Because science is awesome

Tinati, Ramine; Luczak‐Roesch, Markus; Simperl, Elena; Hall, Wendy

doi:10.1145/2908131.2908151

Cited by 43 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The findings of this study also point to the value of sharing and openness for sustaining a healthy community, a notion consistent with the importance of a sense of inclusion for both intrinsically and extrinsically motivating and encouraging participants to continue contributing to GZ (Greenhill et al 2016). In relation to Foldit, our findings resonate with the study of three gamified citizen science projects conducted by Tinati et al (2016), who found that extrinsic motivations such as having fun and the ability to compete with others, along with intrinsic motivations such as helping to improve scientific knowledge, were important.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Getting it Right or Being Top Rank: Games in Citizen Science

Ponti

Hillman

Kullenberg

et al. 2018

CSTP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of games in citizen science is growing, but can create tension as gaming and science can be seen as incompatible areas of activity. For example, the motivations for winning a game and scientific pursuit of knowledge may be seen as contrary. Over a one-year period, we conducted a virtual ethnographic study of the public forums of two online citizen science projects, Foldit and Galazy Zoo, the first a project in which gaming is an explicit design feature and the second in which it is not. The aim was to provide a nuanced view of how participants topicalize and respond to tensions between gaming and science. Thematic analysis of discussion forum posts suggests that participants in the two projects respond differently to the tension. By unpacking participant responses to the tension between games and science, our study highlights that citizen science projects using games are not just about fun. To enroll and retain volunteers, these projects also must recognize and manage the implicit normative scientific ideals that participants bring with them to a project. We further conclude that ideals of science embraced by citizen scientists appear to influence the reasons why they participate, either emphasizing equality, like in Galazy Zoo, or meritocracy, like in Foldit.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Getting it Right or Being Top Rank: Games in Citizen Science

Ponti

Hillman

Kullenberg

et al. 2018

CSTP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, Hamari [43] study shows that badges can impact on social comparison and this subsequently mediates user activity. Other studies show instead how social motivation and a sense of community influence data collection in the context of crowdsourcing [61,65]. It is evident in the review that the specific domains and context sometimes regulate the use of social components as psychological mediators.…”

Section: Engagement/flowmentioning

confidence: 98%

An interdisciplinary perspective on gamification: Mechanics, psychological mediators and outcomes

Helmefalk

2019

IJSG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As gamification literature has matured, the gap between how different domains apply the theory has widened. This has positioned gamification as being more dependent on context, rather than being an independent theory per se. To address this notion, three concepts are identified as being central for how a gamificator, the one responsible for gamifying, gamifies a process. These are mechanics, mental mediators and desired outcomes. Following this logic, a review was conducted using 77 (n) articles across seven disciplines, namely health and wellness, crowdsourcing, sustainability, computer science, software development, business, and tourism. The findings highlighted potentially causal and correlational relationships between several concepts when gamifying a situation, context, service or/and process. This research presents an alternative and uniform perspective on the broad gamification research to better understand how gamification functions and can be employed to impact various outcomes. Furthermore, this research contributes to this rather eclectic domain, presenting a more categorized view in showing domain-specific mechanics and how these can be employed for empirical testing. Lastly, the conceptual model can be modified, employed and adjusted to investigate various effects of gamification on outcomes.

show abstract

“…Y. Lee et al, 2013;Y. Liu, Alexandrova, Nakajima et al, 2011;Machnik et al, 2015;Martella et al, 2015;Massung et al, 2013;Melenhorst et al, 2015;Nose and Hishiyama, 2013;Packham and Suleman, 2015;Pothineni et al, 2014;Prandi et al, 2016;Preist et al, 2014;Prestopnik and Tang, 2015;Roengsamut et al, 2015;Runge et al, 2015;Saito et al, 2014;Simões and De Amicis, 2016;Snijders et al, 2015;Sørensen et al, 2016;Talasila et al, 2016;Tinati et al, 2016;Vasilescu et al, 2014 37 33.6 Empirical studies with no results on how gamification works in crowdsourcing Bentzien et al, 2013;Brenner et al, 2014;Brito et al, 2015;Cao et al, 2015;Chamberlain, 2014;Cucari et al, 2016;Deng et al, 2016;Dos Santos et al, 2015;Harris, 2014;He et al, 2014;Inaba et al, 2015;Kacorri et al, 2014;Kurita et al, 2016;Lauto and Valentin, 2016;Lessel et al, 2015;Mason et al, 2012;Nagai et al, 2014;Nunzio et al, 2016;Riegler et al, 2015;…”

Section: Descriptive Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The design of a leaderboard implementation seems, therefore, highly context-dependent. However, Kobayashi et al (2015), T. Y. , and Tinati et al (2016) note that many crowdsourcing approaches follow the '90-9-1' participation rule, implying that only 1% of the users perform almost all of the actions, and consequently, long-term leaderboards that motivate the 1% might therefore also be suitable for some crowdsourcing implementations. In contrast to rankings that generally encourage workers to compare their efforts with others, level systems could be used that motivate by visualizing individual achievements.…”

Section: Recommendations For Designing Gamified Crowdsourcing Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Altmeyer et al, 2016;Brenner et al, 2014;Carlier et al, 2016;Deng et al, 2016;Dergousoff and Mandryk, 2015;Feyisetan et al, 2015;Itoko et al, 2014;Kobayashi et al, 2015;Kurita et al, 2016;Lessel et al, 2015;Mason et al, 2012;Riegler et al, 2015;Roengsamut et al, 2015;Rosani et al, 2015; Runge et al, 2015 15 Reporting location-based informationBowser et al, 2013; Brito et al, 2015; De Franga et al, 2015; Goncalves et al, 2014; Kawajiri et al, 2014; Y. Liu, Alexandrova, Nakajima et al, 2011*; Martella et al, 2015; Massung et al, 2013; Prandi et al, location tagging, reporting of location-based information, on-location experience, taking location-based photos 2016; Preist et al, 2014; Sheng, 2013; Simões and De Amicis, 2016; Talasila et al, 2016; Uzun et al, 2013 Answering questions/sharing knowledge answering user-generated questions, providing feedback, knowledge-sharing in communities Ipeirotis and Gabrilovich, 2014; Inaba et al, 2015; Y. Liu, Alexandrova, Nakajima et al, 2011*; Machnik et al, 2015; Pothineni et al, 2014; Vasilescu et al, 2014 6 Creative creation work idea creation, algorithm development, requirements elicitation Bentzien et al, 2013; Choi et al, 2014; Dos Santos et al, 2015; Lauto and Valentin, 2016; Snijders et al, 2015; Yakushin and Lee, 2014 6 Text annotation work text annotation, medical text annotation, biological data annotation Cao et al, 2015; Chamberlain, 2014; Dumitrache et al, 2013; Nose and Hishiyama, 2013; Ustalov, 2015 5 Assessment work relationship building, relevance assessment, classification work, decision-making Eickhoff et al, 2012; Harris, 2014; Melenhorst et al, 2015; Prestopnik and Tang, 2015; Yu et al, 2015 5 Searching for and/or optimization of tasks document searching, searching for digital profiles, finding optimal solutionsHe et al, 2014; T. Y. Lee et al, 2013;Nunzio et al, 2016;Sørensen et al, 2016;Tinati et alno clear work description provided, usergenerated tasks, social activitiesCucari et al, 2016;J. J. Lee et al, 2013;Nagai et al, 2014; Sakamoto and Nakajima, 2014 4 References in bold refer to studies in which empirical results about gamification have been reported.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Gamified crowdsourcing: Conceptualization, literature review, and future agenda

Morschheuser

Hamari

Koivisto

et al. 2017

International Journal of Human-Computer Studies

244

180

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two parallel phenomena are gaining attention in human-computer interaction research: gamification and crowdsourcing. Because crowdsourcing's success depends on a mass of motivated crowdsourcees, crowdsourcing platforms have increasingly been imbued with motivational design features borrowed from games; a practice often called gamification. While the body of literature and knowledge of the phenomenon have begun to accumulate, we still lack a comprehensive and systematic understanding of conceptual foundations, knowledge of how gamification is used in crowdsourcing, and whether it is effective. We first provide a conceptual framework for gamified crowdsourcing systems in order to understand and conceptualize the key aspects of the phenomenon. The paper's main contributions are derived through a systematic literature review that investigates how gamification has been examined in different types of crowdsourcing in a variety of domains. This meticulous mapping, which focuses on all aspects in our framework, enables us to infer what kinds of gamification efforts are effective in different crowdsourcing approaches as well as to point to a number of research gaps and lay out future research directions for gamified crowdsourcing systems. Overall, the results indicate that gamification has been an effective approach for increasing crowdsourcing participation and the quality of the crowdsourced work; however, differences exist between different types of crowdsourcing: the research conducted in the context of crowdsourcing of homogenous tasks has most commonly used simple gamification implementations, such as points and leaderboards, whereas crowdsourcing implementations that seek diverse and creative contributions employ gamification with a richer set of mechanics.

show abstract

Because science is awesome

Cited by 43 publications

References 38 publications

Getting it Right or Being Top Rank: Games in Citizen Science

Getting it Right or Being Top Rank: Games in Citizen Science

An interdisciplinary perspective on gamification: Mechanics, psychological mediators and outcomes

Gamified crowdsourcing: Conceptualization, literature review, and future agenda

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About