游戏化的善行:用户体验、代理和游戏中的价值

IF 1.5 4区 文学 Q2 COMMUNICATION
Brett Oppegaard, Michael Rabby
{"title":"游戏化的善行:用户体验、代理和游戏中的价值","authors":"Brett Oppegaard, Michael Rabby","doi":"10.55177/tc124312","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: This study compares value expressions of intervention designers and participants in a hackathon-like event to research relationships between values and gamification techniques. Our research identifies and analyzes value expressions during a large-scale intervention at\n national parks for social inclusion of people who are blind or have low vision. Researchers and organizations can use our model to create common- ground opportunities within values-sensitive gamified designs. Method: We collected qualitative and quantitative data via multiple\n methods and from different perspectives to strengthen validity and better determine what stakeholders wanted from the gamified experience. For methods—a pre-survey, a list of intervention activities, and a post-survey—we analyzed discourse and coded for values; then we compared\n data across sets to evaluate values and their alignment/misalignment among intervention designers and participants. Results: Without clear and focused attention to values, designers and participants can experience underlying, unintended, and unnecessary friction.\n Conclusion: Of the many ways to conceptualize and perform a socially just intervention, this research illustrates the worth of explicitly identifying values on the front end of the design intervention process and actively designing those values into the organizational aspects of the intervention.\n A design model like ours serves as a subtextual glue to keep people working together. The model also undergirds these complementary value systems, as they interact and combine to contribute to a cause.","PeriodicalId":46338,"journal":{"name":"Technical Communication","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gamifying Good Deeds: User Experience, Agency, and Values in Play During a Descriptathon\",\"authors\":\"Brett Oppegaard, Michael Rabby\",\"doi\":\"10.55177/tc124312\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose: This study compares value expressions of intervention designers and participants in a hackathon-like event to research relationships between values and gamification techniques. Our research identifies and analyzes value expressions during a large-scale intervention at\\n national parks for social inclusion of people who are blind or have low vision. Researchers and organizations can use our model to create common- ground opportunities within values-sensitive gamified designs. Method: We collected qualitative and quantitative data via multiple\\n methods and from different perspectives to strengthen validity and better determine what stakeholders wanted from the gamified experience. For methods—a pre-survey, a list of intervention activities, and a post-survey—we analyzed discourse and coded for values; then we compared\\n data across sets to evaluate values and their alignment/misalignment among intervention designers and participants. Results: Without clear and focused attention to values, designers and participants can experience underlying, unintended, and unnecessary friction.\\n Conclusion: Of the many ways to conceptualize and perform a socially just intervention, this research illustrates the worth of explicitly identifying values on the front end of the design intervention process and actively designing those values into the organizational aspects of the intervention.\\n A design model like ours serves as a subtextual glue to keep people working together. The model also undergirds these complementary value systems, as they interact and combine to contribute to a cause.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46338,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Technical Communication\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Technical Communication\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.55177/tc124312\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Technical Communication","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55177/tc124312","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的:本研究比较了黑客马拉松式活动中干预设计者和参与者的价值表达,以研究价值观和游戏化技术之间的关系。我们的研究确定并分析了国家公园大规模干预期间的价值表达,以促进盲人或低视力人群的社会包容。研究人员和组织可以使用我们的模型在价值观敏感的游戏化设计中创造共同点的机会。方法:我们通过多种方法和不同角度收集定性和定量数据,以加强有效性,更好地确定利益相关者想要从游戏化体验中得到什么。对于方法——预调查、干预活动列表和后调查——我们分析话语并编码价值观;然后,我们比较了不同集合的数据,以评估干预设计者和参与者之间的值及其一致性/不一致性。结果:如果没有对价值观的明确和集中关注,设计师和参与者可能会经历潜在的、意想不到的和不必要的摩擦。结论:在概念化和执行社会公正干预的许多方法中,本研究说明了在设计干预过程的前端明确识别价值观并积极将这些价值观设计到干预的组织方面的价值。像我们这样的设计模型是一种让人们团结一致的粘合剂。该模型还支撑了这些互补的价值体系,因为它们相互作用并结合在一起为一项事业做出贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Gamifying Good Deeds: User Experience, Agency, and Values in Play During a Descriptathon
Purpose: This study compares value expressions of intervention designers and participants in a hackathon-like event to research relationships between values and gamification techniques. Our research identifies and analyzes value expressions during a large-scale intervention at national parks for social inclusion of people who are blind or have low vision. Researchers and organizations can use our model to create common- ground opportunities within values-sensitive gamified designs. Method: We collected qualitative and quantitative data via multiple methods and from different perspectives to strengthen validity and better determine what stakeholders wanted from the gamified experience. For methods—a pre-survey, a list of intervention activities, and a post-survey—we analyzed discourse and coded for values; then we compared data across sets to evaluate values and their alignment/misalignment among intervention designers and participants. Results: Without clear and focused attention to values, designers and participants can experience underlying, unintended, and unnecessary friction. Conclusion: Of the many ways to conceptualize and perform a socially just intervention, this research illustrates the worth of explicitly identifying values on the front end of the design intervention process and actively designing those values into the organizational aspects of the intervention. A design model like ours serves as a subtextual glue to keep people working together. The model also undergirds these complementary value systems, as they interact and combine to contribute to a cause.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Technical Communication
Technical Communication COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
20.00%
发文量
15
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信