endnote

Crowdfunding Art, Science and Technology A Quick Survey of the Burgeoning New Landscape

As is widely known, the number and scope of tradi- and the University of Edinburgh’s partnership with the tional funding sources for art and research have been de- Scottish platform ShareIn. In consequence a valuable ele- clining over the past decade. Fortunately, a new, dynamic ment of Research-ACf has been observed: The focus shifts player on the field, , is growing exponen- perceptibly from outcomes to process. tially in international market size and strength. Universities engaging in Research-ACf have generally Crowdfunding is the innovative use of the Internet and ­pursued one of three methodologies [1]: social media to fund endeavors through the receipt of small monies from large numbers of people. It has proven First: Faculty members utilize the same partner pages notably successful, especially for specific industries and used for student projects (e.g. MIT Media Lab and artistic endeavors such as gaming, tech innovation and Wharton). film. The largest international portals include (U.S.-based) Second: The university enters a set agreement with and and (U.K.-based) . the portal for the Research-ACf effort—an arrangement Independent research firms (e.g. U.C. Berkeley’s Fung more refined than the partner page option (e.g. Experi- Institute) estimated that the crowdfunding market ranges ment’s partnerships with Tulane and the University of from US$4 to $5 billion as of the end of 2013. Washington). The art-science-technology community should take Third (the most common methodology): The univer- note: The majority of those billions funded artistic sity hosts a private crowdfunding portal for its students/ endeavors (films, music, etc.), tech innovations (3D print- faculty, often using white-label software such as Scale­ ers, mobile phone accessories, etc.) and software launches Funder, USEED or Launcht (e.g. University of Cali- (games, apps, etc.). fornia, MIT, Colorado State University, Arizona State Given that a significant portion of successful crowdfund- University, Cornell and the University of Virginia). ing has originated with higher-education students, many universities now encourage, if not facilitate, some form Regardless of which method is implemented for of crowdfunding. This academic crowdfunding (ACf) is Research-ACf, the mission will commonly fall within one primarily achieved via curated/partner pages for the uni- of three categories: (1) funding full experiments/research versities on portals such as Kickstarter or Indiegogo. Over endeavors; (2) purchasing equipment/software; or 50 colleges and universities worldwide have such pages, (3) supplementing existing studies (e.g. Priscilla ­Cacola’s including MIT, Columbia, Stanford, Duke and the Uni- 2013 campaign at the University of Texas-Arlington uti- versity of Edinburgh. lized the portal to raise approximately $3,000 Furthermore, ACf is now making a strong appearance toward her Developmental Motor Cognition Lab). in faculty research funding. In the United States, leading Finally, an important synergistic benefit for academic portals for academic research crowdfunding (Research- and art crowdfunding arises in the amounts sought. ACf) include Experiment, Kickstarter, Indiegogo and Industry opinion advises capping typical campaigns at Rockethub. Non-U.S. universities are also moving to $10,000. This appears optimal for Research-ACf, accord- integrate Research-ACf, as in Melbourne’s Deakin Uni- ing to a recent study: “$10,000 per fundraising campaign versity’s partnership with the Australian platform [is] an ideal amount for funding a pilot study, purchasing

104 LEONARDO, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 104–105, 2015 doi:10.1162/LEON_a_00813 ©2015 ISAST

Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/leon/article-pdf/48/1/104/1576092/leon_a_00813.pdf by guest on 02 October 2021 equipment for an existing study, or a summer of graduate positive or net negative for the integrity (perceived and student research” [2]. otherwise) of academic research. Let us leave these issues Although crowdfunding is a time-intensive tool and not to future writing. appropriate for all academic research, evidence shows that Here at the University of Texas ArtSciLab, we have it can be an efficient method for raising funds. As the aca- initiated the crowdfunding and crowdsourcing initiative demic and art research community continues its steady CrowdFormation, and we look forward to sharing exper- development in crowdfunding, new opportunities, such tise and experiences [3]. as crowdfunding scholarships, will arise . . . along with unavoidable issues, such as tempestuous IP conflicts; coor- david marlett dination with university grant funding and alumni lists; Executive Director, liability mitigation; the onset of equity crowdfunding in National Crowdfunding Association the United States, as well as its explosive use internationally through portals such as CrowdCube, OurCrowd (Israel), Research Fellow, ArtSciLab, ASSOB (Australia) and (Northern Europe); and University of Texas at Dallas the impact of crowdfunding on the choice of the research and its methodologies and whether such impacts are a net Email:

References and Notes 1 These methodologies are explored in greater depth at . crowdsourcing initiative, see: . 2 Rachel Wheat et al., “Raising Money for Scientific Research through Editor’s Note: Complete reference material for this text can be found Crowdfunding,” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28, No. 2 (February online at . 2013) p. 72.

Endnote 105

Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/leon/article-pdf/48/1/104/1576092/leon_a_00813.pdf by guest on 02 October 2021