Hitotsubashi University
Institute of Innovation Research

Determinants of donations to scientific research:
An experimental study of motivations forcrowdfunding in Japan

Aminaka, Hirokazu
Yoshioka-Kobayashi, Tohru
IIR Working Paper WP#20-09

April 2020

Institute of Innovation Research
Hitotsubashi University
Tokyo, Japan
http://www.iir.hit-u.ac.jp

Determinants of donations to scientific research:
An experimental study of motivations for crowdfunding in Japan
Hirokazu Aminaka*, Tohru Yoshioka-Kobayashi†‡
Abstract This study addresses the potential of crowdfunding of scientific research as acomplementary source of funding to competitive government-funded research grants. Althougha growing number of academic researchers expect scientific crowdfunding to support academic
research that is not funded through traditional grants, few studies have investigated the motivesof crowdfunding contributors. This study develops hypotheses regarding the relationship between
crowdfunding and its returns or emotional motivations. The hypotheses are tested using aninternet survey of 3,443 Japanese citizens regarding their willingness to contribute to academic
research. We controlled two biases, disinterest and acquiescence, in the responses by applying arandomized experiment method. Our results identify two influential determinants of both aninterest in donating and the willingness to contribute, namely, research that increases empathy
and research that contributes to global knowledge. We also find that returns from crowdfunding,such as increasing national scientific competitiveness, do not always drive donation behavior. The
results confirm the usefulness of crowdfunding in supporting various types of academic research.
Note The original version of this paper was published as a peer-reviewed Japanese article titled“Nihon ni okeru crowdfunding wo tsuujita kagaku kenkyu shien no douki” in Kenkyu Gijutsu
Keikaku (The Journal of Science Policy and Research Management), Vol. 35, No.1. This paper
was translated under the permission from Japan Society of Research Policy and Innovation
Management.
Acknowledgement This study is supported by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology as a part of research project in SciREX program. We thank Koichi
Hasegawa, Kazuki Ide, Daiya Isogawa, Mitsuru Kudo, Makiko Matsuo, Eri Mizumachi for theirinvaluable advice in questionnaire survey design.

*

Graduate School of Business Administration, Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo, Japan
Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo, Japan‡ Corresponding Author:  t-koba@iir.hit-u.ac.jp†

1

I.Introduction
Basic research at universities plays an important role in promoting innovation (Mansfield, 1991).
Most of these research activities are funded by the government; in major countries, 50-80% of
research expenditures are government supported1. However, public funding is limited and cannot
cover all research efforts at universities. Therefore, the governments select from among research
projects when investing public money. In recent years, a particular emphasis on accountability
has driven governments to prioritize research that can be easily defended in terms of thelegitimacy of fund allocation, for example, a research that is related to policy issues (Guena andMartin, 2003) or that has a potential to contribute to society (Olssen, 2016). In other words,
governments favor research projects that have the appropriateness, effectiveness, and validity offund allocations. Furthermore, accountability drives motivation to support research projects thathave relatively higher prospects based on the outcome of previous research (Hicks, 2012) andstudies for which results are relatively easy to obtain (Guena and Martin, 2003). An empiricalanalysis of longitudinal Japanese research funding shows that in basic research areas, funding
tends to be skewed toward a particular principal investigator, while such tendency is relatively
low in applied research (Shibayama, 2011).
As a result, basic research that requires a long-term perspective is unlikely to be sufficiently
funded, and therefore, diversity in academic research may be lost (Guena and Martin, 2003; Hicks,2012). A recent empirical analysis using Japanese research funding data revealed that the qualityof publications among young researchers who are considering competitive public funding isrelatively low, while this trend was not found among senior researchers (Wang et al., 2018). Thisimplies that competitive funding drives researchers who do not have a sufficiently strong
reputation to commit to research projects with a high degree of certainty and limited originality.
This clearly weakens the quality of the future research base. Therefore, to ensure the diversity ofacademic research, it is important to identify funding sources other than competitive publicfunding.
Aside from public money, the main sources of research funding include science-focused
philanthropies, donations from alumni and citizens, and research contracts with and donations
from industry. For example, in UK universities in 2014, 66% of research funding (£7.9bn) was
funded by the UK government, 4% is industry funded, and 13% comes from donations(Universities UK, 2016). Even though the UK obtains less revenue from private foundations anddonations than the USA (Sörlin, 2006), still these sources cover a non-trivial percentage of its
1

According to OECD’s Research and Development Statistics, Australia support 89% of research expenditure inhigher education institutions, France 79%, China 64%, UK 61%, USA 56%, and Japan 52% in 2017 (note: valuesof Australia, France, and UK are based on 2016 data).

2

research expenses. As noted above, although the total amount of funding from private foundations
and citizens is not large, it is essential as a funding source for research. For example, in Japan,
more than 500 grant programs, including 2.3 billion yen per year from the Takeda Science
Foundation, provide grants for research activities (The Japan Foundation Center, 2019).
Science philanthropies engage in a wide variety of activities and support a wide range ofacademic research. To illustrate, in the field of healthcare research, some foundations are
dedicated to rare, intractable diseases that are not commercially viable in terms of any return on
investment of research funds (Viergever and Hendrik, 2016). However, some foundations
subsidize research with a high likelihood of commercialization according to the strategic
objectives of the industry (Gautier and Pache, 2015), particularly in case of industry-backed
foundations. In order to maintain heterogeneity in scientific research, an additional funding source
other than philanthropies is needed.
Academic crowdfunding is a potential alternative funding source for scientific research. Its
prominent advantage is its ability to generate timely funding (see, Dragojolovic and Lynd, 2014).
Researchers can seek research money through crowdfunding whenever necessary. This is not thecase in the majority of public and private research grants as they restrict the periods in which
grant proposals can be submitted. Wheat et al. (2013) confirmed that academic crowdfunding issuitable for raising a small amount of funding in the early stage of research. Crowdfunding canmatch the diverse values of individual citizens with the various research interests of researchers.
Thus, it is particularly appropriate for research that is not perceived to have political orcommercial value (Mitsubishi Research Institute, 2015). For this reason, academic crowdfunding
is expected to play a role in supplementing public and private research funds. In fact, aquestionnaire survey of Japanese researchers revealed that they view academic crowdfunding asa source of research funding that complements competitive public research grants (Ikkatai et al.,2018).
However, it is not clear that academic crowdfunding will play a complementary role tocompetitive public research funding. Supporters who participate in crowdfunding may have
similar preference to the government, that is, an favorableness to researches with objective
appropriateness, effectiveness, and validity of their investment.
The motivation that drives supporters of academic research cannot be fully explained by
the studies published to date. There have only been three studies on supporters’ motives: aquestionnaire survey of researchers who have successfully obtained support (Byrnes et al., 2014),
a qualitative analysis of descriptions of project proposals that have succeeded in raising funds(Mehlenbacher, 2017), and a quantitative analysis of the attributes of projects that have raised
funds (Aminaka, 2018). All three studies are based primarily on US research projects and on
specialized academic crowdfunding platforms such as Experiment. We have no insight into the3motives of supporters anywhere other than the USA or on latent motives that have not appearedon current platforms.
This study aims to clarify the motives of academic crowdfunding supporters. In particular,
we explore motivations related to the nature of the projects to examine whether crowdfunding iscomplementary to public research grants. We use an experimental method to test our researchquestion, focusing on academic research in Japan. The results offer implications for the potentialof crowdfunding for researchers, universities, and academic crowdfunding platforms. Ourcontributions are also useful for science and technology policymakers.
The rest of this paper is structured as follows: Section II summarizes the current state ofcrowdfunding and its typology and reviews previous research on the motivation for supporting
academic crowdfunding. Due to the scarcity of relevant literature, we also review the research on
support motives for non-academic crowdfunding and donations to non-profit institutions. In ourreview process, we identified a motive that is missing from earlier studies. To complement thismissing link, Section III provides the results of interviews with two organizations that operateacademic crowdfunding platforms in Japan. Section IV derives our hypotheses on the motivation
for supporting academic crowdfunding. Section V describes the method of our empirical analysis
to verify the hypotheses, and Section VI shows the results. Section VII provides conclusions anddiscusses the practical and policy implications.

II.Background and literature
Typologies of crowdfunding and current status
The most distinctive feature of crowdfunding is that it bundles contributions from individuals
who are willing to support a project but have limited funds. If bundled funds reach the level ofthe necessary budget, the project is successfully supported, something that none of the individuals
could have done on their own. Crowdfunding is divided into five basic models: purchase model,
donation model, investment model, fund type, and stock model, based on the existence and typeof incentives (Table 1). The latter three models can be categorized as Finance models.
Crowdfunding is widely used by various entities. Venture companies and small- and mediumsized enterprises use it for new product development or to produce movies and videogames. Nonprofit organizations can use crowdfunding to cover a part of their expenditure.

4

Finance

Table 1 Typologies of crowdfunding
ModelsIncentives
Purchase
Products and services brought by the project
Donation
None (in certain conditions, tax reduction)
Investment
An interest from a lending
Fund
A part of revenues from the outcomes of the project
Stock
Unlisted stocks
Several crowdfunding services address academic research. “Experiment,” a private
platform specializing in academic research, successfully raised funds for 852 projects between
2012 and 2018. A number of academic research projects have also successfully raised funds on“Kickstarter,” a private, general-purpose crowdfunding platform (Mehlenbacher, 2017).
Academic crowdfunding is expanding in Japan. As such, many crowdfunding platforms
have popped up. Platforms that specialize in academic crowdfunding include “Academist,”
launched in 2014, and “Otsucle,” a joint program between Tokushima University andOrganization for People with Universities, which has been operating since 2016. In addition, theJapanese leading crowdfunding platform, “Readyfor” has set up a dedicated page to support
Kyushu University and Nagoya University projects. In 2018, the National Institute of Science andTechnology Policy award was given to a young scholar who studied the high-energy gamma-ray
generation process in thunderclouds. His research was funded by academic crowdfunding. Thisshows the fairly wide diffusion of academic crowdfunding in Japan.
Motivations for supporting academic projects through crowdfunding
Byrnes et al. (2014) conducted a questionnaire survey of US researchers who successfully
obtained support through the crowdfunding service “#SciFund Challenge” that was launched as
an experiment to explore the factors driving successful crowdfunding for academic research. They
found that the number of visits to the project description page, the number of contacts made topotential supporters via email, and the number of friends on Facebook were linked to the amountof support generated. This demonstrates the importance of communicating with potential
supporters and the social relationships of the core researcher(s).
Mehlenbacher (2017), who qualitatively analyzed the descriptions of projects thatsuccessfully obtained support, found that several attributes increased the probability of successful
fundraising. These include a specific research method, definitive research capabilities within the
project team, and a recognizable social benefit associated with the project. This may be interpreted
as an indication that certain kinds of incentives associated with the project are a motivation forsupport.

5

Aminaka (2018) used the data from the “Experiment” platform to focus on incentives andresearch fields, examining the motivations of supporters. He found that tangible and experiencerelated rewards, such as research-related goods, or the number of visits to research sites increased
the number of supporters and the amount of the donation per supporter. He also discovered that
research projects in biology and medicine are more likely to attract a large number of supporters.
These projects often have obvious social returns, and the benefits they can bring to supporters
and/or society are motivations for support.
In summary, previous studies confirm that achievement and other rewards including social
benefits are the main motivations for support of academic crowdfunding.
Motivations for supporting non-academic projects through crowdfunding
In contrast to academic crowdfunding, the motivation for support of non-academic projects inpurchase-model crowdfunding has been investigated from multiple perspectives. Purchase-model
crowdfunding of non-academic projects focused on product innovation, services, or events has acommonality to crowdfunding of academic research. Both types of projects offer returns to bothsupporters and to society and therefore are expected to share the same motivations.
The core motivations for supporting purchase-model crowdfunding are to obtain a returnfrom the project, to provide essential financial assistance, to participate in a community aroundthe project, and to support the project owners’ advocacy or arguments (Gerber & Hui, 2013).
Purchase-model crowdfunding is driven by not only a motive of seeking economic benefits but
also emotional support motives. A survey of projects that raised funds via Kickstarter, a purchasetype crowdfunding platform, revealed that potential supporters are more likely to support projects
that have received support from others. They tend to hesitate to support a project if they perceivethat the project would fail despite their help (Kuppswamy and Bayus, 2018). Conversely, potential
supporters are likely to support a project to which their help is essential. These are potential
supporters who want to contribute to the owner’s success.
Other than economic returns and emotional support motivations, a social relationshipbetween supporters and project owners affects supporters’ behavior. A project owner is more
likely to raise funds successfully when he/she has many external supporters for the project andfriends in his/her social networking services (Mollick and Kuppswamy, 2014). Some supporters
are motivated by their relationship with the project owner. Others may respond favorably tohis/her extroversion or may trust the owner. In addition, geographical proximity also affects the
support decision. A study of SellaBand, a music-oriented crowdfunding platform, revealed that
supporters who came from the same area as the project owner or who currently live close to where
the project owner is located tend to provide early support (Agrawal et al., 2015). These supporters
are less likely to be influenced by other supporters’ behavior.

6

The preceding studies show that, in purchase-model crowdfunding, support motivations are
based on expectations of achievement or some reward from the project, as well as on emotionaland social-relational reasons. Expectations of achievement have been shown to be superior toother motivations. A study of crowdfunding projects at Kickstarter shows that incremental
projects that build on previously successful projects tend to be more likely to be supported thaninnovative projects (Chan and Parhankangas, 2017).
Motivations for supporting non-profit organizations
Supporting academic research can be equated with donating to non-profit organizations. Basedon the literature reviews of Sasaki et al. (2017) and Zenkyo and Sakamoto (2017), we propose ananalogy to the supportive motivation for academic crowdfunding. These reviews summarized that
support motivations include emotional factors such as empathy and altruism, as well as theperception of making a social contribution through the organization.
One of the emotional factors is agreeableness or the bandwagon effect. List and LuckingReiley (2002), who explored the motivation for donating to a university, found that trends in otherpeople’s donation promoted other donations when the university specified the required amountof funding. This is because the amount of funds already collected is a signal of trust in therecipients and has the effect of making potential supporters feel that it is “normal” to make adonation (Sasaki et al., 2017). Reinforcing this notion, trust in the target organization has beenshown to determine the trend of donations (Parsons, 2007). However, public financial support
may crowd out potential supporters. A study analyzing donations to non-profit institutions in the
USA reported that government subsidies tended to reduce donations (Andreoni and Payne, 2003).
People perceive that their financial support is not essential when the recipient has already been
given public money.

III.Insights from interview surveys
Design of interview surveys
From the literature review, we can glean direct and indirect insights on the general determinantsof support via crowdfunding platforms; however, we may still overlook specific determinants foracademic crowdfunding. In contrast to purchase-model crowdfunding, the results obtained fromcrowdfunding academic research have strong externalities. Put differently, outcomes will notoffer returns exclusively to supporters. Also, unlike the activities of non-profit institutions,scientific research often does not make an immediate contribution to society. Under these
conditions, potential supporters may not be seeking any direct rewards and may not expect any

7specific outcomes. Instead, emotional motivations highlighted in the research works on purchasemodel crowdfunding and non-profit organization institution can be effective. Therefore, we
conducted an interview survey with managers of academic crowdfunding to investigate uniquesupport motives in this area, with a particular focus on emotional motives.
The interviewees are from Academist Co., Ltd., and Organization for People with
Universities. Both organizations operate academic crowdfunding platforms. Interviews took 1.5
hours each and were conducted from September 2017 to May 2018. Additional questions andconfirmations were sent via email after the interviews. Interviewees have agreed to make theinterview results open.
Interview survey results
In the interview with the managers from Academist, we were given the results of a questionnaire
survey they had given to their supporters. They asked whether the motivation for supporting
academic research is “interest in a research theme,” “attractiveness of the researcher,” or“incentive (rewards),” The number of supporters who had selected “incentive (rewards)” as theirmotivation was the smallest. This suggests that supporters of academic crowdfunding may place
more emphasis on emotional motivations rather than on external incentives. According to aninterview with the managers from Organization for People with Universities, many projects havedifficulty offering direct incentives because of the length of time needed to obtain researchoutcomes and the uncertainty of outcomes. Thus, they emphasize the empathy the supporter has
toward the researcher or the research project. They also shared several feedback comments fromsupporters, which showed their empathy drove them to support a research project. Table 2
illustrates these comments.

8

Table 2 Comments of supporters in Otsucle
Research theme: Tooth regeneration therapy using dental pulp cells
Comments from supporters:“A long time ago, my relative died from an infection of bacteria that had migrated from the alveolar
pyorrhea to the stent embedded in the blood vessel. I hope that this new therapy will be widely
available and cheap.”“I regret having missed dental care, as I would like to get healthy teeth back if I could start over.
By all means, I support the regenerative therapy research.”Research theme: Drug discovery to prevent side effects of anticancer drugs by drug repositioning
Comments from supporters:“Last year, my mother had breast cancer and experienced taxane anticancer treatment. The
anticancer drugs and molecular targeted drugs were effective in treating the cancer, so her
therapeutic performance was very good and she was thankful for the treatment. However, I observed
her torture during the anticancer drug treatment. If the research team could reduce the side effects
of anticancer drugs, it would benefit countless patients and families.”“I am currently receiving cancer treatment. I work hard to defeat my cancer and receive anticancer
drug treatment, but sometimes I want to stop treatment because the side effects are too torturous. I
think many people will be freed from such suffering as this research progresses.”
Research theme: Nationwide diffusion of back pain treatment with 8mm endoscope
Comments from supporters:“In April 2015, my mother received an operation to fix lumbar stenosis. Since then she has beenable to travel twice a year. I am really thankful to the doctor [a project leader]. She needed to receivea large-incision, around 18 cm, which was difficult. But this new method only requires an 8 mm
incision. I am surprised this is possible and I support this project to increase patients who will enjoy
traveling after the operation.”“I myself have low back pain, and my father has been hospitalized about three times for it. My
father is very elderly. If he is hospitalized again for back pain, I want him to be treated using thisoperation. I wanted to support the efforts to reduce patient suffering as much as possible.”“I am grateful for the benefits of cheap and good medical care. I know that the development of
medical technology is expensive. I will support them in some small way.”
Research theme: Study for prevention of baseball elbow
Comments from supporters:“My son, who was a pitcher in sixth grade in elementary school, is currently regretting that he has
been unable to participate since July due to a ban on pitching and batting because of osteochondritis
dissecans. He had been required to pitch more than 200 balls a day by his baseball coach. I will9

support this project to show the reasons for preventing this to such a coach.”“I know the bitterness of not being able to play baseball from my own experience. In order to keep
other children from such a experience, and to expand participation in baseball, I will support theactivity even in a small way.”“My son was found to have osteochondritis dissecans in a medical examination in the sixth gradeof elementary school. Thanks to that early discovery, he is currently enjoying baseball at juniorhigh school without getting worse. I think that this project is absolutely necessary so that children
can continue to enjoy baseball for many generations. I support the project with my best effort.”

The University Support Organization of Japan emphasized that emotional factors such as
empathy for the research themes are motives for support in academic crowdfunding. In addition,it has been revealed to us by Academist that some supporters appear to be relatives or friends ofa project leader. They analyzed the number of visits to the project website, words of mouth insocial networks, and timing of support and found several unique supporters who supported a
project or called for support of the project immediately after it began to seek donations. These
interviews revealed that both platforms recognized there are multiple factors in successful
fundraising.

IV.Hypotheses
The reviews of previous studies and insights from our interviews suggest that there are emotionaland social support motives for crowdfunding, as well as expectations of outcomes and rewards.
We summarize the factors (shown in Table 3) that can be considered as support motives.

10Table 3 Project attribution-related motivations of donations
Literature
on Literatureonacademic
purchase-model
crowdfunding
crowdfunding
Expectations of outcomes and rewards
Rewards+: Aminaka (2018)
Certaintyof +:Mehlenbacher
outcomes (research (2017)
capability)
Social benefit from +:Mehlenbacher +: Gerber & Hui
the project(2017)(2013)
Emotional factors
Empathytothe +: Interview survey +: Gerber & Huiproject
result(2013)
Altruism from the
project
Essential nature of+: Kuppswamy andthe funding from
Bayus (2018)
potential supporters
Trust in the project
owner
Participation to the+: Gerber & Huiproject community(2013)
Social factors
Social network of the +: Byrnes et al. +:Mollickandcore member of the (2014);
interview Kuppswamy (2014)
project
survey result
Geographical+: Agrawal et al.
proximity to the(2015)
project members
Communications between potential supporters and project owners
Communications+: Byrnes et al.
betweenpotential (2014)
supporters
andproject owners
Legend: + Positive motivations. - Negative motivations

Literatureondonations to nonprofit organizations+ (see Zenkyo and
Sakamoto, 2017)+ (see Zenkyo and
Sakamoto, 2017)+: Sasaki (2016)-: List and LuckingReiley (2002)+: Parsons (2007)

Among these, the motivations classified as emotional factors have not been explored instudies of academic crowdfunding. The studies of purchase-model crowdfunding and donation
behavior to non-profit organizations suggest that emotional motivation is significant. Therefore,
this study focuses on emotional motivation in crowdfunding of academic research. In particular,
the aspects of empathy with the research theme and altruistic behavior through supporting
research projects, which were suggested in our interview survey, have not been explored inprevious research. In this study, taking the various aspects of empathy described in the previous
sections together, we define empathy as “empathy with the project contents, or the vision, or
advocacy of the project owner.”

11

Clearly, such a state of empathy is in accordance with personal interests and intentions.
Interest in a research theme may create sympathy and lead to support (Hypothesis 1). In addition
to the comments from interviews mentioned above, other elements that lead to solutions of social
issues are “to prevent children from thinking like that” and “development of medical technology.”
Addressing social issues also involves the outcome of support. Since the expectation ofachievement and emotional motivation may combine to create empathy, we assume that solutions
to social issues also lead to sympathy and support (Hypothesis 2). Furthermore, as shown in
Gerber & Hui (2013), support motivation through purchase-type crowdfunding, there is also a
motivation to support researchers’ activities beyond individual themes. Hypothesis (3) states thatmajor contributions to the development of science and technology also lead to empathy. Solutions
to social issues and the developments in science and technology are altruistic and thus may beeasier to support. To some extent, empathy, altruism, and social benefits are inseparable.
Some science and technology developments gain direct interests from a specific perspective,
such as national interests from the taxpayers’ perspective. These interests may motivate support
for academic research (Hypothesis 4a). On the other hand, potential supporters may expect thatsuch research projects will have limited altruistic aspect and will receive government support. As
a study of non-profit institutions (Andreoni and Payne, 2003) has shown, willingness to support
them declines when state support is expected. With these conflicting views, there is a possibility
that research for the advancement of science and technology and research aiming to serve thenational interest may not be a strong motivation for support (Hypothesis 4b).
This paper focuses on these factors and chooses not to investigate other motivational factors,
such as the essentiality of the funding from the potential supporters, trust in the project ownerorganization, and participation in the project community, or other social and communicational
factors. These factors depend on the method of funding through crowdfunding and are beyond
the scope of our research question.
In summary, this study addresses the following hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1: Interest in the research theme has a positive effect on a supporter’s
decision to support the research.
Hypothesis 2: The possibility that research results could solve social issues has a positive
influence on a supporter’s decision to support the research.
Hypothesis 3: Factors related to scientific progress have a positive effect on a supporter’s
decision to support the research.
Hypothesis 4a: Factors related to national interests in science and technology have apositive influence on a supporter’s decision to support the research.
Hypothesis 4b: Factors related to national interests in science and technology have no
positive effect on support decision-making by supporters.

12

V.Methodology
Identification strategy
To test the above hypotheses, we conducted a questionnaire survey of Japanese citizens and twochallenges were faced. Firstly, many citizens are not interested in scientific research and are evenless interested in crowdfunding. Asking such individuals directly about their individual
motivations for crowdfunding can lead to inaccurate answers. Second, some give compliant
responses that they believe are desired by the questioner; therefore, the answer includes a bias.
To minimize these biases, we adopt a randomized experiment method in our questionnaire.
We present cases in which the conditions that could affect support behavior for each respondent
were changed at random and estimated the effects of factors related to individual support
motivations from multiple responses using multivariate analysis. We implemented this using aninternet survey, a method used in analyzing donation behaviors toward non-profit institutions(Zenkyo and Sakamoto, 2017).
Respondents
The survey targeted internet users between the ages of 18 and 69 in Japan. The subjects wereselected from those registered on the monitor of INTAGE Co., Ltd., to match their residence, age,and gender to the distribution of Japanese society as much as possible. We asked 14,360 people
over the period from March 9, 2018, to March 13, 2018, and received responses from 3,443 (aresponse rate of 24.0%). Internet surveys can also include dishonest answers. To detect thesetrends, a similar question was asked using different approaches and a method was used to verify
the consistency of the answers. Specifically, in the first and last questions, we asked “Do you careabout science and technology news and topics?” Both were asked using a five-point Likert scale,but the order of the scales was reversed. Seventy-four respondents who differed by at least threepoints in the scale were excluded because of their dishonest or careless responses.
Question items
In the survey, sample research projects in the following nine fields were created based on actual
research examples collected from press releases from universities in Japan and from informationfrom scientific research grant applications. The descriptions included the characteristics of theresearch team, the social impact of the research, the time it would take for the research to have an
impact, the amount of time invested in the research project, and the funding needed. The
description of a research team consists of (1) whether the principal investigator belongs to aninternational research university or a regional university, and (2) whether there is a domestic

13

university, an overseas university, a major domestic company, or a regional company connectedto the research. The period and funding are set at 120 million yen (approximately 1 million USD)
for five years in each case. However, in the case of industry-academia collaborations, there are
separate cases where 8% and 83% of the expenses are funded by companies.
Table 4 Options for attributes in sample projects
Attribution

Options

Capability of a projectInternationally renowned university / Regional university

owner’s institution
Composition of a research

Alone / Jointly with a domestic university / Jointly with an overseas

teamuniversity / Jointly with a major domestic company (8% of researchexpenses funded by the company) / Jointly with a major domestic
company (83% funded by the company) / Jointly with a local company(8% funded by the company) / Jointly with a local company (83%funded by the company)

One of the cases is presented below. Those marked with [] indicate where the conditions
differ depending on the respondents.
“The research team of Professor X at [internationally famous university A] has beenworking on the following research. However, it was difficult to transmit ultra-high-resolution
image data captured by artificial satellites to earth instantly due to power and transmitter problems.
The research will take about five years with the aim of developing electronic components andenabling micro-satellites to play the same role as large-scale satellites. If successful, in 5 to 15
years it is expected that meteorological observation satellites and communication satellites will
be much cheaper than ever before. The expected research expenses are 120 million yen over 5
years. [Aiming to utilize in business, Company Y will be responsible for 10 million yen.] [100million yen] will be applied to the national research expenses for research.” (Case 4)
The fields covered in the cases are shown in Table 4, and respondents were asked to review
three cases, one for each of the three groups. As a result, the number of valid responses to thesample cases is (3,443-74) * 3 cases = 10,047 answers.

14

Table 5 Types of cases presented to respondents
Groups

Cases

Medical cases

Development of anticancer drugs with few side effects (Case 1)
Study on the cause of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Case 2)
Development of early detection method for gastric cancer (Case 3)

Engineering andDevelopment of ceramics that store heat (Case 4)

agricultural cases

Development of high-speed communication technology for small
satellites (Case 5)
Research on analytical methods to identify the characteristics of newvarieties of fruits (Case 6)

Basic science and social

Space telescope development (Case 7)

science cases

Research on how to increase elementary and junior high school students’interest in arithmetic and mathematics (Case 8)
Research on human communication that enhances the performance of
R&D organizations (Case 9)

For each case, a comprehensive evaluation was asked using a five-point Likert scale, andfactors that were evaluated as favorable and unfavorable were selected from the options presented.
Afterward, the questionnaire indicated that there is a shortage of research funds and asked
respondents’ intention to make a contribution through crowdfunding, in which the incentive is areport on the research progress and a tax deduction for donations. Their contribution intentions
are measured by 10 scales: unknown, 0, 500, 1,000, 5,000, 10,000, 50,000, 100,000, 500,000, and500,000+ yen2.
Variables
In general, a decision on whether or not to make a donation and a decision on how much the
donation should be made are made independently. Therefore, the dependent variables are adummy variable (crowdfunding intention dummy) that takes a value of 1 if the respondent wants
to provide funding in crowdfunding and six-level3 categorical variables (0, 500, 1,000, 5,000,
10,000, and 50,000 or more) of willingness to contribute for funding along with a “no idea” option.

The question is as follows: “As the project team proceeded with this research, the government research funding ran
short by 10 million yen, and the team decided to raise donations online. If you can donate to this research, howmuch would you donate? If you make a donation, you will receive a tax deduction and a simple report that isclearly written to stimulate the public understanding of the research results.”
3 In the question, there were 10 levels but since few people chose 10,000 yen or more, they were converted into 6
levels for the analysis.
215For the purpose of robustness checks, we used four categories (0, 500, 1,000, 5,000 yen or more).
In this process, 2,705 “no idea” answers were excluded.
Our independent variables represent perceptions of favorable and unfavorable factors listed
in Table 6. The majority of factors are presented as both favorable and unfavorable. In our model
design, favorable factors take a value of 1, and unfavorable ones take a value of -1; otherwise thevariable takes a value of 0. Other factors are shown as “either aspect” and treated as a dummy
variable because of the difficulty in converting them into a two-sided measurement.
Since we assume that some motivational factors have subordinate concepts and interact
with some of the other factors, factors presented as favorable and unfavorable do not match
perfectly with the theoretical determinants shown in Table 3. First, regarding social benefits andnational interests, we specify two items, one from the viewpoint of Japan’s competitiveness andthe other related to global competitiveness. Second, we clarify trust in research institutes by
separating trust in the project team from trust in the university. Third, to assess the interaction
between social benefits and altruism, we present options focused on contributions to human
wisdom and the global impact of achievements. Finally, regarding the intersection of altruism,
national interests, and social benefits, we construct an item indicating that the project would resultin an outflow of research results overseas. The outflow of research results overseas has a negativesocial benefit from the viewpoint of national interests, but it is altruistic in terms of humanity as
a whole. We believe this will help to indicate whether altruism or national interests were dominant.
In addition, altruism may refer to a situation in which the project does not benefit both thesupporter and the supportee. Therefore, we added an item representing the benefit to the supportee,that is, the private interest of the project stakeholders.
Therefore, our survey includes twelve items to evaluate the respondent’s perception of a
research project.

16

Table 6 Independent variables
Classifications Motivationalof motivations factors
Expectations
Rewardsof outcomes
and rewards
Certainty of(A)outcomes (researchcapability)
Social benefit fromthe project

Emotional
factors (B)Interest in the
research theme
Altruism in the
project
Trust in the project
ownerInteraction
between(A) and (B)Social benefit andaltruism

Items [Individual factors]

Sides asked

Outcomes benefit me and my relatives[Personal benefit from outcomes]
The team is expectable [Promising
team]

Both sides

Outcomes contribute to the economy[Economic contribution]
Outcomes improve Japan’s scientificand technological competitiveness(Hypotheses 4a, 4b) [National scientificcompetitiveness]
The theme interests me (Hypothesis 1)[Interest in the theme]
The project gives the private interest of
the project stakeholders [Privateinterest of the stakeholders]
The team is not trustworthy[Untrustworthy team]
I have a favorable impression on every
kind of academic research [Favorable
view of academia]
Outcomes contribute to solving social
problems [Social problem solving](Hypothesis 2)
The project contributes to human
wisdom [Human wisdom] (Hypothesis
3)
Outcomes can be used globally [Global
impact] (Hypothesis 3)
Outcomes will flow overseas[Knowledge outflow] (Hypotheses 3,
4a, 4b)Both sides

Both sides

Both sides

Both sides
Unfavorable
side only
Unfavorable
side only
Both sides
Both sides
Both sides
Favorableside only
Unfavorable
side only

In addition, the respondents’ level of education (with or without master’s or doctoral
degree), age, and annual income were used as control variables. This is because studies haveshown that income level and education affect behavior when donating to non-profit institutions(see Zenkyo and Sakamoto, 2017). We also analyzed the effects of gender, occupational
categories, and household income, but our analysis showed only retired employees had a negative
effect on crowdfunding in each occupational category. Household income was less explanatory
than individual income.

17Descriptive statistics
Figure 1 shows the willingness to contribute via crowdfunding for each case, and Figure 2
presents the willingness to contribute based on the respondents’ attributes. In research projects
related to healthcare (cases 1, 2, and 3), the majority of respondents (excluding respondents who
answered “no idea”) were positive toward crowdfunding (Figure 1). On the other hand, for otherprojects, the rates were around 40%. In case 9 (research on human communication that enhances
the performance of R&D organizations), only 27.3% are supportive. By age group, teens (aged
18 and 19) have a positive attitude toward crowdfunding. We found no statistically significant
difference between university students and others. Across all cases, the percentage of those who
are willing to support academic research is 44.8%. Among them, the average willingness tocontribute is 11,316 yen. However, it should be noted that this questionnaire survey does not
require payment and does not necessarily lead to actual support actions.
Table 7 shows descriptive statistics of variables used in the empirical analysis.

Figure 1 Willingness to contribute to the project by case18

Figure 2 Willingness to contribute to the project by age and gender
Table 7 Descriptive statistics
Variables
Crowdfunding intention dummy
Willingness to contribute (6 scales)
Personal benefit from outcomes
Promising team
Economic contribution
National scientific competitivenessInterest in the theme
Private interest of the stakeholders
Untrustworthy teamFavorable view of academia
Social problem solving
Human wisdom
Global impact
Knowledge outflow
Comprehensive evaluation (5 scales)
Intra-university collaboration dummy
University-industry collaboration dummy
Research university dummyInterest in science (5 scales)
Master’s degree
PhD degree
Household income (7 scales)
Age (6 scales)

Avg.
0.44
0.99
0.03
0.00
0.12
0.14
0.08
0.10
0.06
0.04
0.26
0.23
0.25
0.07
3.43
0.29
0.57
0.50
3.27
0.04
0.01
2.19
3.75

19

Std. dev.
0.50
1.36
0.34
0.39
0.45
0.42
0.45
0.30
0.24
0.27
0.52
0.47
0.43
0.26
0.82
0.45
0.49
0.50
1.02
0.19
0.10
1.45
1.61

Estimation method of crowdfunding intention and willingness to contribute
As described above, this study estimates the effect of independent variables on the crowdfunding
intentions and the willingness to contribute. We estimate the crowdfunding intention by logit

regression (Estimation A). Regarding the willingness to contribute (Estimation B), a control ofstatistical biases is essential. Many empirical studies on donation behavior struggled to remove abias from people who are not willing to donate regardless of the nature of the target activity. Somepapers excluded those who have no intention of donating (e.g., Yen, 2002) and some use Tobit
estimation and Heckman two-step estimation together (e.g., Smith et al., 1995; Roony et al., 2001).
A majority of the studies, which consider a sampling bias, do not display large differences
between the results of Tobit estimation and Heckman estimation, but Roony et al. (2001) note the
Tobit estimation requires homogeneity of determinants between donation intentions andwillingness to contribute.
As shown in the descriptive statistics, the majority of respondents do not have any intention
to contribute support. Since there is much censorship of the intention to contribute (particularly
on no intention), sampling bias must be taken into account. In particular, we can assume that ingeneral academic crowdfunding intentions are influenced by the respondents’ income and interestin science, while the willingness to contribute is affected by project-specific factors. Thus, it isappropriate to use econometric methods, removing sampling bias, such as Heckman’s two-stepestimation. However, this approach has several disadvantages (Puhani, 2002). First, if thevariables that have a significant effect in the estimation of the first step also have a significant
effect in the second step, multicollinearity exists between the variable and the inverse Mills ratio,
causing a bias in the results. Puhani (2002) recommends using subsampled estimates in such cases.
Second, since OLS is used for the second-stage estimation, another estimation bias occurs whenthe estimation error is not normally distributed. In this survey, the amount of support is specified
in the form of a choice of items. Given this, we can expect non-normality in the error term.
Therefore, in accordance with the suggestion in Rosenbaum and Rubin (1983), we adopt a
subsample analysis that limits respondents to those who meet a certain minimum score on theprobability of donation intention. We calculate a propensity score of crowdfunding intention, drop
responses that show a low propensity score, and estimate willingness to contribute using orderedlogit regression. Our threshold value for the propensity score is 0.5, which is in line with the actual
ratio of those who showed an intention to donate. We exclude respondents whose scores are lessthan 0.5. As a robustness check, we perform the same analysis using subsamples of respondents
with scores of at least 0.45 (reported) and 0.55 (results not reported). We also perform Heckman’s
two-step estimation. These robustness checks verify the reliability of the sign and significancelevel.

20

VI.Results
Estimation A: Crowdfunding intention
Table 8 shows the results of a logit regression using the dummy variable of whether or not toprovide support as the dependent variable. The respondents were divided into two groups basedon the degree of interest in science. One group, “High Science Interest,” is composed of those
who answered “Interested” or more in “Somewhat interested”—— upper two scales in our five
Likert scales——in two questions about science. Another group, “Low Science Interest,” iscomposed of the remaining responses.
As shown in Table 8, a project is likely to be supported when (i) the respondent expects apersonal benefit from outcomes, (ii) the respondent has an interest in the theme, (iii) the projectis related to social problem solving, (iv) outcome has a global impact, (v) the project increases
human wisdom or (vi) outcome involves knowledge outflow. The likelihood of support is also
affected by the respondents’ favorable view of academia. In particular, perceptions of interest in
the theme and expectations for knowledge outflow strongly increase the probability of support.
The estimated odds ratios of these factors are 1.69 and 1.76, respectively (Figure 3). In contrast,
the perception of an economic contribution slightly increases the probability of support only fromthe High Science Interest group. This perception does not have a significant impact on donation
intentions among the Low Science Interest group.

21

Table 8 Estimation A: Crowdfunding intention (logit regression)(1)(2)
High Science
All
Interest
0.304***
0.192*
Personal benefit from outcomes(0.0764)(0.0969)-0.0112-0.0412
Promising team
(0.0666)(0.0813)0.174**
0.194**
Economic contribution(0.0591)(0.0718)
Nationalscientific-0.0497-0.103competitiveness(0.0641)(0.0761)0.302***
0.264**
Global impact(0.0649)(0.0802)0.527***
0.385***
Interest in the theme(0.0627)(0.0747)0.09010.0231
Private interest of the stakeholders(0.0851)(0.103)-0.187-0.0743
Untrustworthy team
(0.115)(0.141)0.229***
0.172**
Social problem solving(0.0541)(0.0662)
0.248***
0.261***
Human wisdom(0.0566)(0.0690)0.566***
0.569***
Knowledge outflow(0.0996)(0.121)0.350**
0.397**
Favorable view of academia(0.107)(0.127)0.719***
0.745***
Comprehensive evaluation(0.0430)(0.0539)0.244***
0.0867
Interest in science(0.0293)(0.0829)
Case dummies
Yes
Yes
Project team dummies
Yes
Yes
Respondent attributes dummies(academic degree, income, age)
Yes
Yes
-3.730***-3.262***
Constant(0.214)(0.402)
7,097
4,340
Observations
2
0.177
0.159
Pseudo-R(3)
Low Science
Interest
0.488***(0.128)0.0687(0.119)0.120(0.107)0.147(0.124)0.378***(0.114)0.906***(0.121)0.240(0.156)-0.391(0.208)0.378***(0.0980)0.314**(0.103)0.537**(0.178)0.478*(0.205)0.691***(0.0759)0.746***(0.0915)
Yes
Yes
Yes
-4.693***(0.396)
2,751
0.192

Note: *** p<0.001, ** p<0.01, * p<0.05. Cluster-robust standard error by cases (in parentheses)

22Estimation B: Willingness to contribute
Table 9 shows the estimation results for willingness to contribute through crowdfunding. Ourordered logit regressions indicate that people are likely to donate more money to projects in which
respondents (i) expect a personal benefit from outcomes, (ii) expect a global impact, (iii) have aninterest in the theme, (iv) expect the project to expand human wisdom and (v) possibilities ofknowledge outflow. A favorable attitude toward academic research also increases the willingness
to contribute independently. Its estimated odds ratio indicates that those who have a favorable
view of academia are likely to donate 1.6 times more than those who do not (Figure 3). Its impact
is the largest among individual factors, followed by the possibility of knowledge outflow whichshows the next highest odds ratio of 1.4.

23

Table 9 Estimation B: Willingness to contribute (ordered logit regression)
(1)
(2)
(3)
Propensity Score
Propensity Score
Propensity Score> 0.5: 6 Scales> 0.45: 6 Scales> 0.5: 4 Scales
Personal benefit from outcomes
0.238***
0.223***
0.244***(0.0650)(0.0565)(0.0648)
Promising team
-0.0758-0.0624-0.0814(0.0533)(0.0570)(0.0547)
Economic contribution
0.03970.04700.0317(0.0574)(0.0541)(0.0593)
National scientific competitiveness-0.0434-0.0361-0.0251(0.0610)(0.0573)(0.0672)
Global impact
0.238***
0.250***
0.242***(0.0557)(0.0559)(0.0515)Interest in the theme-0.0223-0.00672-0.0195(0.0876)(0.0963)(0.0849)
Private interest of the-0.0998-0.116-0.124stakeholders(0.133)(0.144)(0.128)Untrustworthy team
0.009210.03370.00599(0.0550)(0.0559)(0.0585)
Social problem solving
0.181**
0.190**
0.194**(0.0674)(0.0642)(0.0684)
Human wisdom
0.158***
0.169***
0.148***(0.0393)(0.0452)(0.0339)
Knowledge outflow
0.303**
0.327**
0.301*(0.111)(0.111)(0.119)Favorable view of academia
0.388***
0.327***
0.401***(0.0965)(0.0945)(0.0911)Comprehensive evaluation
0.511***
0.541***
0.510***(0.0511)(0.0590)(0.0499)
Interest in science
0.220***
0.223***
0.213***(0.0369)(0.0317)(0.0362)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Case dummies
Yes
Yes
Yes
Project team dummies
Respondent attributes dummies
Yes
Yes
Yes
(academic degree, income, age)
4,204
4,514
4,204
Observations
2
.031
.034
.035
Pseudo-R
Note: *** p<0.001, ** p<0.01, * p<0.05. Cluster-robust standard error by cases (in parentheses)

24

Table 10 Summary of estimation results
Classifications
Individual factors
Expectations Emotionalof rewards
factors
Project-related factors
Yes
No
Personal benefit from outcomes
Yes
No
Promising teamYes
No
Economic contribution
Yes
No
National scientific competitivenessNo
YesInterest in the themeNo
Yes
Private interest of the stakeholders
No
Yes
Untrustworthy team
Yes
Yes
Social problem solving
Yes
Yes
Human wisdom
Yes
Yes
Global impact
Yes
Yes
Knowledge outflow
Other factors
N/A
N/A
Favorable view of academia
N/A
N/A
PhD degree

Results
Funding
intentions

Willingness
to contribute

+ *1
n.s.
+
n.s.
+
n.s.
n.s.
+
+
+
+

+
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
+
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
+
+
+

+
+

+
+

*1 Not significant in High Science Interest group

Note: A dot indicates the estimated odds ratio and bars around the dot represent its intervals

Figure 3 Estimated odds ratio

25VII.Discussion and conclusion
Discussion
A summary of the results is shown in Table 10. The respondents’ interest in the research theme
had a relatively strong positive influence on both the intention to support a specific project andthe willingness to contribute via crowdfunding. These results however do not reject Hypothesis
1. The potential of a project to address social issues increases the probability of support but does
not increase the willingness to contribute. We note that the increase in the probability of support
is confirmed only in the Low Science Interest group. A lack of robustness checks raises doubt
about Hypothesis 2. Several factors between social benefit and altruism, such as the perceptionof increasing human wisdom and the potential for knowledge outflow, increase both
crowdfunding intentions and the willingness to contribute. These results are consistent with
Hypothesis 3.
We obtained intriguing results regarding the motive of national interest. Perceptions ofcontributions to national scientific competitiveness do not constitute a motivation for supporting
research projects. As discussed above, social problem solving projects also do not always
motivates potential supporters. These factors have been associated with the perception that thereis the possibility of publicly funded support, reducing the motivation for private support (seeAndreoni and Payne, 2003). In line with their findings, the willingness to contribute is shown to
be positively affected by the perception of knowledge outflow abroad, which potentially
undermines the legitimacy of spending public funds on the project. These results are not only
consistent with Hypothesis 4b but also suggest that global externality is a driving factor of support.
In conclusion, our experiment revealed that emotional factors that constitute empathy
toward a research project affect the decision to support the project. Moreover, there were no
significant effects from factors associated with negative emotions, such as projects that benefit
the private interests of the stakeholders or an unreliable team composition that would not justify
public support. These findings show that academic research crowdfunding complementscompetitive public research funding, which is inevitably affected by expectations for results andperceived legitimacy.
Academic contributions, practical implications, and limitations
This study’s main contribution is to clarify that empathy, in other words a match between
one’s interests and the overlap between social benefits and altruism, is an important support
motivation. Focusing on the magnitude of the impact, a match with respect to interests had agreater effect than perceived personal benefits for respondents and their families. Other emotional
motivations had an effect similar to those associated with personal benefits, indicating that26

emotional motivation dominates in academic research crowdfunding. Most of the expectations ofoutcomes and rewards, such as the Promising team, do not have a statistically significant effect.
The result contrasts with the insights regarding purchase-model crowdfunding (Chan andParhankangas, 2017). Therefore, this study identifies one of the differences between academic
crowdfunding and purchase-model crowdfunding.
The study also presents insights on how universities and academic scholars can use
academic crowdfunding effectively. First of all, we must note that in most cases, academic
crowdfunding accounts for a small percentage of research expenditures. The average amount offunds raised per project remains at around 1 million yen (9,000 USD), so this funding source only
complements a competitive research grant. However, its advantage lies in the flexibility in thetiming of fundraising (Shibato, 2015). Academic crowdfunding can be a small source of researchfunding in accordance with research serendipity. Linking this with our main finding, that is, that
empathy constitutes a major motive for support, crowdfunding may be particularly effective forfeasibility research for new ideas or additional experiments that are beyond the scope of theresearch grant. This study also suggests that in order to effectively obtain funding, scholars andresearch managers should place emphasis on conveying an empathetic appeal and effectively
communicating the value of the project. Further research is needed on the specific approaches tothis type of communication.
This study has two main limitations. First, our experimental research is not evidence ofactual behavior. Some of the potential supporters who responded to our survey may not actually
donate money to a scientific research project. In addition, several excluded factors, such asexternal conditions of a crowdfunding platform and tax deductions associated with contributions,will affect the support decision. Nevertheless, we believe our contribution in identifying several
potential motives for supporting academic research through crowdfunding is significant. Anotherlimitation is in the construction of emotional factors. Our approach is not sophisticated in termsof organization, and improvements will be needed for future research.
Avenues of future researchThis paper does not discuss any implications of academic crowdfunding other than as asource of research funding. Ikkatai et al. (2018) clarified the potential of an approach to stimulate
public understanding of academic research and to collaborate with citizens. Moreover, academic
crowdfunding may attract other types of funding because of a priming effect. To illustrate,
Dragojolovic and Lynd (2014) found that several basic research efforts focused on cancer andrare diseases successfully verified their scientific approaches with funds obtained fromcrowdfunding, and as a result, they were able to reduce uncertainty, a major risk in research,which strengthened their competitiveness in the public research grant proposal process and27

attracted investment from pharmaceutical companies. These effects are also important and should
be explored in the future.

References
Agrawal, A., Catalini, C., & Goldfarb, A. (2015). Crowdfunding: Geography, social networks,
and the timing of investment decisions. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy,
24(2), 253-274. doi:10.1111/jems.12093
Andreoni, J., & Payne, A. A. (2003). Do government grants to private charities crowd out givingorfund-raising?.

AmericanEconomic

Review,

93(3),

792-812.

doi:

10.1257/000282803322157098
Aminaka, H. (2018). Crowdfunding wo riyou shita gakujutsu kenkyû no kenkyûhi chôtatsu ni
okeru butteki keikennteki reward no yakuwari ni kansuru jisshô bunseki [Effects of rewards
for fundraising via crowdfunding for academic research], Kenkyu Gijutsu Keikaku [TheJournalof

Science

PolicyandResearch

Management],

33(1),

73-84.

doi:

10.20801/jsrpim.33.1_73
Byrnes, J. E., Ranganathan, J., Walker, B. L., & Faulkes, Z. (2014). To crowdfund research,scientists must build an audience for their work. PloS one, 9(12), e110329.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0110329
Chan, C. R., & Parhankangas, A. (2017). Crowdfunding innovative ideas: How incremental andradical innovativeness influence funding outcomes. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,41(2), 237-263. doi:10.1111/etap.12268
Dragojolovic, N, & Lynd, L. D. (2014). Crowdfunding drug development: The state of play inoncology and rare diseases. Drug Discovery Today, 19(11), 1775-1780. doi:
10.1016/j.drudis.2014.06.019
Gautier, A., & Pache, A. C. (2015). Research on corporate philanthropy: A review and assessment.
Journal of Business Ethics, 126(3), 343-369. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1969-7
Gerber, E. M., & Hui, J. S. (2013). Crowdfunding: Motivations and deterrents for participation.
ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 20(6), 1-32. doi:10.1145/2530540
Geuna, A., & Martin, B. R. (2003). University research evaluation and funding: An international
comparison. Minerva, 41(4), 277-304. doi:10.1023/B:MINE.0000005155.70870.bd
Hicks, D. (2012). Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy, 41(2),251-261. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.09.007
Ikkatai, Y., McKay, E., & Yokoyama, H. M. (2018). Nihon no kenkyûsya tachi ha nani wo jyûshi
shite crowdfunding eno sien wo yobikaketaka [How do researchers engage in academic
crowdfunding in Japan?], Kagaku Gijyutsu Communication [Japanese Journal of Science
Communication], 24, 55-67. doi:10.14943/86614

28

Ikkatai, Y., McKay, E., & Yokoyama, H. M. (2018). Science created by crowds: a case study ofscience crowdfunding in Japan. Journal of Science Communication, 17(3), A06. doi:
10.22323/2.17030206
Kuppuswamy, V., & Bayus, B. L., (2018). Crowdfunding creative ideas: The dynamics of project
backers in Kickstarter. In D. Cumming & L. Horuf (Eds.), The Economics of Crowdfunding:Startups, Portals and Investor Behavior (pp.151-182), London, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-66119-3_8
List, J. A., & Lucking-Reiley, D. (2002). The effects of seed money and refunds on charitablegiving: Experimental evidence from a university capital campaign. Journal of Political
Economy, 110(1), 215-233. doi:10.1086/324392
Mansfield, E. (1991). Academic research and industrial innovation. Research Policy, 20(1), 1-12.
doi:10.1016/0048-7333(91)90080-A
Mehlenbacher, A. R. (2017). Crowdfunding science: Exigencies and strategies in an emerging
genre of science communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 26(2), 127-144. doi:
10.1080/10572252.2017.1287361
Mitsubishi Research Institute, Inc. (2015). Innovation wo sokushin suru seisaku kin’yû ni kansuru
chôsa

bunseki[Reporton

PublicFinanceforEnhancementofInnovation].

https://scirex.grips.ac.jp/resources/download/MRI_hokukokusyo_3.pdf
Mollick, E. R., & Kuppuswamy, V. (2014). After the campaign: Outcomes of crowdfunding.
UNC Kenan-Flagler Research Paper No.2376997. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2376997
Olssen, M. (2016). Neoliberal competition in higher education today: Research, accountability
and impact. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37(1), 129-148. doi:
10.1080/01425692.2015.1100530
Parsons, L. M. (2007). The impact of financial information and voluntary disclosures oncontributions to not-for-profit organizations. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 19(1),179-196. doi:10.2308/bria.2007.19.1.179
Puhani, P. A. (2002). The Heckman correction for sample selection and its critique. Journal of
Economic Survey, 14(1), 53-68. doi:10.1111/1467-6419.00104
Rooney, P. M., Steinberg, K. S., & Schervish, P. G. (2001). A methodological comparison ofgiving surveys: Indiana as a test case. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30(3), 551568. doi:10.1177/0899764001303011
Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational
studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41-55. doi:10.1093/biomet/70.1.41
Sasaki, S. (2016). Koudou keizaigaku de crowdfunding wo yomitoku [Understanding
crowdfunding by behavioral economics] In J. Yamamoto & S. Sasaki (Eds.), Bokura Ga

29

Crowdfunding Wo Tsukau Riyû: 12 Project No Butai Ura [Reasons of Usage of
Crowdfunding: Background of 12 Projects] (pp. 211-222), Tokyo, Japan: Gakugei Shuppan.
S. Sasaki, Y. Ishida, and H. Sakamoto, (2017). Hito wa naze kifu wo surunoka: NPO kenkyû,koudou keizaigaku ni okeru chiken kara [Why people donate? Insight from NPO studies andbehavioral economics] In Japan Fundraising Association (Ed.), Kifu Hakusho 2017 [Giving
Japan 2017] (pp.57-91), Tokyo, Japan: Keidanren Publishing.
Shibato, R. (2015). Gakujyutukei crowdfunding platform academist no chosen [The challenge ofacademic crowdfunding platform “academist”]. Joho Kanri [Journal of Information
Processing and Management], 57, 709-715. doi:10.1241/johokanri.57.709
Shibayama, S. (2011). Distribution of academic research funds: A case of Japanese national
research grant. Scientometrics, 88(1), 43-60. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0392-z
Smith, V. H., Kehoe, M. R., & Cremer, M. E. (1995). The private provision of public goods:
Altruism and voluntary giving. Journal of Public Economics, 58(1), 107-126. doi:
10.1016/0047-2727(94)01455-W
Sörlin, S. (2006). Funding diversity: performance-based funding regimes as drivers ofdifferentiation in higher education systems. Higher Education Policy, 20(4), 413-440. doi:
10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300165
The Japan Foundation Center. (2019). Directory of Grant-Making Foundations FY2018: Guide
to Private Grant Sources, Tokyo: Dai’ichi Hôki.
Universities

UK.

(2016).

University

Funding

Explained,

Universities

UK.

https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/reports/Documents/2016/universityfunding-explained.pdf
Vachelard, J., Gambarra-Soares, T., Augustini, G., Riul, P., & Maracaja-Coutinho, V. (2016). A
guide

to

scientificcrowdfunding.

PLoS

biology,14(2),

e1002373.

doi:

10.1371/journal.pbio.1002373
Viergever, R. F., & Hendriks, T. C. (2016). The 10 largest public and philanthropic funders ofhealth research in the world: what they fund and how they distribute their funds. HealthResearch Policy and Systems, 14(1), 12. doi:10.1186/s12961-015-0074-z
Wang, J., Lee, Y. N., & Walsh, J. P. (2018). Funding model and creativity in science: Competitive
versus block funding and status contingency effects. Research Policy, 47(6), 1070-1083. doi:
10.1016/j.respol.2018.03.014
Wheat, R. E., Wang, Y., Byrnes, J. E., & Ranganathan, J. (2013). Raising money for scientificresearch through crowdfunding. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 28(2), 71-72. doi:
10.1016/j.tree.2012.11.001
Yen, S. T. (2002). An econometric analysis of household donations in the USA. Applied
Economics Letters, 9(13), 837-841. doi:10.1080/13504850210148189

30

Zenkyo, M., & Sakamoto, H. (2017). Nani ga kifu koudou wo sokushin surunoka [What promotes
charitable giving to disaster relief organizations in Japan? Evidence from a randomized
factorial survey experiment], Koukyo Seisaku Kenkyu [Journal of Public Policy Studies], 17,
96-107. doi:10.32202/publicpolicystudies.17.0_96

31