=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2390/PaperC1
|storemode=property
|title=Motivational, Ethical and Gamification Issues in Crowdsourcing
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2390/PaperC1.pdf
|volume=Vol-2390
|authors=Liam Murray,Marta Giralt
}}
==Motivational, Ethical and Gamification Issues in Crowdsourcing==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2390/PaperC1.pdf
Motivational, Ethical and Gamification Issues in Crowdsourcing
Liam Murray1, Marta Giralt2
School of Modern Languages & Applied Languages
University of Limerick
liam.murray1, marta.giralt2{@ul.ie}
Abstract
This paper investigates a number of important issues related to ethics, motivation and gamification. Gamification has previously been
presented and identified as an area containing high potential for learning (Perry, 2015), and may therefore be judged worthy of
investigation when applying crowdsourcing techniques. In addition, this paper will cover issues related to learner retention and
motivation. We will further pursue this area by including major points on ethical and motivational considerations, drawing upon our
previous research on gamification (Buckley, et al. 2018) and aim to relate them to crowdsourcing.
Keywords: Gamification, Crowdsourcing, Gaming, Motivation
“moved to do something” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 54),
1. Introduction however, it may also be about the “choice” of an action and
the “effort” expended on it (Dörnyei, 2001, p. 7). Whilst
Gamification has been defined as the use of game design
elements in non-game contexts, and has proven to be highly other researchers believe that more importantly than
‘effort’, a player’s in-game behaviour is driven more by
effective in motivating behavioural change. It must be
individual volition than by external factors (Fenouillet,
pointed out that this does not necessarily mean making
everything into a game. By interpreting game elements as Kaplan & Yennek, 2009, p. 49). Therein lies the rub
between ethics, motivation and gamification. In this paper,
“motivational affordances” (Deterding, 2011; Jung,
we will explore and discuss the important implications of
Schneider, & Valacich, 2010; Zhang, 2008), and
formalising the relationship between these identified these three aspects and how they relate to each other and to
crowdsourcing.
elements and motivational affordances, it is our conviction
that gamification can be effectively used to improve
software systems across many different and distinct 2. Background
application domains. Offering as a background to the different aspects that are
The research reported here seeks to illustrate the direct going to be discussed in this paper, we will present the
relationship between game elements and motivation, and outline of the different sections that are covered and
proposes the more systematic employment of a strictly developed in it. With gamification being one of the main
defined type of gamification. concepts and ideas that we are discussing, some definitions
We will show a previously developed framework which need to be considered and briefly examined to set the
linked the most commonly-present game elements with the ground for one of the main questions: “how much
components of a psychological motivational model known gamification is required?” As we are also exploring
as Self-Determination Theory. The ongoing goal is to motivational and ethical issues, it should be noted at the
inform system designers who would seek to leverage the outset that when employing gamification we are attempting
gamification of such game elements what they would need to change or modify a behaviour or behaviours
to employ as motivational affordances. In order to do this, After reviewing various pertinent theories and
we will show comparisons of game elements and a recently terminologies related to game elements within the gaming
established framework, known as GaMDeF - literature, we chose 3 main sources (Fitz-Walter, 2015;
“Gamification–Motivation Design Framework” (Buckley, Seaborn & Fels, 2015; Werbach & Hunter, 2012) to build
DeWille, Exton, Exton, & Murray, 2018). Furthermore, we the GaMDeF (Gamification-Motivation Design
will reveal the various interrelationships that exist within Framework) model which is presented, extended and
game elements. localised here. This consolidated and evaluated framework
However, gamification is not without its critics, as it is brings together 19 game elements with 3 of the main
currently practised in the world of marketing and customer components of motivation. Finally, we will discuss the use
loyalty. Zichermann (2011) believes that he only needs to of gamification and games to collect data generated by
provide users with rewards and status, in order to users as implicit crowdsourcing technique and ethical
encourage them to participate in a system. This reductivist considerations will be debated.
approach to presenting the powerful influence of games as
nothing more than rewards exasperates games critics such
2.1 Definitions
as Bogost (Bogost, 2011, 2014), and Deterding (2011b), At its most basic, we can define gaming as the ‘willing
who sees Zichermann’s approach as allowing customers to acceptance of a challenge’. Ferrara (2013) has
be “(fleeced) to the benefit of the company”, rather than convincingly shown that games “are able to communicate
games that enhance or improve the gaming experience. persuasive messages” (p. 294). While this can be seen as a
Deterding (2011b) goes on to claim that Zichermann lauds negative phenomenon, where innocent game players are
those game designers that “dupe customers”, manipulating exploited by gamification designers, Gee (2016) has long
them to undertake tasks they would not otherwise do, and argued that persuasion can be used for positive behavioural
Bogost (2011) characterises the resultant systems as change. Accordingly, Ramirez and Squire (2014) suggest
“exploitationware” and worse. As regards motivation, this that gamification (the use of game design elements in non-
may be described in its simplest form as the sense of being game contexts) should be an item in an educator’s
EnetCollect WG3 & WG5 Meeting, 24-25 October 2018, Leiden, Netherlands 40
motivational toolbox. The inevitable caveat comes from
Iacovides et al, (2013) who show how games are
increasingly incorporated into online citizen science (CS)
projects as a way of crowdsourcing data; yet the influence
of gamification on volunteer motivations and engagement
in CS projects is still unknown. They found that game
elements are not necessary for attracting new volunteers to
a project; however, they may help to sustain engagement
over time, by allowing volunteers to participate in a range
of social interactions and through enabling meaningful
recognition of achievements. Their findings have also been
strongly supported by evidence from Fort et al. (2017).
2.2 Motivation and self-Determination theory
There are “over twenty internationally recognized theories
of motivation” (Dörnyei, 2001, p.12), but it is way beyond
our scope to cover them all. Instead, we concentrate on
SDT, a theory proposed by Ryan and Deci (2000) which
suggests that Competence (mastery e.g. boss fights),
Autonomy (choice e.g. DownLoadable Content) and
Relatedness (social connection e.g. World of Warcraft or
Fortnite) are the constructs that drive motivation. SDT
extends Constructivism (individual constructing their own
meaning), with the individual being afforded the chance to
experience Autonomy.
Table 2: The consolidated, evaluated GaMDeF (Gamification–
Motivation Design Framework)
When these mental models allow for feelings of
competence, autonomy and relatedness, then the learner is
more heavily involved in their own learning. Games, as
described by Prensky (2003) enable players to build on
their existing knowledge and extend the limits of their
competences. This concept of creating additional
knowledge by repeating previously learned tasks is, of
course, an important part of constructivist learning theory,
where constructivists argue that we bring prior knowledge
to everything that we learn, and it is how this previous
understanding is enveloped into new material which
defines its appropriation.
2.3 Key question: how much gamification is
required?
There is therefore an established direct relationship
between game elements and motivation. A previously
developed framework linked the most commonly present
game elements with the components of a psychological
Table 1: Comparison of Game Elements Mentioned in motivational model known as the Self-Determination
Three Major Sources. Theory. Our aim was to inform system designers seeking
to use gamification about those game elements they would
EnetCollect WG3 & WG5 Meeting, 24-25 October 2018, Leiden, Netherlands 41
need to employ as motivational affordances. We made world motivation in order to create better, more complex
comparisons of game elements and established a and collaborative games for crowdsourcing solutions to
framework, known as GaMDeF - “Gamification– problems. With gamification providing extrinsic
Motivation Design Framework” (Buckley et al, 2018). motivation in our context, we must recognise that games
Here, we will show the various inter-relationships that exist can become inherently addictive for some people. The
in game elements and those which carry most relevance to question then becomes one of changing from reward to
our Working Group 3 area whilst attempting to quantify disruption in one’s personal and professional life. Therein
gamification for our purposes. lie the contradiction and controversy between ethics,
Table 1 reveals the sources upon which was built the initial motivation and gamification.
framework.
Table 2 describes the consolidated, evaluated GaMDeF 4. Conclusions & Questions
(ibid.) but it has also been updated and extended to include The GaMDeF model is intended to inform us primarily
another factor known as DownLoadable Content (DLC).
about game elements which may be important when
This recent development in gaming generates high profits
gamifying types of crowdsourcing tasks. The framework is
for game developers; it may also affect motivation, for not meant to be prescriptive and should be ‘localised’ by
good or bad (McDaniel, 2016). Quantifying the level of
any Working Group wishing to explore gamifying
gamification in a learning or crowdsourcing task is
crowdsourcing tasks. We would end by asking the faux-
ultimately a fungible activity. Each ‘gamified’ activity may naïf question of whether it is possible to gamify everything
be interchangeable with another activity. In the end, there
within our crowdsourcing tasks. In truth, we do not know
may be only two factors which count: effort and reward.
the answer to this. Our tentative proposal would be to
Figure 1 attempts an overview of efforts and rewards in engage effectively with the end-user during the first initial
showing the inter-relationships between game elements.
minutes of exposure with heavily gamified elements.
One may expect this Figure to be updated with more
Following this short period, further lightly gamified
developments in gaming design, but for the moment it activities may be added throughout the process. We cannot
reveals the most salient features in the quantification
ignore the influence and attraction of gamification, yet we
argument for gamifying ‘effort’ and ‘rewards’.
cannot simply accept its design and implementation
uncritically and untested.
5. Bibliographical References
Bogost, I. (2011). Persuasive games: Exploitationware.
Gamasutra. Retrieved from http://www.gamasutra.com/
view/feature/6366/persuasive_games_exploitationware.
php
Bogost, I. (2014). Why Gamification is Bullshit. In S. P.
Walz & S. Deterding (Eds.), The gameful world:
Approaches, issues, applications (pp. 65- 80): Mit Press.
Buckley, J., DeWille, T., Exton, C., Exton, G., & Murray,
L. (2018). A Gamification–Motivation Design
Framework for Educational Software Developers.
Journal of Educational Technology Systems,
0047239518783153.
Deterding, S. (2011). Situated motivational affordances of
game elements: A conceptual model. Paper presented at
Figure 1: Inter-relationships of game elements the Gamification: Using game design elements in non-
gaming contexts, a workshop at CHI.
3. Gamification Issues and Ethical Deterding, S. (2011b). Gamification by design: Response
Concerns to Zichermann. http://gamification-research.org.
Retrieved from http://gamification-research.org/2011/
As already mentioned, motivation is described as being 09/gamification-by-design-response-to-zichermann
“moved to do something” (Ryan & Deci, 2000), but it also Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivation Strategies in the Language
involves the innate willingness of “choice” to perform an Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
action and the amount of “effort” expended on it (Dörnyei, Fenouillet F., Kaplan J., Yennek N. (2009) Serious games
2001) and required by it. For the effort to be genuine, the et motivation. Le Mans. In: S. George, E. Sanchez. (eds.)
task itself must first be authentic, genuine whilst engaging 4ème Conférence francophone sur les Environnements
the learner or practitioner in the ethical acquisition of Informatiques pour l'Apprentissage Humain (EIAH'09),
knowledge. When gamifying, one is intending to change vol. Actes de l'Atelier "Jeux Sérieux: conception et
behaviours and changing behaviours may equate to usages", p. 41–52.
persuading someone to engage whilst offering the player a Ferrara, J. (2013). Games for persuasion: Argumentation,
return or reward on the time invested in playing procedurality, and the lie of gamification. Games and
(Lafourcade & Le Brun, 2014). Dörnyei (ibid), amongst Culture, 8(4), 289-304.
others, has written about extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, Fitz-Walter, Z. J. (2015). Achievement unlocked:
and the question of how much extrinsic motivation is Investigating the design of effective gamification
sufficient. Tuite (2014) has also asked the question of how experiences for mobile applications and devices.
to bring together successfully in-game motivation and real- Queensland University of Technology.
EnetCollect WG3 & WG5 Meeting, 24-25 October 2018, Leiden, Netherlands 42
Fort, K., Guillaume, B., & Lefebvre, N. (2017, April). Who mobile learning-tool. Procedia- Social and Behavioral
wants to play Zombie? A survey of the players on Sciences, 174, 2308-2315.
ZOMBILINGO. In Games4NLP 2017- Using Games Prensky, M. (2003). Digital game-based learning.
and Gamification for Natural Language Processing (p. Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 1(1), 21-21.
2). Ramirez, D., & Squire, K. (2014). Gamification and
Gee, J. P. (2016). Gaming lives in the twenty-first century: learning. In S. Walz & S. Deterding (Eds.), The gameful
Literate connections. NYC: Springer. world: Approaches, issues, applications (pp. 629-651).
Iacovides, I., Jennett, C., Cornish-Trestrail, C., & Cox, A. Cambridge:: MIT Press.
L. (2013). Do games attract or sustain engagement in Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic
citizen science?: A study of volunteer motivations. Paper motivations: Classic definitions and new directions.
presented at the CHI'13 Extended Abstracts on Human Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67.
Factors in Computing Systems. Seaborn, K., & Fels, D. I. (2015). Gamification in theory
Jung, J., Schneider, C., & Valacich, J. (2010). Enhancing and action: A survey. International Journal of human-
the motivational affordance of information systems: The computer studies, 74, 14-31.
effects of real-time performance feedback and goal Tuite, K. (2014, April). GWAPs: Games with a problem.
setting in group collaboration environments. In FDG.
Management science, 56(4), 724-742. Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the win: How game
Lafourcade, M., & Le Brun, N. (2014). Ethique et thinking can revolutionize your business: Wharton
construction collaborative de données lexicales par des Digital Press.
GWAPs (quelques leçons tirées de l’expérience Zhang, P. (2008). Technical opinion Motivational
JeuxDeMots). Actes journée d’étude" Éthique et TAL" de affordances: reasons for ICT design and use.
l’ATALA. Paris. Communications of the ACM, 51(11), 145-147.
McDaniel, R. (2016). What We Can Learn About Digital Zichermann, G. (2011). A teachable moment.
Badges from Video Games. In Foundation of Digital Gamification.co. Retrieved from http://www.gami
Badges and Micro-Credentials (pp. 325- 342): Springer. fication.co/2011/09/20/a-teachable-moment/
Perry, B. (2015). Gamifying French Language Learning: a
case study examining a quest-based, augmented reality
EnetCollect WG3 & WG5 Meeting, 24-25 October 2018, Leiden, Netherlands 43