This article presents a critical examination of European policy in relation to gamification. We begin by describing how gamification “traveled” as an idea, evolving from controversial yet persuasive buzzword to legitimate policy priority. We then focus on how gamification was represented in Horizon 2020: the flagship European Research & Development program from 2014 to 2020, worth nearly €80 billion of funding. The article argues that the ethically problematic aspects of gamification were removed through a process of policy capture that involved its assimilation in an established European network of research and small and medium enterprise (SME) actors. This process of “ethical neutering” is also observable in the actual funding calls, where the problematic assumptions of gamification around agency and manipulation are made invisible through a superficial commitment to vague and ill-defined criteria of responsible research and innovation.
AppaduraiA. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization (Vol. 1). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
2.
BallS. J. (2016). Following policy: Networks, network ethnography and education policy mobilities. Journal of Education Policy, 31, 549–566.
3.
BallS. J.JunemannC.SantoriD. (2017). Edu. net: Globalisation and education policy mobility. New York, NY: Routledge.
4.
BatemanC. (2018). Playing work, or gamification as stultification. Information, Communication & Society, 21, 1193–1203.
5.
BazeleyP.JacksonK. (Eds.). (2013). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. London, England: Sage.
6.
BerleurJ.GalandJ. M. (2005). ICT policies of the European Union: From an information society to Europe. Trends and visions. In BerleurJ.AvgerouC. (Eds.), Perspectives and policies on ICT in society (pp. 37–66). Boston, MA: Springer.
7.
BogostI. (2013). Exploitationware. In ColbyR.JohnsonM. S. S.ColbyR. S. (Eds.), Rhetoric/composition/play through video games (pp. 139–147). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
8.
BogostI. (2015). Why Gamification is bullshit. The Gameful World: Approaches, Issues, Applications (Vol. 65), Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9788.001.0001
9.
CammaertsB. (2005). Review essay: Critical European perspectives on the information society. The Information Society, 21, 73–75.
10.
CentenoC. (2013). JRC scientific and policy reports: The potential of digital games for empowerment and social inclusion of groups at risk of social and economic exclusion: Evidence and opportunity for policy. Luxembourg City, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
11.
ConnorU.MauranenA. (1999). Linguistic analysis of grant proposals: European Union research grants. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 47–62.
12.
CostikyanC. (2013). Uncertainty in games. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13.
ChristiansenT. (2002). The role of supranational actors in EU treaty reform. Journal of European Public Policy, 9, 33–53.
14.
DawesS. (2014). Broadcasting and the public sphere: Problematising citizens, consumers and neoliberalism. Media, Culture & Society, 36, 702–719.
15.
DeterdingS.SicartM.NackeL.O’HaraK.DixonD. (2011). Gamification: Using game-design elements in non-gaming contexts. In CHI’11 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 2425–2428). New York, NY: ACM.
16.
DewandreN. (2018). Political agents as relational selves: Rethinking EU politics and policy-making with Hannah Arendt. Philosophy Today. doi:10.5840/philtoday2018612222
17.
FaircloughN. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London, England: Routledge.
18.
FeenbergA. (2010). Between reason and experience: Essays in technology and modernity. Cambridge: MIT Press.
19.
FlanaganM. (2009). Critical play: Radical game design. Boston, MA: MIT press.
20.
GoodwinI.SpittleS. (2002). The European Union and the information society: Discourse, power and policy. New Media & Society, 4, 225–249.
21.
HallidayM. A. K. (1994). Spoken and written modes of meaning. Media Texts, Authors and Readers: A Reader, 51, 51–73.
22.
JonasH. (1985). The imperative of responsibility: In search of an ethics for the technological age. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago press.
JuulJ. (2013). The art of failure: An essay on the pain of playing video games. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25.
KimT. W.WerbachK. (2016). More than just a game: Ethical issues in gamification. Ethics and Information Technology, 18, 157–173.
26.
KirkpatrickG. (2013). Computer games and the social imaginary. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
27.
KirkpatrickG. (2015). Ludefaction: Fracking of the radical imaginary. Games and Culture, 10, 507–524.
28.
LandersR. N. (2014). Developing a theory of gamified learning: Linking serious games and gamification of learning. Simulation & Gaming, 45, 752–768.
29.
LivingstoneS.LuntP.MillerL. (2007). Citizens, consumers and the citizen-consumer: Articulating the citizen interest in media and communications regulation. Discourse & Communication, 1, 63–89.
MaceyJ.HamariJ. (2018). Investigating relationships between video gaming, spectating esports, and gambling. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 344–353.
32.
MansellR. (2010). The information society and ICT policy: A critique of the mainstream vision and an alternative research framework. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 8, 22–41.
33.
McGonigalJ. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world. London, England: Penguin.
34.
MaswanaS.KanamaruT.TajinoA. (2015). Move analysis of research articles across five engineering fields: What they share and what they do not. Ampersand, 2, 1–11.
35.
NelsonM. J. (2012, October). Soviet and American precursors to the gamification of work. In Proceeding of the 16th international academic MindTrek conference (pp. 23–26). New York, NY: ACM.
36.
O’DonnellC. (2014). Getting played: Gamification, bullshit, and the rise of algorithmic surveillance. Surveillance & Society, 12, 349–359.
37.
MorozovE. (2013). To save everything, click here: Technology, solutionism and the urge to fix problems that don’t exist. London, England: Penguin.
38.
PeckJ.TheodoreN. (2015). Fast policy: Experimental statecraft at the thresholds of neoliberalism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
39.
PersilyN. (2017). The 2016 US election: Can democracy survive the Internet?Journal of Democracy, 28, 63–76.
40.
RadaelliC. M. (2003). The Europeanization of public policy. In FeatherstoneK.RedaelliC. (Eds.), The politics of Europeanization (pp. 27–42). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
ShawA. (2010). What is video game culture? Cultural studies and game studies. Games and Culture, 5, 403–424.
43.
ShawA. (2012). Do you identify as a gamer? Gender, race, sexuality, and gamer identity. New Media & Society, 14, 28–44.
44.
SchrapeN. (2014). Gamification and governmentality. In FuchsM.FizekS.RuffinoP.SchrapeN. (Eds.), Rethinking gamification (pp. 21–45). Lüneburg, Germany: Meson Press.
45.
SicartM. (2009). The banality of simulated evil: Designing ethical gameplay. Ethics and Information Technology, 11, 191–202.
46.
SicartM. (2011). The ethics of computer games. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
47.
SwalesJ. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
48.
ThalerR. H.SunsteinC. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. London, England: Penguin.
49.
Van DijkT. A. (2008). Discourse and power. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
50.
VeugelersR.CinceraM.FrietschR.RammerC.SchubertT.PelleA.…LeijtenJ. (2015). The impact of horizon 2020 on innovation in Europe. Intereconomics, 50, 4–30.
51.
von SchombergR. (2013). A vision of responsible research and innovation. In OwenR.BessantJ.HeintzM. (Eds.), Responsible innovation (pp. 51–74). London, England: John Wiley.
52.
WilliamsR.EdgeD. (1996). The social shaping of technology. Research Policy, 25, 865–899.
53.
WilliamsonB.PiattoevaN. (2019). Objectivity as standardization in data-scientific education policy, technology and governance. Learning, Media and Technology, 44, 64–76.
