Public participation in science and gamification of science are two strong contemporary trends, especially in the area of emerging techno-sciences. Involvement of the public in research-related activities is an integral part of public engagement with science and technologies, which can be successfully achieved through a participatory game design. Focusing on the participatory dimension of educational games, we have reviewed a number of existing participation heuristics in light of their suitability to characterize available mobile and browser science games. We analyzed 87 games with respect to their participatory and motivational elements and demonstrated that the majority of mobile games have only basic participative features. This review of the landscape of participative science games in the domain of life sciences highlights a number of major challenges present in the design of such applications. At the same time, it reveals a number of opportunities to enhance public engagement using science games.
ArnsteinA (1969) A ladder of citizenship participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners (26): 216–233.
3.
BiggsS (1989) Resource-Poor Farmer Participation in Research: A Synthesis of Experiences from Nine National Agricultural Research Systems OFCOR Comparative Study Paper (vol. 3). The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research.
4.
BognerA (2010) Partizipation als Laborexperiment: Paradoxien der Laiendeliberation in Technikfragen [Participation as a Laboratory Experiment: Paradoxes of Deliberation on Technology Issues by Lay People]. Zeitschrift für Soziologie39(2): 87–105.
5.
BonannoPKommersP (2005) Gender differences and styles in the use of digital games. Educational Psychology25(1): 13–41.
6.
BonannoPKommersP (2008) Exploring the influence of gender and gaming competence on attitudes towards using instructional games. British Journal of Educational Technology39(1): 97–109.
7.
BonneyRBallardHJordanRMcCallieEPhillipsTShirkJ. (2009) Public Participation in Scientific Research: Defining the Field and Assessing Its Potential for Informal Science Education. Washington, DC: Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE), p. 58.
8.
CollinsT (2005) English class on the air: Mobile language learning with cell phones. In: Proceedings of the fifth IEEE international conference on advanced learning technologies (ICALT 2005), Kaohsiung, Taiwan, 5–7 July.
9.
CooperSKhatibFBakerD (2013) Increasing public involvement in structural biology. Structure21(9): 1482–1484.
10.
CrowstonKPrestopnikNR (2013) Motivation and data quality in a citizen science game: A design science evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 2013 46th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS), Maui, HI, 7–10 January, pp. 450–459. New York, NY: IEEE.
11.
DavidsonS (1998) Spinning the wheel of empowerment. Planning3: 14–15.
12.
DunleavyMDedeCMitchellR (2009) Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology18(1): 7–22.
13.
ElverdamCAarsethE (2007) Game classification and game design construction through critical analysis. Games and Culture2(1): 3–22.
14.
FabricatoreC (2007) Gameplay and game mechanics design: A key to quality in Videogames. In: Proceedings of the OECD-CERI expert meeting on videogames and education, vol. 14. Santiago, Chile, 29–31 October. Paris, France: OECD, Centre for Educational Research and Innovation.
15.
FarringtonJ (1998) Organisational roles in farmer participatory research and extension: Lessons from the last decade. Natural Resource Perspectives27: 1–4.
16.
FiorinoD (1989) Environmental risk and democratic process: A critical review. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law14: 501–547.
17.
FishAMurilloLNguyenLPanofskyAKeltyC (2011) Birds of the Internet: Towards a field guide to the organization and governance of participation. Journal of Cultural Economy4(2): 157–187.
18.
FreemanC (1996) The greening of technology and models of innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change53(1): 27–39.
19.
GirardCEcalleJMagnanA (2013) Serious games as new educational tools: How effective are they? A meta-analysis of recent studies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning29(3): 207–219.
20.
GodinB (2006) The Linear Model of Innovation. The historical construction of an analytical framework. Science, Technology & Human Values31(6): 639–667.
21.
GoetzAGaventaJ (2001) Bringing Citizen Voice and Client Focus into Service Delivery (IDS working paper 138). Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.
22.
GoldschmidtR (2014) Kriterien zur Evaluation von Dialog- und Beteiligungsverfahren. Konzeptuelle Ausarbeitung eines integrativen Systems aus sechs Metakriterien [Criteria for Evaluation of Dialogue and Participation Process. Conceptual Development of an Integrative System of Six Meta-Criteria]. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
23.
HoneyMAHiltonML (2011) Learning Science through Computer Games and Simulations. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
24.
ItenNPetkoD (2014). Learning with serious games: Is fun playing the game a predictor of learning success?British Journal of Educational Technology. 47(1): 151–163. DOI: 10.1111/bjet.12226.
25.
JonesAIssroffKScanlonEMcAndrewPCloughG (2006) Affective factors in learning with mobile devices. In: Paper presented at the big issues in mobile learning: Report of a workshop by the kaleidoscope network of excellence mobile learning initiative, June 2006. UK: Learning Sciences Research Institute, University of Nottingham.
26.
KeltyCPanofskyA (2014) Disentangling public participation in science and biomedicine. Genome Medicine6: 8.
27.
KhatibFDiMaioFCooperSKazmierczykMGilskiMKrzywdaS. (2011) Crystal structure of a monomeric retroviral protease solved by protein folding game players. Nature Structural & Molecular Biology18(10): 1175–1177.
28.
KirriemuirJMcFarlaneA (2004) Literature Review in Games and Learning (A NESTA Futurelab Research report 8). Bristol: Futurelab.
29.
KloetzerLSchneiderDJennettCIacovidesIEveleighACoxA. (2013) Learning by volunteer computing, thinking and gaming: What and how are volunteers learning by participating in Virtual Citizen Science? In:Paper presented at the European Society for Research on the Education of Adults conference, Berlin, 4–7 September.
30.
LawrenceA (2006) No personal motive? Volunteers, biodiversity, and the false dichotomies of participation. Ethics, Place and Environment9: 279–298.
PrettyJ (1995) Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Development23(8): 1247–1263.
37.
PrettyJGuljtIThompsonJScoonesI (1995) A Trainer’s Guide for Participatory Learning and Action. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.
38.
ReedM (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation141: 2417–2431.
39.
RoweGFrewerL (2000) Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology and Human Values25(1): 3–29.
40.
RoweGFrewerL (2005) A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values30(2): 251–290.
41.
RyanRMRigbyCSPrzybylskiA (2006) The motivational pull of video games: A self-determination theory approach. Motivation and Emotion30(4): 344–360.
42.
SchropeM (2013) Solving tough problems with games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America110(18): 7104–7106.
SteinkuehlerCAWilliamsD (2006) Where everybody knows your (screen) name: Online games as “third places.”Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication11(4): 885–909.
45.
StirlingA (2008) “Opening Up” and “Closing Down”: Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology and Human Values33(2): 262–294.
46.
SusiTJohannessonMBacklundP (2007) Serious games: An overview. Technical report HS-IKI-TR-07-001. Skövde: School of Humanities and Informatics, University of Skövde, p. 28. Available at: http://www.scangame.dk/downloads/HS-IKI-TR-07-001_PER.pdf
47.
TangJMaroothynadenJBelloFKneeboneR (2013) Public engagement through shared immersion: Participating in the processes of research. Science Communication35(5): 654–666.
48.
TuiteK (2014) GWAPs: Games with a problem. In: Paper presented at the 9th international conference on the foundations of digital games, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, 3–7 April.
49.
YeeN (2006) Motivations for play in online games. CyberPsychology & Behavior9(6): 772–775.
50.
ZydaM (2005) From visual simulation to virtual reality to games. Computer38(9): 25–32.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
