Cargando…

Ethical Concerns of and Risk Mitigation Strategies for Crowdsourcing Contests and Innovation Challenges: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND: Crowdsourcing contests (also called innovation challenges, innovation contests, and inducement prize contests) can be used to solicit multisectoral feedback on health programs and design public health campaigns. They consist of organizing a steering committee, soliciting contributions, e...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tucker, Joseph D, Pan, Stephen W, Mathews, Allison, Stein, Gabriella, Bayus, Barry, Rennie, Stuart
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: JMIR Publications 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5866301/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29523500
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.8226
_version_ 1783308823755227136
author Tucker, Joseph D
Pan, Stephen W
Mathews, Allison
Stein, Gabriella
Bayus, Barry
Rennie, Stuart
author_facet Tucker, Joseph D
Pan, Stephen W
Mathews, Allison
Stein, Gabriella
Bayus, Barry
Rennie, Stuart
author_sort Tucker, Joseph D
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Crowdsourcing contests (also called innovation challenges, innovation contests, and inducement prize contests) can be used to solicit multisectoral feedback on health programs and design public health campaigns. They consist of organizing a steering committee, soliciting contributions, engaging the community, judging contributions, recognizing a subset of contributors, and sharing with the community. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review describes crowdsourcing contests by stage, examines ethical problems at each stage, and proposes potential ways of mitigating risk. METHODS: Our analysis was anchored in the specific example of a crowdsourcing contest that our team organized to solicit videos promoting condom use in China. The purpose of this contest was to create compelling 1-min videos to promote condom use. We used a scoping review to examine the existing ethical literature on crowdsourcing to help identify and frame ethical concerns at each stage. RESULTS: Crowdsourcing has a group of individuals solve a problem and then share the solution with the public. Crowdsourcing contests provide an opportunity for community engagement at each stage: organizing, soliciting, promoting, judging, recognizing, and sharing. Crowdsourcing poses several ethical concerns: organizing—potential for excluding community voices; soliciting—potential for overly narrow participation; promoting—potential for divulging confidential information; judging—potential for biased evaluation; recognizing—potential for insufficient recognition of the finalist; and sharing—potential for the solution to not be implemented or widely disseminated. CONCLUSIONS: Crowdsourcing contests can be effective and engaging public health tools but also introduce potential ethical problems. We present methods for the responsible conduct of crowdsourcing contests.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5866301
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher JMIR Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58663012018-04-02 Ethical Concerns of and Risk Mitigation Strategies for Crowdsourcing Contests and Innovation Challenges: Scoping Review Tucker, Joseph D Pan, Stephen W Mathews, Allison Stein, Gabriella Bayus, Barry Rennie, Stuart J Med Internet Res Review BACKGROUND: Crowdsourcing contests (also called innovation challenges, innovation contests, and inducement prize contests) can be used to solicit multisectoral feedback on health programs and design public health campaigns. They consist of organizing a steering committee, soliciting contributions, engaging the community, judging contributions, recognizing a subset of contributors, and sharing with the community. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review describes crowdsourcing contests by stage, examines ethical problems at each stage, and proposes potential ways of mitigating risk. METHODS: Our analysis was anchored in the specific example of a crowdsourcing contest that our team organized to solicit videos promoting condom use in China. The purpose of this contest was to create compelling 1-min videos to promote condom use. We used a scoping review to examine the existing ethical literature on crowdsourcing to help identify and frame ethical concerns at each stage. RESULTS: Crowdsourcing has a group of individuals solve a problem and then share the solution with the public. Crowdsourcing contests provide an opportunity for community engagement at each stage: organizing, soliciting, promoting, judging, recognizing, and sharing. Crowdsourcing poses several ethical concerns: organizing—potential for excluding community voices; soliciting—potential for overly narrow participation; promoting—potential for divulging confidential information; judging—potential for biased evaluation; recognizing—potential for insufficient recognition of the finalist; and sharing—potential for the solution to not be implemented or widely disseminated. CONCLUSIONS: Crowdsourcing contests can be effective and engaging public health tools but also introduce potential ethical problems. We present methods for the responsible conduct of crowdsourcing contests. JMIR Publications 2018-03-09 /pmc/articles/PMC5866301/ /pubmed/29523500 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.8226 Text en ©Joseph D Tucker, Stephen W Pan, Allison Mathews, Gabriella Stein, Barry Bayus, Stuart Rennie. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 09.03.2018. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
spellingShingle Review
Tucker, Joseph D
Pan, Stephen W
Mathews, Allison
Stein, Gabriella
Bayus, Barry
Rennie, Stuart
Ethical Concerns of and Risk Mitigation Strategies for Crowdsourcing Contests and Innovation Challenges: Scoping Review
title Ethical Concerns of and Risk Mitigation Strategies for Crowdsourcing Contests and Innovation Challenges: Scoping Review
title_full Ethical Concerns of and Risk Mitigation Strategies for Crowdsourcing Contests and Innovation Challenges: Scoping Review
title_fullStr Ethical Concerns of and Risk Mitigation Strategies for Crowdsourcing Contests and Innovation Challenges: Scoping Review
title_full_unstemmed Ethical Concerns of and Risk Mitigation Strategies for Crowdsourcing Contests and Innovation Challenges: Scoping Review
title_short Ethical Concerns of and Risk Mitigation Strategies for Crowdsourcing Contests and Innovation Challenges: Scoping Review
title_sort ethical concerns of and risk mitigation strategies for crowdsourcing contests and innovation challenges: scoping review
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5866301/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29523500
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.8226
work_keys_str_mv AT tuckerjosephd ethicalconcernsofandriskmitigationstrategiesforcrowdsourcingcontestsandinnovationchallengesscopingreview
AT panstephenw ethicalconcernsofandriskmitigationstrategiesforcrowdsourcingcontestsandinnovationchallengesscopingreview
AT mathewsallison ethicalconcernsofandriskmitigationstrategiesforcrowdsourcingcontestsandinnovationchallengesscopingreview
AT steingabriella ethicalconcernsofandriskmitigationstrategiesforcrowdsourcingcontestsandinnovationchallengesscopingreview
AT bayusbarry ethicalconcernsofandriskmitigationstrategiesforcrowdsourcingcontestsandinnovationchallengesscopingreview
AT renniestuart ethicalconcernsofandriskmitigationstrategiesforcrowdsourcingcontestsandinnovationchallengesscopingreview