Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Conference paper
Design Computing and Cognition '14

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  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 1–10

    Google Scholar 

  2. Page SE (2007) Making the difference: applying a logic of diversity. Acad Manag Perspect Arch 21:6–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Rittel H, Webber M (1974) Wicked problems. Man Made Future. pp 272–280

    Google Scholar 

  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 101:16385–16389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Silberman M, Irani L, Ross J (2010) Ethics and tactics of professional crowdwork. XRDS Crossroads ACM Mag Stud 17:39–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 1301–1318

    Google Scholar 

  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 67–72

    Google Scholar 

  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, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  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 295–304

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fischer G, Giaccardi E (2006) Meta-design: a framework for the future of end-user development. End User Dev. Springer, pp 427–457

    Google Scholar 

  11. Brand S (1995) How buildings learn: what happens after they’re built. Penguin, New York

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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 32:1159–1177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Nov O (2007) What motivates Wikipedians? Commun ACM 50:60–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Brabham DC (2008) Moving the crowd at iStockphoto: the composition of the crowd and motivations for participation in a crowdsourcing application. First Monday 13

    Google Scholar 

  16. Chandler D, Kapelner A (2013) Breaking monotony with meaning: motivation in crowdsourcing markets. J Econ Behav Organ 90:123–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Shaw AD, Horton JJ, Chen DL (2011) Designing incentives for inexpert human raters. In: Proc. ACM 2011 Conf. Comput. Support. Coop. Work. pp 275–284

    Google Scholar 

  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: ICWSM

    Google Scholar 

  19. Frey K, Haag S, Schneider V (2011) The role of interests, abilities, and motivation in online idea contests. Paper 71. Wirtschaftinformatik Proceedings 2011

    Google Scholar 

  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 9:155–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 14–17

    Google Scholar 

  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 697–706

    Google Scholar 

  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 74:1516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 1927–1936

    Google Scholar 

  25. Maher ML, Paulini M, Murty P (2011) Scaling up: from individual design to collaborative design to collective design. Des. Comput. Cogn. Springer, pp 581–599

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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 1–10

    Google Scholar 

  28. Paulini M, Maher M, Murty P (2014) Motivating participation in online innovation communities. Int J Web Based Communities Accept Publ 10:94–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Muller MJ, Kuhn S (1993) Participatory design. Commun ACM 36:24–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Walsh G (2011) Distributed participatory design. CHI11 Ext Abstr Hum Factors Comput Syst 46:1061–1064

    Google Scholar 

  31. Prahalad CK, Ramaswamy V (2004) Co-creation experiences: the next practice in value creation. J Interact Mark 18:5–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sanders EB-N, Stappers PJ (2008) Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Codes Des 4:5–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Fischer G, Scharff E (2000) Meta-design: design for designers. In: Proc. 3rd Conf. Des. Interact. Syst. Process. Pract. Methods Tech. pp 396–405

    Google Scholar 

  34. Wright P, McCarthy J, Meekison L (2005) Making sense of experience. Funology. Springer, pp 43–53

    Google Scholar 

  35. McLellan H (2000) Experience design. Cyberpsychol Behav 3:59–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Shedroff N (2001) Experience design. New Riders, Indiana

    Google Scholar 

  37. Pine B, Gilmore JH (2011) The experience economy. Harvard Business Press, Harvard

    Google Scholar 

  38. Paulini M, Murty P, Maher ML (2011) Understanding collective design communication in open innovation communities. J Co Creation Des Arts 9:90–112

    Google Scholar 

  39. Kim MJ, Maher ML (2008) The impact of tangible user interfaces on designers’ spatial cognition. Hum Comput Interact 23:101–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kim MJ, Maher ML (2008) The impact of tangible user interfaces on spatial cognition during collaborative design. Des Stud 29:222–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Laurel B (1991) Computers as theatre. Pearson Education Inc., Crawfordsville, USA

    Google Scholar 

  42. Fischer G, Giaccardi E, Ye Y, Sutcliffe AG, Mehandjiev N (2004) Meta-design: a manifesto for end-user development. Commun ACM 47:33–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Lehman MM (1980) Programs, life cycles, and laws of software evolution. Proc IEEE 68:1060–1076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 87

    Google Scholar 

  45. Loeliger J, McCullough M (2012) Version control with Git: powerful tools and techniques for collaborative software development. O’Reilly Media, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  46. Luther K (2011) Fast, accurate, and brilliant: realizing the potential of crowdsourcing and human computation. In: CHI 2011 Workshop Crowdsourcing Hum. Comput. Vanc. Can

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA

    Kazjon Grace & Mary Lou Maher

  2. University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

    Jennifer Preece & Carol Boston

  3. University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA

    Tom Yeh & Abigale Stangle

Authors
  1. Kazjon Grace
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mary Lou Maher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jennifer Preece
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tom Yeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Abigale Stangle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Carol Boston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kazjon Grace .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science and School of Architecture, University of North Carolina, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA

    John S. Gero

  2. University College London, Bartlett School of Architecture, London, United Kingdom

    Sean Hanna

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Grace, K., Maher, M.L., Preece, J., Yeh, T., Stangle, A., Boston, C. (2015). A Process Model for Crowdsourcing Design: A Case Study in Citizen Science. In: Gero, J., Hanna, S. (eds) Design Computing and Cognition '14. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14956-1_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14956-1_14

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-14955-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-14956-1

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation