Crowdfunding Innovative Ideas: How Incremental and Radical Innovativeness Influence Funding Outcomes

By C. Chan, Annaleena Parhankangas. 2017

236 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Accounting, Economics and Econometrics, Management Information Systems

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/df39418d0bbc560c281a4231bc92bf1790e2701c

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

1. Jeremy C. Short
2. Thomas H. Allison
3. A. Mckenny
4. Dave J. Ketchen
5. R. Duane Ireland
6. Rotem Shneor
7. A. Vik
8. Tobias Regner

In Economics and Econometrics

1. Rotem Shneor
2. Thomas H. Allison
3. Dave J. Ketchen
4. Jeremy C. Short
5. A. Vik
6. R. Duane Ireland
7. Tobias Regner
8. Paolo Crosetto

In Management Information Systems

1. Rotem Shneor
2. Thomas H. Allison
3. Jeremy C. Short
4. A. Vik
5. Tobias Regner
6. Paolo Crosetto
7. Dave J. Ketchen
8. A. Mckenny

Citations in the corpus

• It's never too late: Funding dynamics and self pledges in reward-based crowdfunding (2018, background): “Having a strong start is almost universally leading to success, consistent with the findings of Colombo et al. [2015], but the converse is not true: a slow start can still lead to success in a relevant percentage of cases.”
• Research on Crowdfunding: Reviewing the (Very Recent) past and Celebrating the Present (2017, background): “156 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE Chan and Parhankangas (2017) explore the role of innovativeness in crowdfunding outcomes.”
• User entrepreneurs' multiple identities and crowdfunding performance: Effects through product innovativeness, perceived passion, and need similarity (2019, unknown): “Two recent crowdfunding studies also used the same scale to measure perceived entrepreneurial passion (Chan and Parhankangas, 2017; Davis et al., 2017).”
• How Should Crowdfunding Research Evolve? A Survey of the Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice Editorial Board (2017, background): “…a key question within crowdfunding research to date (e.g., Allison, Davis, Short, & Webb, 2015; Calic & Mosakowski, 2016; Moss, Neubaum, & Meyskens, 2015) and interest in this question continues to grow (e.g., Chan & Parhankangas, 2017, this issue; Josefy, Albert, Dean, & Fitza, 2017, this issue).”
• Funding the story of hybrid ventures: Crowdfunder lending preferences and linguistic hybridity (2017, unknown): “, 2014), and crowdfunding campaigns (Chan and Parhankangas, 2017).”
• Crowdfunding success: a systematic literature review 2010–2017 (2020, background): “…require human evaluation rather than public data scraping, with a few available examples including evaluations of - creativity (e.g. Davis et al., 2017), innovativeness (e.g. Chan and Parhankangas, 2017), quality (e.g. Calic and Mosakowski, 2016) and scalability (e.g. Lukkarinen et al., 2016).”