SpringerLink
Log in

The Ethical, Societal, and Global Implications of Crowdsourcing Research

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 28 February 2024

This article has been updated

Abstract

Online crowdsourcing platforms have rapidly become a popular source of data collection. Despite the various advantages these platforms offer, there are substantial concerns regarding not only data validity issues, but also the ethical, societal, and global ramifications arising from the prevalent use of online crowdsourcing platforms. This paper seeks to expand the dialogue by examining both the “internal” aspects of crowdsourcing research practices, such as data quality issues, reporting transparency, and fair compensation, and the “external” aspects, in terms of how the widespread use of crowdsourcing data collection shapes the nature of scientific communities and our society in general. Online participants in research studies are informal workers who provide labor in exchange for remuneration. The paper thus highlights the need for researchers to consider the markedly different political, economic, and socio-cultural characteristics of the Global North and the Global South when undertaking crowdsourcing research involving an international sample; such consideration is crucial for both increasing research validity and mitigating societal inequities. We encourage researchers to scrutinize the value systems underlying this popular data collection research method and its associated ethical, societal, and global ramifications, as well as provide a set of recommendations regarding the use of crowdsourcing platforms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 17 February 2024

    The original version of this article was revised: Modifications have been made to the author names and affiliations of Mayowa T. Babalola, Edina Dóci and Alexander Newman. Full information regarding the corrections made can be found in the correction for this article.

  • 28 February 2024

    A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-024-05636-9

Notes

  1. In the late twentieth century, the terminology ‘Global North’ and ‘Global South’ replaced previous descriptors of the global order such as East-West, developed-develo** nations, First-Third World, core-periphery, and modern-traditional societies. Global North and Global South do not refer to a geographic region in any conventional sense, but rather to the relative power, privilege, wealth, and development of countries in distinct parts of the world. The Global North encompasses the rich, powerful, and developed regions of the world such as North America, Europe, and Australia. It includes countries such as the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, nations of the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Japan, and South Korea. The Global North countries have mature economies and stable polities and are technologically advanced with low population growth rates and high quality of life metrics. The Global North has roughly 25% of the world’s population, but earns 80% of the world’s wealth and tends to dominate the Global South both politically and economically. The Global South encompasses the poor, less powerful, and less developed countries of the world in areas such as South America, Africa, and Asia, including formerly colonized countries. Many of these countries are still marked by the social, cultural, and economic repercussions of colonialism, even after achieving national independence. The Global South remains home to the majority of the world’s population, but that population is relatively young and resource-poor, living in economically dependent nations which have unstable democracies and are marked by large inequalities in living standards and access to resources as well as low per capita income and excessive unemployment (Braff and Nelson, 2021; Dados and Connell, 2012; World Population Review, 2023a and b). Both the Global North and Global South encompass internal variations (Braff and Nelson, 2021).

  2. Online platform workers, also known as ‘crowdworkers’, operate via online platforms that digitally connect workers, clients, organizations, and businesses across borders spread over large geographic distances (e.g., Amazon Mechanical Turk, Upwork, Innocentive). Offline platform workers engage in ‘work on-demand via apps’, undertaking place-based and geographically-limited work facilitated by platforms through their applications but requiring direct interface between workers, customers, clients, organizations, and businesses (e.g., Uber, Swiggy, Urban Company) (de Stefano, 2015).

  3. For example, Berg et al. (2018) found that across various platforms, including MTurk, Prolific, and Clickworker, the average hourly wage for online workers in North America (US$4.70 per hour) and Europe and Central Asia (US$3.00 per hour; Central Asia includes Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan) is higher than that for online workers in other regions of the world, where the average hourly wage varied between US$1.33 (Africa) and US$2.22 (Asia and the Pacific; Asia includes Bangladesh, Brunei, China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Philippines, and Vietnam).

References

  • Abrahamson, S., Ryder, P., & Unterberg, B. (2013). Crowdstorm: The future of innovation, ideas, and problem solving. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguinis, H., Cummings, C., Ramani, R. S., & Cummings, T. G. (2020a). “An A Is An A”: The new bottom line for valuing academic research. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(1), 135–154. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2017.0193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aguinis, H., Villamor, I., & Ramani, R. S. (2020b). MTurk research: Review and recommendations. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320969787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anwar, M. A., & Graham, M. (2021). Between a rock and a hard place: Freedom, flexibility, precarity and vulnerability in the gig economy in Africa. Competition & Change, 25(2), 237–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, S. A., Green, A., & de Hoyos, M. (2015). Crowdsourcing and work: Individual factors and circumstances influencing employability. New Technology, Work and Employment, 30(1), 16–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12043

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beerepoot, N., & Lambregts, B. (2015). Competition in online job marketplaces: Towards a global labour market for outsourcing services? Global Networks, 15(2), 236–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg, J., & de Stefano, V. (2018). Employment and regulation for clickworkers. In Work in the digital age (pp. 175–184). Rowman & Littlefield International.

  • Berg, J., Furrer, M., Harmon, E., Rani, U., & Silberman, M. S. (2018). Digital labour platforms and the future of work: Towards decent work in the online world. International Labour Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braff, L., & Nelson, K. (2022). The Global North: Introducing the region. In N. T. Fernandez and K. Nelson (Eds.), Gendered Lives: Global Issues. Accessed 2 February 2023 from https://milnepublishing.geneseo.edu/genderedlives/chapter/chapter-15-the-global-north-introducing-the-region/

  • Bridgland, V. M. E., Barnard, J. F., & Takarangi, M. K. T. (2022). Unprepared: Thinking of a trigger warning does not prompt preparation for trauma- related content. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 75, 101708.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brink, W. D., Eaton, T. V., Grenier, J. H., & Reffett, A. (2019). Deterring unethical behavior in online labor markets. Journal of Business Ethics, 156, 71–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buhrmester, M. D., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buhrmester, M. D., Talaifar, S., & Gosling, S. D. (2018). An evaluation of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, its rapid rise, and its effective use. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 149–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617706516

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Casilli, A. A. (2017). Global digital culture | Digital labor studies go global: Toward a digital decolonial turn. International Journal of Communication, 11, 21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, J., Mueller, P., & Paolacci, G. (2014). Nonnaïveté among Amazon Mechanical Turk workers: Consequences and solutions for behavioral researchers. Behavioral Research Methods, 46(1), 112–130. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0365-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, J. H., Burns, D. K., Sinclair, R. R., & Sliter, M. (2017). Amazon Mechanical Turk in organizational psychology: An evaluation and practical recommendations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32(4), 347–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9458-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crump, M. J. C., McDonnell, J. V., & Gureckis, T. M. (2013). Evaluating Amazon’s Mechanical Turk as a tool for experimental behavioral research. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057410

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Dados, N., & Connell, R. (2012). The Global South. Contexts, 11(1), 12–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Cruz, P. (2017). Partially empowering but not decent? The contradictions of online labour markets. In E. Noronha & P. D’Cruz (Eds.), Critical perspectives on work and employment in globalizing India (pp. 173–195). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2016). Positives outweighing negatives: The experiences of Indian crowdsourced workers. Work Organisation, Labour and Globalisation, 10(1), 44–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2018a). Abuse on online labour markets: Targets’ co**, power and control. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 13(1), 53–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2018b). Target experiences of workplace bullying on online labour markets: Uncovering the nuances of resilience. Employee Relations, 40(1), 139–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2023). India’s platform economy experience: A site for the commodification–decommodification dynamic. In I. Ness (Ed.), Platform Labour and Global Logistics: A Research Companion. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Cruz, P., Noronha, E., Banday, M. U. L., & Chakraborty, S. (2022a). Place matters:(Dis) embeddedness and child labourers’ experiences of depersonalized bullying in Indian Bt cottonseed global production networks. Journal of Business Ethics, 176(2), 241–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Cruz, P., Noronha, E., & Katiyar, S. (2022b). Meaningfulness and impact of academic research: Bringing the global south to the forefront. Business & Society, 61(4), 839–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Stefano, V. M. (2015). The rise of the “just-in-time” workforce. Paper presented at the 4th ILO Conference on Regulating for Decent Work, Geneva, July 8–10, 2015.

  • Ettlinger, N. (2017). Paradoxes, problems and potentialities of online work platforms. Work Organisation, Labour and Globalisation, 11(2), 21–38.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Fairwork. (2022). Fairwork Annual Report 2022. Oxford, Berlin.

  • Financial Time. (2016). The humans behind Mechanical Turk’s artificial intelligence. Retrieved June 3, 2023 from https://www.ft.com/content/17518034-6f77-11e6-9ac1-1055824ca907

  • Follmer, D. J., Sperling, R. A., & Suen, H. K. (2017). The role of MTurk in education research: Advantages, issues, and future directions. SAGE: Educational Researcher.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gastrow, M., & Oppelt, T. (2018). Big science and human development-what is the connection? South African Journal of Science, 114(11–12), 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleibs, I. H. (2017). Are all “research fields” equal? Rethinking practice for the use of data from crowdsourcing market places. Behavior Research Methods, 49(4), 1333–1342.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, J. K., & Paolacci, G. (2017). Crowdsourcing consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(1), 196–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haidar, J., & Keune, M. (2021). Introduction: Work and labour relations in global platform capitalism. In Work and Labour Relations in Global Platform Capitalism (pp. 1–27). ILO & Edward Elgar.

  • Hammett, D., & Sporton, D. (2012). Paying for interviews? Negotiating ethics, power and expectation. Area, 44(4), 496–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, D. J., & Schwarz, N. (2016). Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants. Behavior Research Methods, 48(1), 400–407. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0578-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, D., Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. J. (2020). Common concerns with MTurk as a participant pool: Evidence and solutions. In F. R. Kardes, P. M. Herr, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in consumer psychology. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holtgrewe, U. (2014). New new technologies: The future and the present of work in information and communication technology. New Technology, Work and Employment, 29(1), 9–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horton, J. J., Rand, D. G., Zeckhauser, R. J., Chandler, D., Dreber, A., Haque, R., & Zeckhauser, R. (2011). The online laboratory: Conducting experiments in a real labor market. Springer, 14(3), 399–425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-011-9273-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, N. C., & Scheetz, A. M. (2019). Using MTurk to distribute a survey or experiment: Methodological considerations. Journal of Information Systems, 33(1), 43–65. https://doi.org/10.2308/isys-52021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huws, U., Spencer, N., Syrdal, D. S., & Holts, K. (2018). Working in the gig economy: insights from Europe. In Work in the digital age (pp. 153–162). Rowman & Littlefield International.

  • Islam, G., & Greenwood, M. (2023). Ethical research in business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 182, 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Islam, G., & Greenwood, M. (2021). Reconnecting to the social in business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 170, 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jammulamadaka, N. P. (2020). Author (ing) from post-colonial context: Challenges and jugaad fixes. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal., 15(3), 388–401. https://doi.org/10.1108/QROM-07-2019-1791

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, H., & Land-Kazlauskas, C. (2018). Organizing on-demand: Representation, voice, and collective bargaining in the gig economy.

  • Kantor, P., Rani, U., & Unni, J. (2006). Decent work deficits in informal economy: Case of Surat. Economic and Political Weekly, 2089–2097.

  • Kees, J., Berry, C., Burton, S., & Sheehan, K. (2017). An Analysis of Data Quality: Professional Panels, Student Subject Pools, and Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Journal of Advertising, 46(1), 141–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2016.1269304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keith, M. G., Harms, P., & Tay, L. (2019). Mechanical Turk and the gig economy: Exploring differences between gig workers. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 34(4), 286–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keith, M. G., Tay, L., & Harms, P. D. (2017). Systems perspective of amazon mechanical turk for organizational research: Review and recommendations. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01359

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Landers, R. N., & Behrend, T. S. (2015). An inconvenient truth: Arbitrary distinctions between organizational, Mechanical Turk, and other convenience samples. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8(2), 142–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leung, W.-F., D’Cruz, P. and Noronha, E. (2021) ‘Freelancing globally: upworkers in China and India, Neo-liberalisation and the New International Putting-out System of Labour (NIPL)’. In Work and Labour Relations in Global Platform Capitalism, edited by J. Haidar and M. Keune. ILO and Edward Elgar.

  • Levay, K. E., Freese, J., & Druckman, J. N. (2016). The demographic and political composition of Mechanical Turk samples. SAGE Open, 6(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016636433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linder, C., & Farahbakhsh, S. (2020). Unfolding the black box of questionable research practices: Where is the line between acceptable and unacceptable practices? Business Ethics Quarterly, 30(3), 335–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lombe, M., Newransky, C., Crea, T., & Stout, A. (2013). From rhetoric to reality: Planning and conducting collaborations for international research in the global south. Social Work, 58(1), 31–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MacInnis, C. C., Boss, H. C. D., & Bourdage, J. S. (2020). More evidence of participant misrepresentation on MTurk and investigating who misrepresents. Personality and Individual Differences, 152, 109603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mawdsley, H., Amaugo, A., & Thirlwall, A. (2018). Lost in translation? Testing the NAQ-R in an African context. In 11th International conference on workplace bullying and harassment, 6–8 June, Bordeaux, France.

  • Mawdsley, H., Thirlwall, A., Amarachi, A., D’Cruz, P., Noronha, E., Essiaw, M. N., & Chimere, E. (2021). Cultural influences on the interpretation of Workplace Bullying: A four country study. In 12th International conference on workplace bullying and harassment, 12–14 April, Online via Dubai.

  • McCredie, M. N., & Morey, L. C. (2019). Who are the Turkers? A characterization of MTurk workers using the personality assessment inventory. Assessment, 26(5), 759–766.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2018). Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 26–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, A., Bavik, Y. L., Mount, M., & Shao, B. (2021). Data collection via online platforms: Challenges and recommendations for future research. Applied Psychology, 70(3), 1380–1402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ophir, Y., Sisso, I., Asterhan, C. S. C., Tikochinski, R., & Reichart, R. (2020). The Turker Blues: Hidden factors behind increased depression rates among Amazon’s Mechanical Turkers. Clinical Psychological Science, 8(1), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702619865973

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palan, S., & Schitter, C. (2018). Prolific.ac—A subject pool for online experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 17, 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2017.12.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peer, E., Brandimarte, L., Samat, S., & Acquisti, A. (2017). Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.01.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peer, E., Vosgerau, J., & Acquisti, A. (2014). Reputation as a sufficient condition for data quality on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 46(4), 1023–1031. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0434-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pittman, M., & Sheehan, K. (2016). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk a digital sweatshop? Transparency and accountability in crowdsourced online research. Journal of Media Ethics, 31(4), 260–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, C. O. L. H., Outlaw, R., Gale, J. P., & Cho, T. S. (2019). The use of online panel data in management research: A review and recommendations. Journal of Management, 45(1), 319–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318811569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, J., Rosenzweig, C., Moss, A. J., & Litman, L. (2019). Tapped out or barely tapped? Recommendations for how to harness the vast and largely unused potential of the Mechanical Turk participant pool. PLoS ONE, 14(12), e0226394.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Rosioru, F., & Kiss, G. (2013). The changing concept of subordination. Recent Developments in a Labour Law, 1, 150–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 515–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shank, D. B. (2016). Using crowdsourcing websites for sociological research: The case of Amazon Mechanical Turk. The American Sociologist, 47, 47–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • State of Working India. (2021). State of Working India Report. Retrieved February 5, 2023 from https://cse.azimpremjiuniversity.edu.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/SWI2021_August_WEB.pdf

  • Stone, A. A., Walentynowicz, M., Schneider, S., Junghaenel, D. U., & Wen, C. K. (2019). MTurk participants have substantially lower evaluative subjective wellbeing than other survey participants. Computers in Human Behavior, 94, 1–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • StrideOne. (2021). Start-up economy report 2022. Retrieved February 6, 2023 from https://origin.strideone.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Startup-Economy-Report-2022-by-StrideOne.pdf

  • Visser, M., & Arnold, T. C. (2022). Recognition and work in the platform economy: A normative reconstruction. Philosophy of Management, 21(1), 31–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Walter, S. L., Seibert, S. E., Goering, D., & O’Boyle, E. H. (2019). A tale of two sample sources: Do results from online panel data and conventional data converge? Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(4), 425–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9552-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wessling, K. S., Huber, J., & Netzer, O. (2017). MTurk character misrepresentation: Assessment and solutions. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(1), 211–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, B. (1985). Ethics and the limits of philosophy. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, C. C. (2017). Reclassifying economies by the degree and intensity of informalization: The implications for India. Critical perspectives on work and employment in globalizing India (pp. 113–129). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, V. (2016). On the ethics of crowdsourced research. PS: Political Science & Politics, 49(1), 77–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, A. J., Graham, M., Lehdonvirta, V., & Hjorth, I. (2019). Networked but commodified: The (dis) embeddedness of digital labour in the gig economy. Sociology, 53(5), 931–950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Population Review. (2023a). The Global North. Retrieved February 4, 2023 from https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/global-north-countries

  • World Population Review. (2023b). The Global South. Retrieved February 4, 2023 fromhttps://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/global-south-countries

  • Young, I. M. (2003). Political responsibility and structural injustice. University of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, H., & Fishbach, A. (2016). The pitfall of experimenting on the web: How unattended selective attrition leads to surprising (yet false) research conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(4), 493.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. Profile Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zyphur, M. J., & Pierides, D. C. (2017). Is quantitative research ethical? Tools for ethically practicing, evaluating, and using quantitative research. Journal of Business Ethics, 143, 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

We thank Tracy Wilcox for her co-ordination role during the initial phase of this article.

Funding

No funding was received for this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Peter T. Paul College of Business and Economics, University of New Hampshire, 10 Garrison Ave, Durham, NH, 03824, USA

    Shuili Du

  2. UWA Business School, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Hwy, Crawley, WA, 6009, Australia

    Mayowa T. Babalola

  3. Organizational Behaviour Area, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad, 380015, India

    Premilla D’Cruz

  4. Louvain School of Management, Université catholique de Louvain, Bâtiment Collège des Doyens, Place des Doyens, 1, 1348, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

    Edina Dóci

  5. Department of Psychological and Behavioral Science, London School of Economics, Hughton Street, London, WC2A 2AE, UK

    Lucia Garcia-Lorenzo

  6. Birmingham Business School, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK

    Louise Hassan

  7. Grenoble Ecole de Management and IREGE, 12 Rue Pierre Semard 38000, Grenoble, France

    Gazi Islam

  8. Melbourne Business School, The University of Melbourne, 200 Leicester Street, Carlton, VIC, 3053, Australia

    Alexander Newman

  9. Organizational Behaviour Area, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad, 380015, India

    Ernesto Noronha

  10. BI Norwegian Business School, Nydalsveien 37, 0484, Oslo, Norway

    Suzanne van Gils

Authors
  1. Shuili Du
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mayowa T. Babalola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Premilla D’Cruz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Edina Dóci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lucia Garcia-Lorenzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Louise Hassan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Gazi Islam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Alexander Newman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Ernesto Noronha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Suzanne van Gils
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shuili Du.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This paper does not involve human participants.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Editors at the Journal of Business Ethics are blinded from decisions on manuscripts on which they are listed as authors. Such manuscripts are handled by an independent editor at the journal.

The original version of this article was revised: Modifications have been made to the author names and affiliations of Mayowa T. Babalola, Edina Dóci and Alexander Newman. Full information regarding the corrections made can be found in the correction for this article.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Du, S., Babalola, M.T., D’Cruz, P. et al. The Ethical, Societal, and Global Implications of Crowdsourcing Research. J Bus Ethics (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05604-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05604-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation