A Consensus Against False Dichotomies in Crowdfunding?

ABSTRACT Our opening pillar article for this special issue argued that the disruptive benefits of digital crowdfunding have been overstated. Responses to our piece draw on diverse cases and perspectives, inviting the field to both broaden its theoretical scope and expand its appreciation of crowdfunding's wide‐ranging empirical manifestations. The exchange also surfaces valuable insights about the current state of crowdfunding scholarship, suggesting a consensus against understanding crowdfunding in terms of simple dichotomies, like good versus bad or oppressive versus liberating, while revealing generative frictions among scholars' approaches. We identify three unresolved questions about the nature of crowdfunding that emerge from the responses: What is crowdfunding? What does crowdfunding do? How is crowdfunding actually practiced? Answering these questions requires confronting essential debates in the literature, including about crowdfunding's relationship to autonomy, resistance, and structural change. In search of these answers, the responses highlight the need for expanded empirical research into additional aspects of the phenomenon across different contexts, including the elite networks shaping crowdfunding platforms and ordinary users' perspectives on agency and resistance. Overall, the dialog calls for future research that develops the field's critical edge while appreciating the diversity of practices that crowdfunding involves.