Scientists’ Technology Acceptance of Crowdfunding in Turkey: The Moderating Effect of Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of the empirical study is to test the technology acceptance model constructs in the context of science crowdfunding with the moderating effect of Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation. Methodology: The study tested the relationships between technology acceptance model constructs with the moderating effect of Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation with path analysis. 152 valid responses were gathered from an online survey conducted between September 2019- February 2020 and the data was analysed with Smart PLS 3.0 software. Findings: The results show that the performance expectancy has a positive effect on the behavioural intention to use science crowdfunding. Moreover, social influence has the strongest effect on the behavioural intention. Regarding the interaction effects, when the academics possess more innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness thus individual entrepreneurial orientation exists, the effect of social influence on the behavioral intention is much stronger Practical Implications: The overall structural model suggests that in a limited research funding environment, when academics are exposed to science crowdfunding options in a positive and systematic manner, they might be open for starting crowdfunding research projects in this medium because of the social influence. If the academics possess an entrepreneurial profile, they will engage more in the science crowdfunding efforts, which may be effective in the project funding success. Originality: Although entrepreneurial orientation has been used to explain technology acceptance behaviour and technology acceptance model has been used to understand crowdfunding behaviour, this study is the first initiative to measure how individual entrepreneurial orientation of academics will shape their technology acceptance behaviour in science crowdfunding which is critical for entrepreneurial academics to access alternative funds in order to eliminate financial constraints for their innovative and entrepreneurial endeavours.

Keywords

• Academic Entrepreneurship
• Crowdfunding
• Technology Acceptance Model
• Digital Transformation
• Resource Dependency

Türkiye’de Kitle Fonlamasının Bilim İnsanları Tarafından Teknoloji Kabulü: Bireysel Girişimcilik Eğiliminin Düzenleyici Etkisi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu ampirik çalışmanın amacı, Bireysel Girişimcilik Eğiliminin düzenleyici etkisi ile bilim kitle fonlaması bağlamında teknoloji kabul modeli yapılarını test etmektir. Yöntem: Çalışma, yol analizi ile Bireysel Girişimcilik Eğiliminin düzenleyici etkisi ile teknoloji kabul modeli yapıları arasındaki ilişkileri test etmiştir. Eylül 2019-Şubat 2020 arasında gerçekleştirilen çevrimiçi bir anketten 152 geçerli yanıt toplanmış ve veriler Smart PLS 3.0 yazılımı ile analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular: Sonuçlar, performans beklentisinin, bilim kitle fonlamasını kullanma davranışsal niyeti üzerinde olumlu bir etkiye sahip olduğunu göstermektedir. Dahası, sosyal etki davranışsal niyet üzerinde en güçlü etkiye sahiptir. Düzenleyici değişkenlerin etkileri ile ilgili olarak, akademisyenler daha fazla yenilikçiliğe, risk almaya ve proaktiviteye sahip olduklarında ve dolayısıyla bireysel girişimci yönelimi olduğunda, sosyal etkinin davranışsal niyet üzerindeki etkisi çok daha güçlüdür. Sonuç ve Öneriler: Genel yapısal model, sınırlı bir araştırma fonu ortamında, akademisyenler pozitif ve sistematik bir şekilde bilim kitle fonlaması seçeneklerine maruz kaldıklarında, sosyal etkinin bir sonucu olarak bu ortamda kitle fonlaması araştırma projeleri başlatmaya açık olabileceklerini göstermektedir. Akademisyenler girişimci bir profile sahipse, proje finansmanı başarısında etkili olabilecek bilim kitle fonlaması çabalarına daha fazla katılırlar. Özgün Değer: Daha önceki çalışmalarda her ne kadar teknoloji kabul davranışını açıklamak için girişimcilik eğilimi kullanılmış ve kitle fonlaması davranışını anlamak için teknoloji kabul modeli kullanılmış olsa da, bu çalışma akademisyenlerin bireysel girişimcilik eğilimlerinin bilim kitle fonlamasında teknoloji kabul davranışlarını nasıl şekillendireceğini ölçen için ilk çalışmadır. Çalışma, girişimci akademisyenlerin yenilikçi ve girişimci çabalarında finansal kısıtlamaları ortadan kaldırmaya yönelik olarak, alternatif fonlara erişmeleri için kritik öneme sahiptir.

Keywords

• Teknoloji Kabulü
• Kitle Fonlaması
• Akademik Girişimcilik
• Dijital Dönüşüm
• Kaynak Bağımlılığı.

References

1. Ajzen, I. (1985), “From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior”, Action control. Springer, 11–39.
2. Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1977), “Attitude-Behavior Relations: A Theoretical Analysis and Review of Empirical Research”, Psychological Bulletin. American Psychological Association, 84(5), 888.
3. Aleksina, A., Akulenka, S. and Lublóy, Á. (2019), “Success Factors of Crowdfunding Campaigns in Medical Research: Perceptions and Reality”, Drug Discovery Today. Elsevier Current Trends, 24(7), 1413–1420.
4. Anderson, B. S., Kreiser, P. M., Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S. and Eshima, Y. (2015), “Reconceptualizing entrepreneurial orientation’, Strategic Management Journal, 36(10), 1579–1596.
5. Bolton, D. L. and Lane, M. D. (2012), ‘Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation: Development of a Measurement Instrument’, Education and Training, 54(2–3), 219–233.
6. Bouncken, R. B. and Komorek, M. (2015), ‘The Clute Institute Crowdfunding: The Current State Of Research’, International Business & Economics Research Journal, 14(3), 407–417.
7. Bozeman, B. and Gaughan, M. (2007), ‘Impacts of Grants and Contracts on Academic Researchers’ Interactions With Industry’, Research Policy, 36(5), 694–707.
8. Brem, A., Bilgram, V. and Marchuk, A. (2019), ‘How Crowdfunding Platforms Change The Nature of User Innovation – From Problem Solving To Entrepreneurship’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 144, 348–360.

9. Byrnes, J. E. K., Ranganathan, J., Walker, B. L. E. and Faulkes, Z. (2014), “To Crowdfund Research, Scientists Must Build an Audience for Their Work”, PLoS ONE. Edited by R. Huerta-Quintanilla. Public Library of Science, 9(12).
10. Cameron, P., Corne, D W., Mason, C. E. and Rosenfeld, J. (2013), “Crowdfunding Genomics and Bioinformatics”, Genome Biology, 14(9), 134.
11. Cho, Y. H. and Lee, J.-H. (2018), “Entrepreneurial Orientation, Entrepreneurial Education and Performance”, Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 12(2), 124–134.
12. Dahlhausen, K., Krebs, B. L., Watters, J. V. and Ganz, H. H. (2016), “Crowdfunding Campaigns Help Researchers Launch Projects and Generate Outreach”, Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 17(1), 32–37.
13. Daldrup, V., Krahl, O. and Bürger, R. (2020), “Is Crowdfunding Suitable for Financing German Public Research Organization (PRO) Projects?”,Contemporary Developments Entrepreneurial Finance. Springer, 309–333.
14. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P. and Warshaw, P. R. (1989), “User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models”, Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.
15. Dess, G. G. and Lumpkin, G. T. (2005), “The Role of Entrepreneurial Orientation in Stimulating Effective Corporate Entrepreneurship”, Academy of Management Perspectives, 19(1), 147–156.
16. Doyle, G., Kelly, R. and O’Donohoe, S. (2016) “Resource Dependence as a Mechanism for Survival: The Case of the Mater Misericordiae University Hospital”, VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(4), 1871–1893.
17. Fehrer, J. A. and Nenonen, S. (2019), “Crowdfunding Networks: Structure, dynamics and Critical Capabilities”, Industrial Marketing Management, 88, 449-464.
18. Gaggioli, A. and Riva, G. (2008), “Working The Crowd.”, Science, 321(5895), 1443.
19. García-Villaverde, P. M., Rodrigo-Alarcon, J., Parra-Requena, G. and Ruiz-Ortega, M.J. (2018), “Technological Dynamism and Entrepreneurial Orientation: The Heterogeneous Effects of Social Capital”, Journal of Business Research, 83, 51–64.
20. Garson, G. D. (2016), “Partial Least Squares. Regression and structural equation models”, Statistical Publishing Associates. Goldfarb, B. (2008), “The Effect of Government Contracting on Academic Research:
21. Does The Source of Funding Affect Scientific Output?”, Research Policy, 37(1), 41–58.
22. Gulati, R. and Sytch, M. (2007), “Dependence Asymmetry and Joint Dependence in Interorganizational Relationships: Effects of Embeddedness on a Manufacturer’s Performance in Procurement Relationships”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 32–69.
23. Gupta, V. K., Niranjan, S., Goktan, A. B. and Erikson, J. (2016), “Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation Role in Shaping Reactions to New Technologies”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(4), 935–961.
24. Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. M. T., Ringle, C. and Srstedt, M. (2016), “A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM”). Sage publications.
25. Hawkes, D. and Thomson, M. (2015), “Clinical trials: Crowdfunded Trials Doubly Scrutinized”, Nature, 528(7582), 333–333. Henseler, J., Hubona, G. and Ray, P. A. (2016), “Using PLS Path Modeling in New Technology Research: Updated Guidelines”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(1), 2-20.
26. Hillman, A. J., Withers, M. C. and Collins, B. J. (2009), “Resource Dependence Theory: A Review”, Journal of Management, 35(6), 1404–1427.
27. Hui, J. S. and Gerber, E. M. (2015), “Crowdfunding Science”, in Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing - CSCW ’15. New York, USA: ACM Press, 31–43.
28. Ikkatai, Y., McKay, E. and Yokoyama, H. M. (2018), “Science Created by Crowds: A Case Study of Science Crowdfunding in Japan”, Journal of Science Communication, 17(03), A06.
29. Jackson, J. D., Mun, Y. Y. and Park, J. S. (2013), “An Empirical Test of Three Mediation Models for The Relationship Between Personal Innovativeness and User Acceptance of Technology”, Information & Management, 50(4), 154–161.
30. K. L. Lau, B. C. Chew, A. Maliki, H. H. (2016), “Crowdfunding for Academic Projects: A Case in Public Universities of Malaysia”. Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (JAMT), 12(1), 273-284.
31. Koe, W. L. (2016), “The Relationship Between Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation (IEO) and Entrepreneurial Intention”, Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 6(1), 13.
32. Kollmann, T., Christofor, J. and Kuckertz, A. (2007), “Explaining Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation: Conceptualisation of A Cross-Cultural Research Framework”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 4(3), 325..
33. Langkamp Bolton, D. and Lane, M. D. (2012), “Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation: Development of A Measurement Instrument”, Education+ Training, 54(2/3), 219–233.
34. Lee, Y., Kozar, K. A. and Larsen, K. R. T. (2003), “The Technology Acceptance Model: Past, Present, and Future”, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 12.
35. Lumpkin, G. T. and Dess, G. G. (1996), “Clarifying The Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct and Linking It to Performance”, Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172.
36. Malatesta, D. and Smith, C. R. (2014), “Lessons from Resource Dependence Theory for Contemporary Public and Nonprofit Management”, Public Administration Review, 74(1), 14–25.
37. Miller, D. (1983), “The Correlates of Entrepreneurship in Three Types of Firms”, Management, 29(7), pp. 770–791.
38. Mollick, E. (2014), “The Dynamics of Crowdfunding: An Exploratory Study”, Journal of Business Venturing, 29(1), 1–16.
39. Mollick, E. and Robb, A. (2016) “Democratizing Innovation and Capital Access: The Role of Crowdfunding”, California Management Review, 58(2), 72–87.
40. Muscio, A., Quaglione, D. and Vallanti, G. (2013), ‘Does Government Funding Complement or Substitute Private Research Funding to Universities?’, Research Policy, 42(1), 63–75.
41. Nienhüser, W. (2008) ‘Resource Dependence Theory - How Well Does It Explain Behavior of Organizations?’, Management Revue., 9–32. doi: 10.2307/41783569.
42. O’Donnell, J. (2020), “A Framework for Ameliorating Risk in Australian University Crowdfunding”, Legal Regulations, Implications, and Issues Surrounding Digital Data. IGI Global, 41–67.
43. Osimo, D., Pujol, L. and Vuorikari, R. (2016), “Alternative Research Funding Mechanisms”, IGI Global, pp. 53–67.
44. Özdoğan, B. (2020), “Research of Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation of Accounting Professionals in Turkey”, Eskişehir Osmangazi University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 15(1), 31-46.
45. Perlstein, E. O. (2013), “Anatomy of the Crowd4Discovery Crowdfunding Campaign”, SpringerPlus, 2(1), 560.
46. Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G. R. (1978), “The External Control of Organizations : A Resource Dependence Perspective”, Stanford Business Books.
47. Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G. R. (2003), “The External Control of Organizations : A Resource Dependence Perspective”, Stanford Business Books. 2nd Edition.
48. Powers, J. B. (2003), “Commercializing Academic Research: Resource Effects on Performance of University Technology Transfer”, The Journal of Higher Education, 74(1), 26–50.
49. Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G. T. and Frese, M. (2009), “Entrepreneurial Orientation and Business Performance: An Assessment of Past Research and Suggestions for the Future”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 761–787.
50. Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M. and Straub, D. W. (2012), “Editor’s Comments: A Critical Look at The Use of PLS-SEM”, MIS quarterly, 36(1), iii-xiv. doi: 10.2307/41410402.
51. Rippa, P. and Secundo, G. (2019), “Digital Academic Entrepreneurship: The Potential of Digital Technologies on Academic Entrepreneurship”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146, 900-911.
52. Robinson, S. and Stubberud, H. A. (2014), “Journal of Entrepreneurship Education”, Journal of Entrepreneurship Education,17(2), 1–11.
53. Rogers Everett, M. (1995), “Diffusion of Innovations Modifications of a Model for Telecommunications”, In: Stoetzer MW., Mahler A. (eds) Die Diffusion von Innovationen in der Telekommunikation. Schriftenreihe des Wissenschaftlichen Instituts für Kommunikationsdienste, 17. Springer.
54. Rondan-Cataluña, F. J., Arenas-Gaitán, J. and Ramírez-Correa, P. E. (2015), “A Comparison of The Different Versions of Popular Technology Acceptance Models”, Kybernetes, 44(5), 788–805.
55. Sacristán López de los Mozos, I., Rodríguez Duarte, A. and Rodríguez Ruiz, Ó. (2016), “Resource Dependence In Non-profit Organizations: Is It Harder To Fundraise If You Diversify Your Revenue Structure?”, VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(6), 2641–2665.
56. Sauermann, H., Franzoni, C. and Shafi, K. (2019), “Crowdfunding Scientific Research: Descriptive Insights and Correlates Of Funding Success”, PloS one, 14(1), p. e0208384. del Savio, L. (2017), “The Place of Crowdfunding in the Discovery of Scientific and Social Value of Medical Research”, Bioethics, 31(5), 384–392.
57. Savolainen, M. (2016), “Tough Crowd: Consumer Acceptance Of Equity Crowdfunding Platforms”. Available at: https://jyx.jyu.fi/handle/123456789/50956 (Accessed: 3 April 2019).
58. Siva, N. (2014), “Crowdfunding for Medical Research Picks Up Pace’, The Lancet, 384(9948), 1085–1086. Statista Market Forecast (2019). Available at: https://www.statista.com/outlook/335/100/crowdfunding/worldwide#market-users (Accessed: 28 June 2019).
59. Szász, L. and Seer, L. (2018), “Towards An Operations Strategy Model of Servitization: The Role of Sustainability Pressure’, Operations Management Research, 11(1-2), 51-66.
60. Vachelard, J., Gambarra-Soares, Augustini, G., Riul, R. and Maracaja-Coutinho, V. (2016), “A Guide to Scientific Crowdfunding”, PLOS Biology, 14(2), p. e1002373.
61. Venkatesh, V. (1999), “Creation of Favorable User Perceptions: Exploring the Role of Intrinsic Motivation”, MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 239.
62. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Gordon, B. D. and Fred, D. D. (2003), “User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward A Unified View’, MIS Quarterly, 425–478.
63. Venkatesh, V. and Bala, H. (2008), ‘Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions’, Decision Sciences. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (10.1111), 39(2), 273–315.
64. Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F. D. (2000), “A Theoretical Extension of The Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies”, Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
65. Villanueva, J., Van de Ven, A. H. and Sapienza, H. J. (2012), “Resource Mobilization In Entrepreneurial Firms”, Journal of Business Venturing, 27(1), 19–30.
66. Vogelsang, K., Steinhüser, M. and Hoppe, U. (2013), “A Qualitative Approach To Technology Acceptance Research”, International Conference on Information Systems. Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/15b4/161b13f5fad118566ab0883d9eaea143a64c.pdf (Accessed: 3 April 2019).
67. Walter, A., Auer, M. and Ritter, T. (2006), “The Impact of Network Capabilities and Entrepreneurial Orientation on University Spin-Off Performance”, Journal of Business Venturing, 21(4), 541–567.
68. Weigmann, K. (2013), “Tapping The Crowds for Research Funding. Crowdfunding, A Common Practice to Support Projects in The Arts, Music or Gaming, Has Also Attracted The Attention of Scientists.’, EMBO reports. European Molecular Biology Organization, 14(12), 1043–1046.
69. Wheat, R. E., Wang, Y., Byrnes, J. E., Ranganathan, J. (2013), “Raising Money for Scientific Research Through Crowdfunding”, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 28(2), 71-72.
70. Wiklund, J. (1999), ‘The Sustainability of the Entrepreneurial Orientation—Performance Relationship’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24(1), 37–48.
71. Yılmaz, M. and Kavanoz, S. (2017), “The Validity and Reliability of Turkish Version of Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology”, Turkish Studies, 12(32), 127–146.
72. Yousafzai, S. Y., Foxall, G. R. and Pallister, J. G. (2007), “Technology Acceptance: A Meta‐Analysis of The TAM: Part 1”, Journal of Modelling in Management, 2(3), 251–280.
73. Zahra, S. A. (1993), “A Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurship as Firm Behavior: A Critique and Extension”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17(4), 5–21.