top of page

RESEARCH

​

Publications

​

[1] “The Crowd Beyond Funders – An Integrative Review of and Research Agenda for Crowdfunding”

He, V. (St. Gallen), Troebinger, M. (ESSEC), Murray, A. (Oregon) - Academy of Management Annals, 2024, Vol. 18, No. 1, 348–394. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2022.0064.

 

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] "Harnessing The Crowd: How Ventures 'Bounce Back' From Failure"

Troebinger, M. (ESSEC), Chai, S. (McGill) – Reject & Resubmit at Strategic Management Journal

nominated: AoM 2023 Best PhD Paper Award Finalist Competition, TIM Division

https://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/AMPROC.2023.10967abstract

 

Abstract: We examine how ventures harness the crowd to “bounce back” from initial crowdfunding failure—i.e., falling short of raising the needed funds. Using archival data from 23 cases of crowdfunding reentry, we unpack how ventures react to crowd feedback and adapt for reentry during and after failure. Our sample comprises ventures with similar project quality and failure experiences, with some succeeding in their second attempt and others failing again. We induce a theoretical framework consisting of three strategies that ventures perform in a sequenced exchange with the crowd: anticipating, bridging, and stabilizing. We show that “bouncing back” is nurtured before failure occurs. By unpacking how ventures harness crowds despite initial failure, we contribute to the literature on entrepreneurial resource mobilization and non-financial support by crowds.

​​

​​​​​​​​[3] “Collective Problem-Solving Without Authority: Enhancing Deliberation with Shared Attribute Spaces”

Troebinger, M. (ESSEC), He, V. (St. Gallen), Puranam, P. (INSEAD) - Full manuscript

nominated: SMS 2024 Best Conference Paper Competition

nominated: SMS 2024 Best PhD Paper Competition

​

Abstract: Digital platforms enable online deliberation and collective problem-solving among a diversity of individuals distributed across locations. To facilitate the convergence of diverse perspectives into a solution, some form of centralization—such as mediators or a panel that screens participants or selects among proposed solutions—is often used. However, centralization can cause premature convergence to sub-optimal solutions and suppress participants’ motivation to engage. We develop a minimally invasive intervention that improves deliberation quality and allows participants to converge on solutions. Specifically, we introduce a Shared Attribute Space (SAS)—a set of attribute dimensions that allows participants to analyze and compare solution proposals. In two experiments using a custom-built online deliberation platform, we find that providing SAS enhances deliberation quality and improves the expected impact of proposals, which cluster within a convergent solution space. Our findings provide empirical evidence for improving collective problem-solving in online deliberation without exercising centralized authority. 

​

​[4] “How Experience Moderates the Impact of GenAI Ideas on the Research Process”

Chai, S. (McGill), Doshi, A. (UCL), Troebinger, M. (ESSEC) - Under review

https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5013086

​

Abstract: At the heart of scientific discovery are expert scientists who identify research ideas worthy of inquiry. While generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools—large language models, in particular—have been found to outperform humans in tasks involving pattern recognition and reasoning, their impact on one of the most fundamental tasks in science, that of generating research ideas, remains underexplored. We investigate how the use of generative AI affects the generation of scientific ideas in the creation of research proposals and scientists’ attitudes toward integrating AI-generated ideas into their research process. Through a randomized online experiment with 310 scientists on a custom-built research proposal generation platform, we study how generative AI ideas affect scientists’ self-evaluation of their proposals, research agenda, and other attitudes. We do not find any average effect on their assessment of the proposals’ novelty or usefulness. However, research experience is an important moderator: experience negatively moderates the effect of generative AI on novelty and other views of the proposal, as well as views of their research agendas more broadly. Further analyses suggest that experience and expertise are associated with increased aversion to generative AI, due to mechanisms ranging mainly from mistrust of the technology to also professional identity threat and simple resistance to technology. Our findings contribute to the innovation literature by offering first insights into generative AI’s role in the research idea generation process, and to the growing literature on generative AI’s role in complementing human tasks. We conclude by discussing implications for researchers, policymakers, and administrators.

​​

Research In Progress

​

[5] “Balancing Participation and Consensus in Deliberation”

Troebinger, M. (ESSEC), He, V. (St. Gallen), Puranam, P. (INSEAD) - Data collection

​​

[6] “Crowd Feedback and Aspiration Levels”

Troebinger, M. (ESSEC), Mao, J. (Bocconi) – Initial stage

bottom of page