself can offer fulfilment or fun, even in cases where the individual believes that their contribution will not influence the result (Aitamurto and Saldivar, 2017;Brabham, 2008;Chit et al, 2017;Tokarchuk et al, 2012).…”

“…The satisfaction of accepting a problem-solving challenge is also mentioned as mobilising participation (Aitamurto and Saldivar, 2017;Brabham, 2010;Lee et al, 2015;Taylor and Joshi, 2019). Furthermore, participation itself can offer fulfilment or fun, even in cases where the individual believes that their contribution will not influence the result (Aitamurto and Saldivar, 2017;Brabham, 2008;Chit et al, 2017;Tokarchuk et al, 2012). For this reason, a gamified crowdsourcing activity can increase participation and engagement, especially for the less-motivated users, as it makes the experience more delightful and entertaining (Feyisetan and Simperl, 2017;Liu et al, 2012).…”

“…Moreover, in mobile crowdsourcing they are also connected with the most active participants (Budhathoki and Haythornthwaite, 2013;Liu et al, 2012). Being a member of a community helps to understand it better, learn from others' perspectives and find support (Aitamurto, 2015;Aitamurto and Saldivar, 2017;Hajiamiri and Korku, 2015;Tokarchuk et al, 2012). Interestingly, the social dimension of crowdsourcing was found to be important even in paid microtasking, which is individual and there is no social learning taking place at all.…”

Party Politics, Values and the Design of Social Media Services

“…Social computing and human-computer interaction researchers have extensively studied online spaces for political discussion. For example, they have conducted observational studies on political discussions in online space, such as explorations on social media discussions during elections [115] or discussions and engagement on platforms for civic engagement [1]. Other scholars have taken more design-oriented approaches, asking how online spaces could even further support political discussions.…”

“…To illustrate these aspects, Figure 1 positions the eight parties across these axis. 1 Similarly, the parties are divided by their stance on social and cultural diversity, focusing on traditional values or increasing national diversity in Finland.…”