top of page



[1] “The crowd beyond funders – An integrative review of and research agenda for crowdfunding”

with Vivianna He (St. Gallen) and Alex Murray (U of Oregon) - Academy of Management Annals, 2024, Vol. 18, No. 1, 348–394.


Abstract: Crowdfunding, or soliciting small contributions from large and dispersed crowds through online platforms, is an increasingly indispensable strategy for established firms, young ventures, and aspiring entrepreneurs alike. Synthesizing research in the fields of management, entrepreneurship, innovation, operations, information systems, and marketing, we conduct an integrative review of the crowdfunding research accumulated over the past decade. We aim to break down disciplinary silos to develop a framework that integrates insights across research communities. We identify three underlying dimensions that differentiate extant research: the goal of the campaigner, the role of the crowd, and the boundary of the crowdfunding event. Scholars have brought two perspectives to bear on these questions: an elemental perspective and a processual perspective. We outline an integrative model that takes account of crowdfunding as a process involving heterogeneous participants with idiosyncratic monetary and non-monetary goals at different stages. Our multidisciplinary review of this expanding body of literature not only integrates dispersed insights but also, more importantly, stimulates a future research agenda that goes beyond the traditional boundaries of crowdfunding research.

Working Papers

[2] [Crowd Feedback]

with Sen Chai (McGill) – Under review at Strategic Management Journal


[3] “Crowd Convergence: Evidence from large-scale group experiments”

with Vivianna He (St. Gallen) and Phanish Puranam (INSEAD) - Full manuscript

nominated: SMS 2024 Best Conference Paper Competition

nominated: SMS 2024 Best PhD Paper Competition

Abstract: Coordinating crowds to jointly solve problems is challenging. While participation increases the likelihood of diverse input and novel solutions, social interactions tend to amplify the emergence of differing viewpoints, typically hindering crowd consensus. When solution seekers, such as online community managers, resort to authority to break the deliberation deadlock, they undermine the principle of open participation—the very principle that attracts crowd participants in the first place. How to navigate the dilemma between high-quality deliberation (and, in turn, solutions) and consensus? We explore a minimally invasive and scalable intervention that assists the crowd in decomposing problems into their underlying dimensions. In two large-scale online experiments, we find that deliberation quality and in turn, solution quality, on a divisive topic can be significantly enhanced using this approach, without impinging on the consensus process. Our study thus provides initial empirical evidence for resolving the critical trade-off between crowd deliberation and consensus.

Research In Progress

[4] “Generative AI and scientific work”

with Sen Chai (McGill) and Anil Doshi (UCL) - Completed data analysis, writing up manuscript

[5] “Crowd feedback and aspiration levels”

with Jiongni Mao (Bocconi) – Initial stage

bottom of page