skip to main content
10.1145/3290605.3300690acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Gamification in Science: A Study of Requirements in the Context of Reproducible Research

Published:02 May 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

The need for data preservation and reproducible research is widely recognized in the scientific community. Yet, researchers often struggle to find the motivation to contribute to data repositories and to use tools that foster reproducibility. In this paper, we explore possible uses of gamification to support reproducible practices in High Energy Physics. To understand how gamification can be effective in research tools, we participated in a workshop and performed interviews with data analysts. We then designed two interactive prototypes of a research preservation service that use contrasting gamification strategies. The evaluation of the prototypes showed that gamification needs to address core scientific challenges, in particular the fair reflection of quality and individual contribution. Through thematic analysis, we identified four themes which describe perceptions and requirements of gamification in research: Contribution, Metrics, Applications and Scientific practice. Based on these, we discuss design implications for gamification in science.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

paper460.mp4

mp4

290.3 MB

References

  1. ACM. 2018. Artifact Review and Badging. Website. (April 2018). https: //www.acm.org/publications/policies/artifact-review-badging Retrieved September 10, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Monya Baker. 2016. 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature 533, 7604 (2016), 452--454.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Sean Bechhofer, Iain Buchan, David De Roure, Paolo Missier, John Ainsworth, Jiten Bhagat, Philip Couch, Don Cruickshank, Mark Delderfield, Ian Dunlop, Matthew Gamble, Danius Michaelides, Stuart Owen, David Newman, Shoaib Sufi, and Carole Goble. 2013. Why linked data is not enough for scientists. Future Generation Computer Systems 29, 2 (2013), 599--611. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. C. Glenn Begley and Lee M. Ellis. 2012. Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483, 7391 (2012), 531-- 3. arXiv:arXiv:cond-mat/9907372v1Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Khalid Belhajjame, Jun Zhao, Daniel Garijo, Kristina Hettne, Raul Palma, Óscar Corcho, José-Manuel Gómez-Pérez, Sean Bechhofer, Graham Klyne, and Carole Goble. 2014. The Research Object Suite of Ontologies: Sharing and Exchanging Research Data and Methods on the Open Web. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1401.4307 February 2014 (2014), 20. arXiv:1401.4307 http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.4307Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. T. Berners-Lee, R. Cailliau, J .F. Groff, and B. Pollermann. 1992. Worldwide web: The information universe., 52--58 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Ann Blandford, Dominic Furniss, and Stephann Makri. 2016. Qualitative HCI Research: Going Behind the Scenes. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 51--60. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Ronald F Boisvert. 2016. Incentivizing reproducibility. Commun. ACM 59, 10 (2016), 5--5. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Christine L Borgman. 2007. Scholarship in the digital age: information, infrastructure, and the internet. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. A Bowser, D Hansen, J Preece, Y He, C Boston, and J Hammock. 2014. Gamifying citizen science: A study of two user groups. In 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, CSCW 2014. 137--140. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Jailson Brito, Vaninha Vieira, and Adolfo Duran. 2015. Towards a Framework for Gamification Design on Crowdsourcing Systems: The G.A.M.E. Approach. 2015 12th International Conference on Information Technology - New Generations (2015), 445--450. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Huseyin Cavusoglu, Zhuolun Li, and Ke-Wei Huang. 2015. Can Gamification Motivate Voluntary Contributions? Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference Companion on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing - CSCW'15 Companion (2015), 171--174. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. CERN. 2013. The birth of the web. Website. (Dec 2013). http: //cds.cern.ch/record/1998446 Retrieved March 15, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. CERN. 2017. CERN Annual Personnel Statistics 2017. (2017). https: //cds.cern.ch/record/2317058 Personnel Statistics 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Karin Knorr Cetina. 2009. Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Harvard University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Xiaoli Chen, Sünje Dallmeier-Tiessen, Anxhela Dani, Robin Dasler, Javier Delgado Fernández, Pamfilos Fokianos, Patricia Herterich, and Tibor Simko. 2016. CERN Analysis Preservation: A Novel Digital Library Service to Enable Reusable and Reproducible Research. In International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries. Springer, 347--356.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Open Science Collaboration. 2012. An Open, Large-Scale, Collaborative Effort to Estimate the Reproducibility of Psychological Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7, 6 (2012), 657--660.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. J Cowton, S Dallmeier-Tiessen, P Fokianos, L Rueda, P Herterich, J Kuncar, T Simko, and T Smith. 2015. Open Data and Data Analysis Preservation Services for LHC Experiments. 21st International Conference on Computing in High Energy and Nuclear Physics 032030 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Steve Dale. 2014. Gamification: Making work fun, or making fun of work? Business Information Review 31, 2 (2014), 82--90.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Sebastian Deterding, Alessandro Canossa, Casper Harteveld, Seth Cooper, Lennart E Nacke, and Jennifer R Whitson. 2015. Gamifying research: Strategies, opportunities, challenges, ethics. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2421--2424. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Sebastian Deterding, Rilla Khaled, Lennart Nacke, and Dan Dixon. 2011. Gamification: toward a definition. Chi 2011 (2011), 12--15. https: //doi.org/978--1--4503-0268--5/11/0 arXiv:9781450302685Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Alexandra Eveleigh, Charlene Jennett, Stuart Lynn, and Anna L. Cox. 2013. "I want to be a captain! I want to be a captain!": gamification in the old weather citizen science project. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Gameful Design, Research, and Applications - Gamification '13 (2013), 79--82. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Sebastian Feger, Sünje Dallmeier-Tiessen, Pawel Wozniak, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2018. Just Not The Usual Workplace: Meaningful Gamification in Science. Mensch und Computer 2018-Workshopband (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Mathias Fuchs, Sonia Fizek, Paolo Ruffino, Niklas Schrape, et al. 2014. Rethinking gamification. meson press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Mélissa Gaillard and Stefania Pandolfi. 2017. CERN Data Centre passes the 200-petabyte milestone. (Jul 2017). http://cds.cern.ch/record/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Juho Hamari, Jonna Koivisto, and Harri Sarsa. 2014. Does gamification work?--a literature review of empirical studies on gamification. In 2014 47th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS). IEEE, 3025--3034. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Maria-Blanca Ibanez, Angela Di-Serio, and Carlos Delgado-Kloos. 2014. Gamification for Engaging Computer Science Students in Learning Activities: A Case Study. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies 7, 3 (2014), 291--301.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Mallory C Kidwell, Ljiljana B Lazarevic, Erica Baranski, Tom E Hardwicke, Sarah Piechowski, Lina-Sophia Falkenberg, Curtis Kennett, Agnieszka Slowik, Carina Sonnleitner, Chelsey Hess-Holden, et al. 2016. Badges to acknowledge open practices: A simple, low-cost, effective method for increasing transparency. PLoS biology 14, 5 (2016), e1002456.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Janaki Kumar. 2013. Gamification at work: Designing engaging business software. In International conference of design, user experience, and usability. Springer, 528--537. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Zeeya Merali. 2010. Physics: The large human collider., 482--484 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Lennart E. Nacke and Sebastian Deterding. 2017. The maturing of gamification research. Computers in Human Behavior (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Scott Nicholson. 2015. A recipe for meaningful gamification. In Gamification in education and business. Springer, 1--20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Jasmin Niess and Pawel W Wozniak. 2018. Supporting Meaningful Personal Fitness: the Tracker Goal Evolution Model. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 171. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Rita Orji, Gustavo F Tondello, and Lennart E Nacke. 2018. Personalizing persuasive strategies in gameful systems to gamification user types. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 435. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Anisa Rowhani-Farid, Michelle Allen, and Adrian G. Barnett. 2017. What incentives increase data sharing in health and medical research? A systematic review. Research Integrity and Peer Review 2, 1 (2017), 4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Jonathan F Russell. 2013. If a job is worth doing, it is worth doing twice: researchers and funding agencies need to put a premium on ensuring that results are reproducible. Nature 496, 7443 (2013), 7--8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Richard M Ryan and Edward L Deci. 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist 55, 1 (2000), 68.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Michael Sailer, Jan Ulrich Hense, Sarah Katharina Mayr, and Heinz Mandl. 2017. How gamification motivates: An experimental study of the effects of specific game design elements on psychological need satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior 69 (2017), 371--380. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Victoria Stodden and Sheila Miguez. 2014. Best Practices for Computational Science: Software Infrastructure and Environments for Reproducible and Extensible Research. Journal of Open Research Software 2, 1 (2014), 21.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Jakub Swacha and Karolina Muszy'ska. 2016. Design patterns for gamification of work. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality - TEEM '16 (2016), 763--769. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Gustavo F. Tondello, Alberto Mora, and Lennart E. Nacke. 2017. Elements of Gameful Design Emerging from User Preferences. Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play - CHI PLAY '17 (2017), 129--142. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. K. Werbach and D. Hunter. 2012. For the Win: How Game Thinking Can Revolutionize Your Business. Wharton Digital Press. https://books. google.ch/books?id=abg0SnK3XdMCGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Mark D. Wilkinson, Michel Dumontier, IJsbrand Jan Aalbersberg, Gabrielle Appleton, Myles Axton, Arie Baak, Niklas Blomberg, JanWillem Boiten, Luiz Bonino da Silva Santos, Philip E. Bourne, Jildau Bouwman, Anthony J. Brookes, Tim Clark, Mercè Crosas, Ingrid Dillo, Olivier Dumon, Scott Edmunds, Chris T. Evelo, Richard Finkers, Alejandra Gonzalez-Beltran, Alasdair J.G. Gray, Paul Groth, Carole Goble, Jeffrey S. Grethe, Jaap Heringa, Peter A.C 't Hoen, Rob Hooft, Tobias Kuhn, Ruben Kok, Joost Kok, Scott J. Lusher, Maryann E. Martone, Albert Mons, Abel L. Packer, Bengt Persson, Philippe Rocca-Serra, Marco Roos, Rene van Schaik, Susanna-Assunta Sansone, Erik Schultes, Thierry Sengstag, Ted Slater, George Strawn, Morris a. Swertz, Mark Thompson, Johan van der Lei, Erik van Mulligen, Jan Velterop, Andra Waagmeester, Peter Wittenburg, Katherine Wolstencroft, Jun Zhao, and Barend Mons. 2016. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data 3 (2016), 160018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Gamification in Science: A Study of Requirements in the Context of Reproducible Research

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          CHI '19: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
          May 2019
          9077 pages
          ISBN:9781450359702
          DOI:10.1145/3290605

          Copyright © 2019 Owner/Author

          This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 2 May 2019

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          CHI '19 Paper Acceptance Rate703of2,958submissions,24%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format