[雙語(yǔ)翻譯]眾包外文翻譯--眾包中用戶參與的理論模型

1、5800 英文單詞， 英文單詞，3.2 萬(wàn)英文字符，中文 萬(wàn)英文字符，中文 9700 字文獻(xiàn)出處： 文獻(xiàn)出處：De Vreede T, Nguyen C, De Vreede G J, et al. A theoretical model of user engagement in crowdsourcing[C]//International Conference on Collaboration and Technology. Sp

2、ringer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013: 94-109.A Theoretical Model of User Engagement in CrowdsourcingTriparna de Vreede, Cuong Nguyen, Gert-Jan de Vreede, Imed Boughzala, Onook Oh, and Roni Reiter-PalmonAbstractSocial media t

3、echnology has enabled virtual collaborative environ- ments where people actively interact, share knowledge, coordinate activities, solve problems, co-create value, and innovate. Organizations have begun to le- verage app

4、roaches and technologies to involve numerous people from outside their boundaries to perform organizational tasks. Despite the success and popu- larity of this ‘crowdsourcing’ phenomenon, there appears to be a distinct g

5、ap in the literature regarding the empirical evaluation of the factors involved in a crowdsourcing user experience. This paper aims to fill this void by proposing a theoretical model of the antecedents and their relation

6、ships for crowdsourcing user engagement. It is defined as the quality of effort online users devote to col- laboration activities that contribute directly to desired outcomes. Drawing from research in psychology and IS,

7、we identify three critical elements that precede crowdsourcing user engagement: personal interest in topic, goal clarity, and motivation to contribute. This paper examines the theoretical basis of these va- riables of in

8、terest in detail, derives a causal model of their interrelationships, and identifies future plans for model testing.Keywords: Crowdsourcing, engagement, open collaboration, motivation, social media.1. IntroductionThe adv

9、ent of social web technologies has made it feasible for businesses, non- profits, and the government to engage large numbers of Internet users in performing organizational tasks. This phenomenon is popularly known by the

10、 term “crowdsourc- ing” (Howe, 2006). There are many examples of crowdsourcing initiatives across various domains such as medicine (Norman et al., 2011), journalism (Fitt, 2011), art (Casal, 2011), finance (Belleflamme e

11、t al., 2010), and government (Bommert, 2010). The popularity of crowdsourcing can be explained by a number of its perceived ad- vantages. Crowdsourcing provides a low cost and scalable way to access ideas that might be d

12、ifficult or expensive to obtain internally (Cox, 2011). It can also reduce bias in collective decision making compared with small teams due to the crowd’s diversity of opinions, assumptions, and beliefs (Bonabeau, 2009).

13、 The labor cost paid for freelancers in a virtual crowdsourcing marketplace is much cheaper than that for professionals for the same tasks (Howe, 2006). Companies perceive crowdsourcing as a means to detect trends, recog

14、nize customer needs, obtain different perspectives or confirm business intentions (Aitamurto et al., 2011; Dubach et al., 2007). Similarly, the government and public organizations are attracted to the idea of engaging wi

15、th online citizens since it has the potential to increase the novelty and relevance of ideas and solutions, commitment of the citizens to accept changes, and government transpa- rency (Bommert, 2010; Brito, 2008).The mer

16、its of the crowdsourcing model can be traced back to an important assump- tion. That is, through crowdsourcing initiatives, organizations can attract an extensive number of online users to help solve problems or issues.

17、Unfortunately, reality turns out to be otherwise – studies solving and co-production model. From the perspective of online workers, Heer & Bostok (2010 p.1) understand crowdsourcing as “a relatively new phenomenon in

18、 which web workers complete one or more small tasks, often for micro-payments on the order of $0.01 to $0.10 per task.”While different definitions extend our understanding of the phenomenon, inconsis- tent conceptualizat

19、ions of the term can lead to confusion in identifying which applica- tions are crowdsourcing and which are not. For example, Huberman et al. (2009) consider YouTube as crowdsourcing, while Kleeman et al. (2008) do not. C

20、rowd- sourcing can also be easily confused with other related Web 2.0 phenomena, such as social networking, communities of practice or social commerce, because on the sur- face all of them involve interaction and partici

21、pation of individuals through the Web. It is also necessary to distinguish crowdsourcing from open innovation, user innova- tion, and open source application development. Compared with open innovation, crowdsourcing has

22、a wider scope of applications (not only innovation processes) and concerns with the interaction between the firm and an online crowd rather than be- tween firms (Schenk & Guittard, 2009). User innovation also differs

23、 from crowd- sourcing in that it is initiated by users while, in crowdsourcing, it is initiated by a firm (Schenk & Guittard, 2009). Schenk & Guittard (2009) also argue that open source application development is

24、 a specific application of crowdsourcing, rather than a theoretical concept in its own right.In this paper we follow the definition by Howe (2006) because in our opinion, it captures the most unique characteristics of th

25、e phenomenon. That is, a crowdsourcing initiative should have the following three elements:(1) Users are producers, not only consumers: The role of online users as producers in crowdsourcing applications is a critical di

26、stinction between crowdsourcing and social commerce (Saxton et al., 2013). A common feature across social e-commerce websites is that online users go to the sites to consume finished products or services offered by firms

27、. For example, online users access nike.com to buy or gain more in- formation about Nike products provided by other users. In contrast, in crowdsourcing, online users contribute to the production process of the firm and

28、the product design. For example, in threadless.com, there are two types of users. First, there are typical online customers who browse the site to find and buy T-shirts. Second, there are oth- ers who contribute their T-

29、shirt designs that, once selected, will be printed as products by Threadless.In line with Kleeman et al. (2008), we also distinguish crowdsourcing with market creator websites. In market creator websites such as Ebay1, o

30、nline users’ contributions are in the form of trading finished products. The website only serves as a sales chan- nel for the sellers. In contrast, in crowdsourcing websites, online users’ contributions are in the form o

31、f resources in a production process. For example, in the case of Threadless, online users participate in the designing stage of the production process. However, unlike Kleeman et al. (2008) who do not consider labor mark

32、et websites like Amazon Mechanical Turk or Rent a Coder2 as crowdsourcing, we classify them as crowdsourcing because the crowd offers a labor resource, not finished products.(2) The number of participants is undefined:

33、The number of participants in a crowdsourcing event is undefined, meaning that the number ranges from one to sever- al thousand or more. Also, this number is unknown in advance but emergent. This characteristic distingui

34、shes crowdsourcing initiatives from virtual team or distributed group work. While both crowdsourcing and virtual teams involve interactions among individuals through information and communication technologies, the number