Quantified academic selves: The gamification of research through social networking services

by | Jun 1, 2016 | Research Publications

Author(s):

  • Hammarfelt, Björn
  • De Rijcke, Sarah
  • Rushforth, Alexander D.

Abstract:

Introduction: Our study critically engages with techniques of self-quantification in contemporary academia, by demonstrating how social networking services enact research and scholarly communication as a “game”.

Method: The empirical part of the study involves an analysis of two leading platforms: Impactstory and ResearchGate. Observed qualities of these platforms will be analyzed in detail with concrete examples of gaming features in focus. Subsequently, we relate the development of these digital platforms to a broader “quantified self movement”. Special attention will also be paid to how these platforms contribute to a general quantification of the academic (authorial) self.

Theory: Theoretically we relate the “gamification” of research to neoliberal ideas about markets and competition. Our analysis then extends to long-standing and fundamental ideas about self-betterment expressed in the philosophy of Peter Sloterdijk.

Findings: Our study shows how social networking services, such as ResearchGate and Impactstory, enact researchers as “entrepreneurs of themselves” in a marketplace of ideas, and the quantification of scholarly reputation to a single number plays an important role in this process. Moreover, the technologies that afford these types of quantifiable interactions affect the “unfolding ontology” of algorithmic academic identities.

Conclusions: The gamification of quantified academic selves intensifies the competitive nature of scholarship, it commodifies academic outputs and it might lead to goal displacement and cheating. However, self-quantification might also serve as a liberating and empowering activity for the individual researcher as alternative measures of impact and productivity are provided by these platforms.

Document:

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1104376

References:
  1. Barbour, K. & Marshall, D. (2012).The academic online: constructing persona through the World Wide Web. First Monday, 17(9). Retrieved fromhttp://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3969(Archived byWebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6hakvCR4G)
  2. Carson, L., Bartneck, C. & Voges, K. (2013). Over-competitiveness in academia: aliterature review. Disruptive Science and Technology, 1(4),183–190.
  3. de Rijcke, S., Wouters, P. F., Rushforth, A. D., Franssen, T. P. & Hammarfelt, B. (inpress). Evaluation practices and effects of indicator use—a literature review.Research Evaluation.
  4. Dragona D. (2014). Counter-gamification: emerging tactics and practices against the rule of numbers, In Fuchs, M. Fizek, S. Ruffino, P. and Schrape, N. (Eds),Rethinking gamification. (pp. 227-250). Lüneburg, Germany: Meson Press.Retrieved from http://meson.press/read/rethinking-gamification (Archived byWebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6hanFberT).
  5. Edery, D. & Mollick, E. (2008). Changing the game: how video games are transforming the future of business. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press.
  6. Foucault, M. (2000). Ethics: essential works of Michel Foucault, 1954-1984.Volume 1. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
  7. Graeber, D. (2015). The utopia of rules: on technology, stupidity, and the secretjoys of bureaucracy. New York, NY: Melville House.
  8. Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
  9. Haustein, S., Bowman, T. D. & Costas, R. (2016). Interpreting “altmetrics”: viewingacts on social media through the lens of citation and social theories. InSugimoto, C. (ed.), Theories of informetrics and scholarly communication. (pp.371-406). Berlin: de Gruyter.
  10. Haustein, S., Peters, I., Bar-Ilan, J., Priem, J., Shema, H. & Terliesner, J. (2014).Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community.Scientometrics, 101(2),1145–1163.
  11. Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M. & Zubek, R. (2004). MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research. In Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI, San Jose, CA, July 25-26, 2004. Palo Alto, CA: AAAI. (Technical Report WS-04-04). Retrieved fromhttp://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/MDA.pdf. (Archived by WebCite®at http://www.webcitation.org/6haoFDY2O)
  12. Ivancheva, M. P. (2015). The age of precarity and the new challenges to the academic profession. Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai-Studia Europaea, (1),Quantified academic selves: the gamification of research through social networking serviceshttp://www.informationr.net/ir/21-2/SM1.html[6/16/2016 6:07:58 PM]39–48.
  13. Jamali, H. R., Nicholas, D. & Herman, E. (2016). Scholarly reputation in the digital age and the role of emerging platforms and mechanisms. Research Evaluation,25(1),37-49.
  14. Kieslinger, B. (2015). Academic peer pressure in social media: Experiences from the heavy, the targeted and the restricted user. First Monday, 20(6). Retrieved from http://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5854 (Archived byWebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6hal3vslU)
  15. Kjellberg, S. (2010). I am a blogging researcher: motivations for blogging in a scholarly context. First Monday, 15(8). Retrieved fromhttp://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2962 (Archived byWebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6hal9gH6p)
  16. Knorr Cetina, K. (2007). Culture in global knowledge societies: knowledge culturesand epistemic cultures. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 32(4), 361-375.Law, J. (1994). Organizing modernity. Oxford: Blackwell.
  17. Lemke, T. (2015). New materialisms: Foucault and the “Government of Things.”Theory, Culture & Society, 32(4), 3–25.
  18. Lupton, D. (2013). Understanding the human machine [Commentary]. IEEETechnology and Society Magazine, 32(4),25–30. Retrieved fromhttp://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6679313 (Archived byWebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6hfheBCtp)
  19. Lupton, D. (2014). Self-tracking cultures: towards a sociology of personalinformatics. In Proceedings of the 26th Australian Computer-HumanInteraction Conference on Designing Futures: The Future of Design (pp. 77–86). New York, NY: ACM.
  20. Madhusudhan, M. (2012). Use of social networking sites by research scholars of the University of Delhi: A study. The International Information & LibraryReview, 44(2),100–113.
  21. Mas-Bleda, A., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K. & Aguillo, I. F. (2014). Do highly cited researchers successfully use the social web? Scientometrics, 101(1),337–356.
  22. Mirowski, P. (2011). Science-mart. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.Mirowski, P. (2013). Never let a serious crisis go to waste: how neoliberalism survived the financial meltdown. London: Verso Books.
  23. Moore, P. & Robinson, A. (In press). The quantified self: what counts in the neoliberal workplace. New Media & Society.
  24. Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P. & Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: a manifesto.Retrieved from http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/ (Archived by WebCite® athttp://www.webcitation.org/6halE5d9H)
  25. Raczkowski, F. (2014). Making points the point: towards a history of ideas of gamification. In Fuchs, M. Fizek, S. Ruffino, P. and Schrape, N. (Eds),Rethinking Gamification. Lüneburg, Germany:Meson Press, (pp. 140-160).Retrieved from http://meson.press/read/rethinking-gamification (Archived byWebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6hanFberT)
  26. Rettberg, J. W. (2014). Seeing ourselves through technology: how we use selfies,blogs and wearable devices to see and shape ourselves. London: PalgraveMacmillan.
  27. Rose, N. (2007). The politics of life itself: biomedicine, power, and subjectivity inthe twenty-first century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  28. Ruckenstein, M. & Pantzar, M. (in press). Beyond the quantified self: thematicexploration of a dataistic paradigm. New Media & Society.
  29. Shrape, N. (2014). Gamification and governmentality. In Fuchs, M. Fizek, S.Ruffino, P. and Schrape, N. (Eds), Rethinking gamification. (pp. 140-160).Lüneburg, Germany: Meson Press.Retrieved from Retrieved fromhttp://meson.press/read/rethinking-gamification (Archived by WebCite® athttp://www.webcitation.org/6hanFberT)Sloterdijk, P. (2014). You must change yourlife. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Suits, B. (1967). What is a game? Philosophy of Science, 34(2) ,148–156.
  30. Thelwall, M. & Kousha, K. (2015). ResearchGate: disseminating, communicating,and measuring scholarship? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(5), 876–889.
  31. Van Dijck, J., 2013. ‘You have one identity’: performing the self on Facebook and LinkedIn. Media, Culture & Society, 35(2), 199-215.
  32. Van Noorden, R. (2014). Online collaboration: scientists and the social network.Nature, 512(7513), 126–129.
  33. Whitley, R. (2000). The intellectual and social organization of the sciences.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
  34. Whitson, J. R. (2013). Gaming the quantified self. Surveillance & Society, 11(1/2),163–176.
  35. Wouters, P. & Costas, R. (2012). Users, narcissism and control: tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century. Utrecht, The Netherlands:Quantified academic selves: the gamification of research through social networking serviceshttp://www.informationr.net/ir/21-2/SM1.html[6/16/2016 6:07:58 PM]TweetSURFfoundation. Retrieved from http://research-acumen.eu/wp-content/uploads/Users-narcissism-and-control.pdf (Archived by WebCite® athttp://www.webcitation.org/6halKPJc7)
  36. Wouters, P., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., Waltman, L., De Rijcke, S., Rushforth, A. &Franssen, T. (2015) The metric tide: literature review (Supplementary report Ito the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment andmanagement). London: Higher Education Funding Council for England.Retrieved from http://www.dcscience.net/2015_metrictideS1.pdf (Archived byWebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6halOUkc7).