[nfais-l] NFAIS Enotes, September 2011

[Jill O'Neill]

NFAIS Enotes, September 2011

Written and Compiled by Jill O'Neill

 

You've Unlocked the Rookie Badge: Gamification as a Trending Topic

 

"You've unlocked the Rookie Badge!"  This was the happy sign that greeted me
when I arrived on the Seriosity blog.  Byron Reeves and J. Leighton Read
have co-authored the book, Total Engagement (Harvard Business School Press,
2010), and their marketing blog in support of that title awards the first
time visitor a badge with encouragement to "earn more mojo." The idea behind
such a badge is that the warm fuzzy feeling I get from such public
recognition is additional encouragement to buy and read their book. 

 

The concept behind this is an old one. Reward desired behavior. You may have
noticed in passing back in July of this year an announcement from Google
that they were adding badges to their News site. Read a sufficient number of
news stories via that portal about a particular subject and the system
awards you a medal. I quickly achieved a bronze medal just for reading two
or three articles about the announcement, but have yet to achieve silver for
subsequent visits (see announcement in Information Week at: . 

http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/google/231001919). As the
Information Week article indicates, Google's gamification of the site is
aimed at persuading users to visit the news site more frequently, to attract
their friends to the site (betting that friends will want to compete and
earn even more badges to show each other up), and to fuel Google's future
activities with even more behavioral data.  

 

Behind the techniques and theory of gamification, there is a serious field
of research. It is known as game mechanics and the currently accepted
definition of game mechanics was established by Ralph Koster in his book, A
Theory of Fun for Game Design, (Paraglyph Press, 2004). He defines them as
"rule based systems / simulations that facilitate and encourage a user to
explore and learn the properties of their possibility space through the use
of feedback mechanisms."  Put that way, it doesn't sound particularly
nefarious.  

 

Gamification (or game mechanics) is a field of serious consideration by
researchers operating in the field of computer-human interaction (see:
http://gamification-research.org/2011/06/chi-2011-paper-gleanings/).  The
objective is increased engagement in an online environment, modification
and/or instillation of behaviors, and stimulation of innovation. 

 

In April 2011, Gartner Research published a report that indicated the
expectation that by 2015, more than 50% of organizations that manage
innovation processes would gamify such processes and more than 70% of the
Global 2000 organizations would have at least one gamified application (see:
http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1629214).  More information about how
Gartner believes business enterprises should view gamification may be found
in their Gamification Primer at
http://www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?id=1528016. 

 

Gamification is currently applied to a truly diverse range of daily
environments, from call centers
(http://thenextweb.com/la/2011/08/26/how-chilean-born-arcaris-is-bringing-ga
mification-to-call-centers/) all the way to newspapers
(http://newsonomics.com/the-newsonomics-of-gamification-and-civilization/).
The technique can even be employed to educate users about difficult online
policy concepts such as privacy (see: http://www.zynga.com/privacy/). In
relating it most immediately to this community, one might point to the use
of gamification in cracking an AIDS protein puzzle (see:
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2011/09/gamers-help-crack-aids-
protein.html).

 

Benign use of gamification is primarily aimed at supporting greater
engagement of an individual in the achievement of a greater goal. Picking up
on this, Educause published a "7 Things" piece regarding gamification,
discussing its use in such high-profile entities as Dartmouth, Pepperdine,
and the Rochester Institute of Technology. Gamification in the educational
sector, according to Educause, "has the potential to help build connections
among members of the academic community, drawing in shy students, supporting
collaboration and engendering interest in course content that students might
not have otherwise explored."
(http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7075.pdf) 

 

Dr. Michael Wu, Principal Scientist of Analytics at Lithium Technologies,
Inc. (a software metrics provider that supports corporate clients in using
gamification for enterprise purposes) has written a brief series expanding
on the current definition and application of gamification to business and
societal concerns: 

(1)
http://lithosphere.lithium.com/t5/Building-Community-the-Platform/What-is-Ga
mification-Really/ba-p/30447

(2)
http://lithosphere.lithium.com/t5/Building-Community-the-Platform/The-Gaming
-Industry-Gamification-and-Work/ba-p/30451 and

(3)
http://lithosphere.lithium.com/t5/Building-Community-the-Platform/Gamificati
on-beyond-Business-and-Future-Challenges/ba-p/30453

In the first of the above entries, Wu defines gamification as: the use of
game attributes to drive game-like player behavior in a non-game context.
This definition has three components:

1.	"The use of game attributes," which includes game
mechanics/dynamics, game design principles, gaming psychology, player
journey, game play scripts and storytelling, and/or any other aspects of
games
2.	"To drive game-like player behavior," such as engagement,
interaction, addiction, competition, collaboration, awareness, learning,
and/or any other observed player behavior during game play
3.	"In a non-game context," which can be anything other than a game
(e.g. education, work, health and fitness, community participation, civic
engagement, volunteerism, etc.)

 

Wu offered some further interesting insights at the recent Gamification
Summit:

http://www.slideshare.net/mich8elwu/2011-0915-magic-potion-of-gamification

 

It is important to note, however, that not all researchers believe that
gamification is a serious field of study.  Georgia Institute of Technology
researcher, Ian Bogost, in addressing the Wharton Gaming Symposium was
particularly scathing, saying in so many words, "Gamification is Bullshit"
(see : http://www.bogost.com/blog/gamification_is_bullshit.shtml).  In
particular, the comments appended there indicate the broad range of
attitudes towards gamification as worthwhile or exploitative. Bogost objects
on the grounds that marketing professionals using gamification techniques
are trivializing the very serious aspects of social interactive design,
online narrative, and artificial intelligence usage to which game mechanics
may be applied. Reviewer Sebastian Deterding in critiquing a recent
publication from O'Reilly Books offered an even better and well-documented
commentary on cheap gamification approaches at
http://gamification-research.org/2011/09/a-quick-buck-by-copy-and-paste/.
Tim O'Reilly (naturally) countered at
https://plus.google.com/107033731246200681024/posts/TFvQ2FDTKy5?hl=en.
Poignantly ironic is the fact that Bogost is primarily known outside of
academia as the creator of the Facebook game, Cow Clicker, a game that was
intended to satirize the infamous social games on platforms like Facebook,
used for gathering data about users and their network (see:
http://kotaku.com/5846080/the-life+changing-20-rightward+facing-cow).

 

Clearly, gamification is a double-edged sword. Whether organizations are
gathering user data for purposes of commercial exploitation (as in the
instance of Facebook's social gaming) or for the purpose of fostering a
better user experience, balancing on the sword's blade requires finesse (and
a clear sense of the objective).  

 

While acknowledging gamification as a trend in 2011, I probably wouldn't
have seen it as particularly applicable to NFAIS member organizations,
except insofar as it relates to the need for designing more compelling user
experiences. I note this quote from a piece that appeared on the Mashable
site, "The key to solving the problems of building community engagement is
to focus on humans as first priority. Not technology, not buttons, not
widgets, Today's community wants to engage around your content and they'll
do it on your site when provided with a human experience that truly
engages." (see:
http://mashable.com/2011/08/19/community-content-publishers/).  That same
essay closes with the following recommendation: ".have a goal of enabling
people to engage in the ways that they want. The content itself should be
the hub for web discussion, and not just another spoke on the wheel. These
practices will increase the value of your community, your content and your
brand."

 

Platform providers want to both attract users to their content as well as
foster the engagement that arises from conversations surrounding that
content. Where businesses feel it is imperative to know precisely who is
commenting and engaging with content, individuals question whether that is
truly needful. When the National Geographic Society acquired the community
site, ScienceBlogs, and announced that they would no longer host
pseudonymous blogs, many departed the platform, noting that they weren't
troubled themselves by pseudonyms. "Credibility and authority are not
automatically conferred by name, degree or title" wrote Jessica Palmer, a
Ph.D. in Molecular Biology, "Pseudonymous science bloggers can, and do,
acquire reputational authority - but that authority is based on their work,
not their names." (see:
http://scienceblogs.com/bioephemera/2011/09/anonymity_among_science_blogge.p
hp).

 

The community confers authority and value, not the brand or platform. But
from the content and platform provider view, value can be enhanced if the
community will only cooperate. 

 

David Smith of CABI wrote a stellar piece for the Scholarly Kitchen blog
entitled It's About Time We Discussed The Business of Identity (see:
http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2011/09/27/its-about-time-we-discussed-th
e-business-of-identity/).  He tied the gathering of user data and the use of
screen names and pseudonyms to identity and reputation in the scholarly
arena. He envisioned one possible future for use of the data gleaned from
the identity disambiguation system, ORCID, if user data were used in the
context of formal work. 

 

The researchers wake in the morning and pick up their mobile devices.
They've already configured it with their ORCID credentials so the device can
either supply them upon request, or any read/note/store applications can
make use of the same credentials in order to allow them to get on with the
business of keeping up with the competition. Speaking of which, there's a
competitive intelligence application that keeps an eye on the outputs of
competing researchers. Overnight, it has run a series of searches and sorted
and categorised the results for them to scan though. It's learned what areas
they like to pay most attention to. Some important items have already had
various sections of text and imagery highlighted for closer inspection. Some
articles and snippets of information are queued for later consumption,
others are tagged to be distributed to the researcher's lab workers.

 

David is suggesting that by permitting organizations to leverage our real
world (work) identities, our social graphs, and our search history, those
organizations (among them, NFAIS member organizations) will provide us with
a more intelligent current awareness and filtering of quality content. And,
in his view, users are more likely to adopt those services that show a clear
benefit of this sort. Our cultural anxiety over who-knows-what about various
activities will dissipate, once we've grasped how much better it makes the
user experience.  

 

Matt Ingram of GigaOm believes that use of gamification techniques may help
us to alleviate that cultural anxiety, calming those who insist on
maintaining some level of privacy even as organizations gather the data to
improve the user experience. He points to the same real name/pseudonym
controversy that David does and suggests that social protocols influenced by
game mechanics could both encourage desirable user behaviors while allowing
users choice in self-identification (see: 

http://gigaom.com/2011/09/06/can-gamification-help-solve-the-online-anonymit
y-problem/. 

My moment of light came when Ingram referenced the need he had to explain to
a younger colleague what he meant. The younger man thought about Ingram's
proposal for reputation metrics for a minute and said, "Oh, you mean like
leveling up in World of Warcraft?!" 

 

Badges for accessing Scopus or JSTOR? Of course not! That said, a closer
look at gamification and clear thinking about user mindset and motivation
may prompt product development managers to think more deeply about ways of
engaging knowledge workers in the modern information environment.  We can
support interest in authoritative content and foster understanding of
credibility more successfully if we examine what is behind the trend of
gamification and build on it in creative and innovative ways.  

 

2011 SPONSORS

 

Access Innovations, Inc.

Accessible Archives, Inc.

American Psychological Association/PsycINFO

American Theological Library Association

CAS

CrossRef

Data Conversion Laboratory

Defense Technical Information Center

Elsevier

Getty Research Institute

H. W. Wilson

Information Today, Inc.

International Food Information Services

Philosopher's Information Center

ProQuest

Really Strategies, Inc.

TEMIS, Inc.

Thomson Reuters IP & Science

Unlimited Priorities Corporation

 

 

Jill O'Neill

Director, Planning & Communication

NFAIS

(v) 215-893-1561

(email) jilloneill at nfais.org

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lyralists.lyrasis.org/pipermail/nfais-l/attachments/20111013/1a7e22eb/attachment.html>