The Myth of Amateur Crowds A Critical Discourse Analysis of Crowdsourcing Coverage Daren C. Brabham,...

The Myth of Amateur CrowdsA Critical Discourse Analysis of Crowdsourcing Coverage

Daren C. Brabham, Ph.D.

October 14, 2011Association of Internet Researchers IR12.0

Generally, Crowdsourcing is…• A process whereby:– an organization poses a specific challenge to an

online community (a crowd)– the crowd answers that challenge– the organization benefits from the crowd’s labor

• Driven by collective intelligence, marginality in innovation & wisdom of crowds

• Openness + top-down management

Crowdsourcing & Amateurism• Term coined June 2006, Wired, Jeff Howe– Howe uses “amateur” 3 times in article– Launched blog: Crowdsourcing: Tracking the

Rise of the Amateur

• The buzzword took off quickly, along with the amateur lingo

The Impetus for this Study• Empirical data start to emerge from the

exemplar cases of crowdsourcing that refute amateur claims

• Professional/amateur distinction in online labor is important topic in Internet research

• As a critical scholar, the amateur discourse annoyed me

Method• Critical discourse analysis (CDA)– Textual analytic techniques + critical perspective =

textual analysis with broader social/political/economic/historical context in mind

– Social scientific in world view (distinguishable from humanistic approaches to texts, e.g. rhetorical criticism)

– Fairclaugh, Wodak, van Dijk, Huckin, and others

Method• Searched LexisNexis database of major world

publications August 28, 2011– Instances of “crowdsourcing” AND “amateur”– Corpus of 101 articles for analysis

• Read-through from preferred position, then re-read critically.

Questioning Factual Basis of Label• Doritos Crash the Super Bowl contest– Federighi & Snider were film students, had already

produced commercial for Converse– Herbert Brothers had help of two dozen media

professionals; were not “rags-to-riches”

Questioning Factual Basis of Label• iStockphoto.com– 47% claim “professional,” most popular choice– 58% had >1 yr. art schooling; 26% had >5 yrs.

Questioning Factual Basis of Label• Threadless.com– Designer interviews: many are working graphic

designers– Motivated by $ and portfolio-building for future

work

• InnoCentive.com– 65% have PhDs, 19.1% other advanced degrees

• Next Stop Design– 18 out of 23 were working architects

Interrogating Amateurism• Stebbins: amateurs are distinct category of

“serious leisure” on pro spectrum• Articles in corpus distinguish pros from

amateurs (“amateur and professional” phrase)• Dictionaries: “lacking experience and

competence,” “unskilled”

Pro Power, Conflict, Capitalism• Pro power: monopoly over work tasks;

convincing public and state that they need them; set of relationships to mass market

• A threat to the existence of pros– “Crowdsourcing starting to crowd out

professionals” – Daily Yomiuri– “amateurs and street reporters do not respect

gentlemen’s agreement of professional photographers” – Korea Times

Pro Power, Conflict, Capitalism• A threat to pro money-making ability– “When low bids win, radiologists lose out; new

business models threaten to snatch reads out from under your nose” – Diagnostic Imaging

– “Crowdsourcing’s democracy loses some appeal when your rate card is in jeopardy” – Advertising Age

• Conflict– “small army of amateurs,” “…eager to dismantle the

inner workings”

Condescending Language• Insincere praise, assumes difference in status

and worth– “enthusiastic amateurs,” “eager but uninformed

amateurs”– “motivated” and “talented” amateurs, as if it’s

odd they’d have talent or drive– Work “can be difficult for the pajama-wearing

amateur” – New York Times

The Race to the Bottom• Emphasis on “lowly paid amateurs” who work

for “$1 to $5,” “inexpensively,” or “for free.”• Creative professionals already not well paid• Positions amateurs as good for business, but

bad for creative professionals by driving down prices

Crowdsourcing: Business as Usual• Crowdsourcing praised as “democratizing” all

sorts of things– A term also uncritically applied to many things

“Web 2.0”

• Van Dijck and Nieborg: conflating consumers with communities shifts “locus of value extraction” from products to people, strip-mining the crowd for its creative labor

• “By us, for us” – we assume it’s better

Can Crowds Organize?• Ultimately, no. Crowdsourcing organizations

are in control.• But crowds can leave, revolt, etc.

• Do we need a crowd’s bill of rights?

Fail-Safe Public Relations• Even in bad crowdsourcing outcomes, pin

failure on the backs of the crowd• Claim you were innovative and open and

transparent for trying out crowdsourcing• Then return to hiring professional talent– “amateurs…challenge our notion of quality” –

New York Times

Why This Matters• Crowdsourcing on the rise in business– Crowds need rights, voice, protection, respect• Amateur label distracts that discussion

• Crowdsourcing on the rise in governance– If crowds are delegitimized through discourse,

then they are also dismissed as worthy agents in a democracy

Thank You!• Questions?

www.linkedin.com/in/darenbrabham@dbrabhamdarenbrabham