The taxonomy of Crowdfunding An actualized overview of the development of internet crowdfunding models
ion signify formulating a general description of the research topic through generating categories. The abstraction process continues as far as possible to find subordinate categories (See figure 5) (Elo Kyngas, 2008) The taxonomy of crowdfunding 19 Figure 5: The abstraction process involves finding as many subcategories as possible. (Elo Kyngas, 2008) For presenting data figures are useful and graphical representations can take on many forms and are only limited by the author. One common qualitatively oriented display method is concept mapping which shows the relationships among concepts. These concepts are usually represented as boxes or circles that are connected to each other with for example arrows. (Elo Kyngas, 2008) This is how the Taxonomy of this study has been put together. 3.2 The data of this study This study strived to include as many crowdfunding platforms as possible. The two most extensive and comprehensive listings of CFPs and crowdfunding projects found online at the time of the study were two separate list published on Wikipedia. The first list is a Wikipedia "category page" where all Wikipedia pages linked to the category of "crowdfunding platforms" are shown. "Category:Crowdfunding platforms," 2017) This is a function Wikipedia offers the creator/creators of a Wikipedia page which allows for categorization of a page. With this in mind there are probably several Wikipedia pages of CFPs that have not been categorized under "Crowdfunding platforms" by their creators. Still many pages have been, and the list in question provided 82 crowdfunding platforms from all over the world. Of those 82 platforms, 22 where not included in this study. The reason for this is (1) that seven of the links where defunct (2) one platform was on the verge of dissolving and (3) fifteen platforms wouldn't fit into this study's definition of crowdfunding as ".communicated broadly, via an open call, in a forum where the call can be evaluated by a large group of individuals, the crowd, generally taking place on the Internet." (Massolution, 2015, p. 34) These fifteen excluded platform's webpages most commonly offered some sort of platform or software program for accredited investors. If these The taxonomy of crowdfunding 20 fourteen platforms still would have been included in the analysis of this study, they most likely would have fitted into the criteria for equity based crowdfunding and lending based crowdfunding. The second list used in this study is a Wikipedia page under the category of "Crowdfunded projects" called "List of highest funded crowdfunding projects" The list shows 174 of the highest funded crowdfunding campaigns and the platforms these campaigns where executed on. "List of highest funded crowdfunding," 2019) Most of the platforms on this list were represented on the first list but additional eight CFPs were extracted and added to the study. Some of the projects on the second list turned out to have had their respective campaign executed not on a platform per se, but on their webpage, and was therefore not included in the study. 3.3 The method of this study The study followed a deductive approach because of its base in prior research (See figure 6) There were three phases of the study that are described below. Figure 6: The red part of the model shows the deductive approach taken by this study. (Elo Kyngas, 2008) The taxonomy of crowdfunding 21 3.3.1 Preparation phase In the preparation phase data was gathered by collecting as many url:s for crowdfunding platforms as possible. Then all possible categories of crowdfunding models were gathered from prior research on crowdfunding. The research on crowdfunding was found through Libsearch and Google scholar. 3.3.2 Organizing phase In the organizing phase the definitions of crowdfunding models across different studies and reports was summarized into representable generic definitions of the models (presented in the theory chapter of this study) Then a deductive qualitative content analysis of the crowdfunding platforms was carried out in order to attempt to categorize each platform to the correct model in accordance with the model's generic definition. The result was put in a table and two different diagrams to get an overview of the data analysed. The platforms that did not meet the criteria of any of the defined models were separately analysed to see if they at all could be considered crowdfunding according to this study's definition. If they met the criteria for crowdfunding an analysis of what they constituted and how they could be defined was made. The term "ICO" turned out to have been subject to earlier research but not included in the crowdfunding research, therefor theory on ICOs and the technology behind it was added in the theory chapter. 3.3.3 Reporting phase The new models for crowdfunding found in this study were reported and discussed through a taxonomy showing the proposed exchange between campaign owner. The two superordinate categories of crowdfunding in prior research were discussed and questioned and instead three superordinate categories were proposed. The updated taxonomy on crowdfunding was naturally based on the result of the analysis of all 67 crowdfunding platforms in this study. The way it was constructed was thru a concept mapping. Arrows was used to show the relationship between different models. Colours was used to differentiate the three new superordinate categories of models from each other as well as showing how certain crowdfunding models can actually belong to two categories. This concept mapping of a taxonomy was done in accordance with the theory on abstraction and concept mapping. The taxonomy of crowdfunding 22 3.4 Selection and failure This study wanted a large selection of crowdfunding platforms in order to make the analysis of which crowdfunding models are being used today as correct as possible. The most extensive lists found online where the two lists on Wikipedia. It is likely to assume that the platforms listed on those two webpages are still only a portion of all the crowdfunding platforms that exists today. Therefor it is likely that there is some failure in this study since the data don't represent all crowdfunding platforms online. A more extensive study would be required to give a more accurate picture. However, the platforms used in this study are probably among the largest and most widely known. The Wikipedia website may not be listing all existing platforms but the mechanisms behind the website with its open editable content makes it a magnet for information on such things as internet websites and platforms. With regards to selection of theory and related work it is important to note that a substantial portion of information in this study has come from the The Crowdfunding Industry Report by the organization Massolution (2015) The organization describes itself as a ".research and advisory firm that is pioneering the use of crowd solutions in government, institutions and in enterprises." (Massolution, 2015, p. 33) Their latest report from 2015 is a comprehensive report that covers a lot of areas when it comes to crowdfunding. The method used by the report has mainly been an industry survey conducted via the website crowdsourcing.org that received responses from 463 active crowdfunding platforms worldwide. (Massolution, 2015) The report however is not a peer reviewed report produced by any university. Still The Crowdfunding Industry Report is widely cited in academic research on crowdfunding. Research that cites it includes International perspectives on crowdfunding by Meric et al. (2016) The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study by Mollick (2014) Crowdfunding and the Energy Sector by Candelise (2015) and Improving the role of equity crowdfunding in Europe's capital markets by Wilson, Testoni Marco (2014) Since it is cited widely in prior research this study has found it relevant to include it as part of that prior research. However, this study never entirely leans itself on the report without back up from other academic studies. Although an exception to that is when it comes to the "hybrid" model of crowdfunding. The Crowdfunding Industry Report is the only found study that mentions the "hybrid" model. This study wanted to test that model, as well as every other crowdfunding model found across prior research, in the analysis of crowdfunding platforms. No research dating back before 2014 have been included in this study in order to include as upto date research as possible on crowdfunding platforms. The taxonomy of crowdfunding 23 3.5 Validity and reliability This study aims to achieve high validity and reliability. A wide set of theory on crowdfunding and its different models was the basis for a valid and reliable analysis. The study has aimed to find as many different models and taxonomies for crowdfunding as possible. In some studies, certain models where mentioned that where not mentioned in other studies and vice versa. None of the taxonomies found included every single model described across all different studies gathered. When all models found in prior studies where collected, this study had a set of models that was therefore more diverse than any prior taxonomy. It was also important, for reliabilityreasons, to extract a suitable generic definition of all crowdfunding models across prior studies. Although the definitions where similar across studies, some definitions where viewed as more precise and therefore included by this study. This could be argued to have been somewhat arbitrary choices made by this study, but the aim has been at making those choices as careful as possible. 3.6 Method discussion There are advantages of applying a content analysis, but there are also some limitations to the method and important weaknesses that should be highlighted. One weakness is that qualitative content analysis is a very flexible method, which means that there are no rigid sys