A Definition of Community Crowdsourcing Engagement and Application

Nguyen, Cuong T.; Tahmasbi, Nargess; Vreede, Triparna de; Vreede, Gert Jan de; Oh, Onook; Reiter‐Palmon, Roni

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-38974-5_22

Cited by 12 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Within societal engagement, multiple subtypes are identified. These vary in whose engagement they define and measure, that is, the engagement of citizens (n = 6) (Nicotera et al, 2010;Kemp, 2015;Nguyen et al, 2016;Arvanitidis, 2017;Cortés-Cediel et al, 2018;Pontes et al, 2018) in, for example, their community, politics, or art; the engagement of organizations with citizens (n = 3) (Taylor and Kent, 2014;Sallnow and Paul, 2015;Eder et al, 2018), for example, engagement of research organizations with citizens, or of an end-of-life care service with the community surrounding it; or the engagement of interest groups in policy (n = 1) (Halpin and Fraussen, 2017). Four studies' main aim is to analyze the concept, but an equal number of studies apply the concept to a new area or seek a stakeholder perspective.…”

Section: Health Engagementmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Concept and Components of Engagement in Different Domains Applied to eHealth: A Systematic Scoping Review

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within the context of eHealth interventions, a shared understanding of what constitutes engagement in and with eHealth technologies is missing. A clearer understanding of engagement could provide a valuable starting point for guidelines relating to the design and development of eHealth technologies. Given the cross-disciplinary use of the term "engagement," investigating how engagement (and its components) is conceptualized in different domains could lead to determining common components that are deemed important for eHealth technological design. As such, the aim of this paper was 3-fold: (a) to investigate in which domains engagement features, (b) to determine what constitutes engagement in these different domains, and (c) to determine whether there are any common components that seem to be important. A comprehensive systematic scoping review of the existing literature was conducted in order to identify the domains in which engagement is used, to extract the associated definitions of engagement, and to identify the dimensionality or components thereof. A search of five bibliographic databases yielded 1,231 unique records. All titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. This led to 69 articles being included for further analyses. The results showed that engagement is used in seven functional domains, categorized as follows: student (n = 18), customer (n = 12), health (n = 11), society (n = 10), work (n = 9), digital (n = 8), and transdisciplinary (n = 1) domains. It seems that some domains are more mature regarding their conceptualization and theorizing on engagement than others. Further, engagement was found to be predominantly conceptualized as a multidimensional construct with three common components (behavior, cognition, and affective) shared between domains. Although engagement is prolifically used in different disciplines, it is evident that little shared consensus as to its conceptualization within and between domains exists. Despite this, engagement is foremost seen as a state of being engaged in/with something, which is part of, but should not be confused with, the process of engagement. Behavior, cognition, and affect are important components of engagement and should be specified for each new context.

show abstract

Section: Health Engagementmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Concept and Components of Engagement in Different Domains Applied to eHealth: A Systematic Scoping Review

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The dataset includes the recorded tags and timestamps associated with each tagging activity for each user. Thus, it is feasible to measure the sustained engagement as suggested by Nguyen et al [13]. This is the only construct of the model that we measured quantitatively, and it served as our dependent variable.…”

Section: Construct Measurementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We used Nguyen et al's approach to measure crowdsourcing engagement [13]. The main indicator of an activity in the Cabotage study is tagging the trucks.…”

Section: Construct Measurementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Meanwhile, studying motivational factors that lead to engagement requires a reliable definition of the term and metrics for measuring engagement in crowdsourcing. In this study, we use Nguyen et al's proposed definition and their quantitative measures of engagement [13]. They define crowdsourcing engagement as a metric that comprises four dimensions: "magnitude, temporal intensity, diversity, and recency of tangible effort" [13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this study, we use Nguyen et al's proposed definition and their quantitative measures of engagement [13]. They define crowdsourcing engagement as a metric that comprises four dimensions: "magnitude, temporal intensity, diversity, and recency of tangible effort" [13]. The context of their study was a community crowdsourcing platform for citizen engagement that shares similarities with the context of this study.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Get the Crowd Going – An Empirical Analysis toward a Crowdsourcing Engagement Model

Tahmasbi

Sternberg

2019

Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Crowdsourcing continues to attract attention from researchers, organizations, and policy makers alike. In particular, crowdsourcing projects that engage intrinsically motivated volunteers and are aimed at endeavors such as policy making, research, and social activism, need to understand how to create sustained engagement in their initiatives. A fair amount of research has been done on identifying users' motivation in crowdsourcing. However, crowdsourcing motivation literature still lacks sufficient theory-driven approaches. In this paper, we derive from theory of work motivation, the technology acceptance model, and the gamification concept to propose a model that can explain participants' motivation in crowdsourcing. To measure our model constructs, we conducted a survey on the users of a European crowdsourcing project, researching truck traffic tracking. The results of the exploratory factor analysis confirm that our constructs can be measured properly using our questionnaire. At the end of this paper, we explain our findings and the contribution of our study.

show abstract

Integrating motives and usability to examine community crowdsourcing

Lee

Goh

Zhou

et al. 2020

Proc Assoc Inf Sci Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Integrating the notions of public service and intrinsic motivations with usability factors, this study examined the motivational and usability factors influencing intention to help via a community crowdsourcing app. Hierarchical linear regression analysis indicated that creating an engaging and useful app that appeals to needs for commitment, and intrinsic needs to participate in valuable acts motivated users to use the community crowdsourcing app to help others.

show abstract

A Definition of Community Crowdsourcing Engagement and Application

Cited by 12 publications

References 37 publications

The Concept and Components of Engagement in Different Domains Applied to eHealth: A Systematic Scoping Review

The Concept and Components of Engagement in Different Domains Applied to eHealth: A Systematic Scoping Review

Get the Crowd Going – An Empirical Analysis toward a Crowdsourcing Engagement Model

Integrating motives and usability to examine community crowdsourcing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About