Toward Meaningful Engagement: A Framework for Design and Research of Gamified Information Systems1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gamification, an emerging idea for using game design elements and principles to make everyday tasks more engaging, is permeating many different types of information systems. Excitement surrounding gamification results from its many potential organizational benefits. However, few research and design guidelines exist regarding gamified information systems. We therefore write this commentary to call upon information systems scholars to investigate the design and use of gamified information systems from a variety of disciplinary perspectives and theories, including behavioral economics, psychology, social psychology, information systems, etc. We first explicate the idea of gamified information systems, provide real-world examples of successful and unsuccessful systems, and, based on a synthesis of the available literature, present a taxonomy of gamification design elements. We then develop a framework for research and design: its main theme is to create meaningful engagement for users; that is, gamified information systems should be designed to address the dual goals of instrumental and experiential outcomes. Using this framework, we develop a set of design principles and research questions, using a running case to illustrate some of our ideas. We conclude with a summary of opportunities for IS researchers to extend our knowledge of gamified information systems, and, at the same time, advance existing theories.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".