When I attended HASTAC 2017 I was very excited to listen to Jennifer deWinter I was attracted to her presentation on The Half-Real Humanities: Hard Problems in Humanities Games. I was not disappointed. In her talk (which was very brief on her part) she referenced two separate articles of hers which addressed the inequalities in gaming. She made sure to mention that many inequalities in gaming are unaddressed because of under-represented youth in the gaming market.
The first concept addressed in Taylorism 2.0 was, surprise, Taylorism. Taylorism is a type of management used originally by Fredrick Winslow Taylor. Also called scientific management, Taylorism was created to make labor more efficient and productive by breaking the production of a product down to address “inefficiencies in production systems”. (deWinter, Kocurek, & Nichols, Taylorism 2.0: Gamification, scientific management and the capitalist appropriation of play, 2014) Stages of production are broken down into individual pieces to create more efficient workers. Taylor originally created this to encourage democracy and creativity in the workplace. The opposite was the result. Taylorism is criticized as eliminating democracy in the workplace and take away the ability of workers to show their creativity. Jennifer deWinter, Carly Kocurek, and Randall Nichols use Taylorism in regards to gamification. Gamification is the process by which companies and institutions use game like elements in programs and activities that are traditionally not games. The issue that deWinter, Kocurek, and Nichols bring to the forefront is when gamification is used as a benefit of an institution rather than the user it subverts the purpose of games. (deWinter, Kocurek, & Nichols, Taylorism 2.0: Gamification, scientific management and the capitalist appropriation of play, 2014) This relates back to the idea of disruptive fixation and Christo Sims. Sims asserts that there needs to be disruption of the tunnel vision that surrounds technology reform in education. (Sims, 2017) Gamification is a wonderful concept but not when it put the needs of the industry in front of the needs of the user. In Games, Gamification, and Labour Politics this is addressed again. For example, the Wii is gamified exercise and it helps with learning and coordination. (deWinter & Kocurek, 2014) When this gamification approach is applied to an industries goals instead of the users goal it is not the utopia that gamifiers like to pretend that it is. “This approach treats users as mindless zombies, lurching through the system in pursuit of engineered rewards with little space for desires or goals of their own.” (deWinter & Kocurek, 2014)This is not to say that the authors are against gamification but that they are against the use of games to extend the ideology of dominate groups. This is, of course, related to connected learning and finding ways to better the education of students. How can teachers and schools teach with the best interests of their students in mind. One way to allow this to happen is by choosing a game that has an avatar with many different choices. “The avatars operate as projections of one’s own self”. (deWinter & Vie, 2008) Sometimes these relate to how the user actually looks and sometimes they have to do with how the user wishes they look. This allows for an authentic environment in which to learn. In the article they do note that Second Life is not a utopia and there is sexualized content and questionable activities possible. (deWinter & Vie, 2008) For example, there is racism and sexism present because of the user element in the game. The authors address the issue that Second Life has intertwined social systems and corporations. deWinter’s goal throughout these articles is to work towards a more inclusive online space. She is striving to achieve a more inclusive educational setting as well. Gamification is not the answer but neither is it moving away from the solution. Just as technology does not have politics without humans to add them gamification is not inherently a negative use of technology until the needs of the corporation are put in front of the needs of the user. Sims stated that there needs to be a cycle of disruption in order to make sure that the underserved youth are represented in education, especially when it comes to the use of technology. This disruptive fixation must also apply to gamification and learning. Works CiteddeWinter, J., & Kocurek, C. (2014). Games, gamification, and labour politics. Journal of gaming & virtual worlds, 103-107. deWinter, J., & Vie, S. (2008). Press enter to "say": Using Second life to teach critical media literacy. Computers and composition, 313-322. deWinter, J., Kocurek, C., & Nichols, R. (2014). Taylorism 2.0: Gamification, scientific management and the capitalist appropriation of play. Journal of gaming & virtual worlds, 109-127. Sims, C. (2017). Disruptive fixation school reform and the pitfalls of techno-idealism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton university press. https://www.academia.edu/8472045/Taylorism_2.0_Gamification_Scientific_Management_and_the_Capitalist_Appropriation_of_Play http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&sid=8d1701bc-65d1-4a29-a84f-224873c4046e%40pdc-v-sessmgr01 https://ac-els-cdn-com.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/S8755461508000388/1-s2.0-S8755461508000388-main.pdf?_tid=65fa5bc8-d86e-11e7-aae7-00000aacb362&acdnat=1512335613_d0eaee8f78397fafc518d615b1a5e4a3
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorEllie E. Archives
November 2017
Categories |