It’s All in the Game: Emancipation in Digitalized Working Environments

  • Janosch SchobinEmail author
  • Philipp Staab


In this chapter, Schobin and Staab argue that digitalization is in many ways a process of gamification (i.e., the introduction of game routines and game elements into non-gaming contexts). In particular, the authors maintain that gamification has to be understood as a key strategy by which digital infrastructures ensure cooperation from users. Therefore, it can be linked to both: to the intensification of direct modes as well as to the broadening of indirect modes of labor process control. On the flip side, this insight suggests that the level of user autonomy achievable in gamified work situations can be described by three skill steps: first, by the adaptation to the gamified system; second, by the mastery of the game’s formal opportunities; and, third, by subverting the rules that define the gamified process.


  1. Acemoglu, D., Autor, D., Dorn, D., Hanson, G., & Price, B. (2014). Return of the Solow Paradox? IT, Productivity, and Employment in U.S. Manufacturing. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  2. Braverman, H. (1998). Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Broadhead, P. (2004). Early Years Play and Learning: Developing Social Skills and Cooperation. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brynjolfsson, E. (1993). The Productivity Paradox of Information Technology. Communications of the ACM, 36(12), 66–77.Google Scholar
  5. Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  6. Burawoy, M. (1979). Manufacturing Consent: Changes in the Labor Process Under Monopoly Capitalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Caillois, R. (1967). Les jeux et les hommes. Le masque et le vertige. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  8. Caraway, B. (2010). Online Labour Markets: An Inquiry into oDesk Providers. Work Organisation, Labour and Globalisation, 4(2), 111–125.Google Scholar
  9. Carroll, J. M. (1982). The Adventure of Getting to Know a Computer. Computer, 15(11), 49–58.Google Scholar
  10. Charette, R. N. (2005). Why Software Fails [Software Failure]. IEEE Spectrum, 42(9), 42–49.Google Scholar
  11. D’Adderio, L. (2001). Crafting the Virtual Prototype: How Firms Integrate Knowledge and Capabilities Across Organisational Boundaries. Research Policy, 30(9), 1409–1424.Google Scholar
  12. Dahlberg, L. (2011). Re-constructing Digital Democracy: An Outline of Four Positions. New Media & Society, 13(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
  13. Degele, N. (1994). Der überforderte Computer. Zur Soziologie menschlicher und künstlicher Intelligenz. Frankfurt am Main and New York: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. Degele, N. (1996). Die Entwicklung und Nutzung von Software. Zur Genese informationstechnischen Handelns. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 25, 1.Google Scholar
  15. Deterding, S. (2014). Eudaimonic Design, or: Six Invitations to Rethink Gamification. In M. Fuchs, S. Fizek, P. Ruffino, & N. Schrape (Eds.), Rethinking Gamification. Lüneburg, Germany: Meson Press.Google Scholar
  16. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011, September). From Game Design Elements to Gamefulness: Defining gamification. In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments (pp. 9–15).Google Scholar
  17. Deterding, S., & Walz, S. P. (2015). An Introduction to the Gameful World. In S. P. Walz & S. Deterding (Eds.), The Gameful World: Approaches, Issues, Applications. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. deWinter, J., Kocurek, C.A., & Nichols, R. (2014). Taylorism 2.0: Gamification, Scientific Management and the Capitalist Appropriation of Play. Journal of Gaming & Virtual Worlds, 6(2), 109–127.Google Scholar
  19. Donaldson, S. (2017). Mechanics and Metagame: Exploring Binary Expertise in League of Legends. Games and Culture, 12(5), 426–444.Google Scholar
  20. Drury, M., Conboy, K., & Power, K. (2011). Decision Making in Agile Development: A Focus Group Study of Decisions and Obstacles. In 2011 AGILE Conference.Google Scholar
  21. Drury, M., Conboy, K., & Power, K. (2012). Obstacles to Decision Making in Agile Software Development Teams. Journal of Systems and Software, 85(6), 1239–1254.Google Scholar
  22. Flitner, A. (1976). Das Kinderspiel. Texte (3rd ed.). München: Piper.Google Scholar
  23. Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2013). The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerisation. Retrieved September 7, 2013.Google Scholar
  24. Freyermuth, G. S. (2015). Der Weg in die Alterität. Skizze einer historischen Theorie digitaler Spiele. In B. Beil, G. S. Freyermuth, & L. Gotto (Eds.), New Game Plus: Perspektiven der game studies. Genres - Künste – diskurse. Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript.Google Scholar
  25. Friedman, A. (1987). Managementstrategien und Technologie. Auf dem Weg zu einer komplexen Theorie des Arbeitsprozesses. In E. Hildebrandt & R. Seltz (Eds.), Managementstrategien und Kontrolle. Eine Einfürung in die Labour Process Debate. Berlin: Sigma.Google Scholar
  26. Fuchs, M., Fizek, S., Ruffino, P., & Schrape, N. (2014). Introduction. In M. Fuchs, S. Fizek, P. Ruffino, & N. Schrape (Eds.), Rethinking Gamification. Lüneburg, Germany: Meson Press.Google Scholar
  27. Gambardella, A., Raasch, C., & von Hippel, E. (2017). The User Innovation Paradigm: Impacts on Markets and Welfare. Management Science, 63(5), 1450–1468.Google Scholar
  28. Gordon, R. J. (2015). Secular Stagnation: A Supply-Side View. American Economic Review, 105(5), 54–59.Google Scholar
  29. Gunitsky, S. (2015). Corrupting the Cyber-Commons: Social Media as a Tool of Autocratic Stability. Perspectives on Politics, 13(1), 42–54.Google Scholar
  30. Herger, M. (2014). Enterprise Gamification. Engaging People by Letting Them Have Fun. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.Google Scholar
  31. von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing Innovation: The Evolving Phenomenon of User Innovation. Journal für Betriebswirtschaft, 55(1), 63–78.Google Scholar
  32. Huizinga, J. (1949). Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture. London, New York, and Henley: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  33. Kou, Y., & Nardi, B. (2014). Governance in League of Legends: A Hybrid System. Accessed 17 May 2018.
  34. von Krogh, G., & von Hippel, E. (2006). The Promise of Research on Open Source Software. Management Science, 52(7), 975–983.Google Scholar
  35. Latour, B. (1996). Aramis, or the Love of Technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Lutz, B. (1986). Das Ende des Technikdeterminismus und die Folgen: soziologische Technikforschung vor neuen Aufgaben und neuen Problemen. In B. Lutz & Deutsche Gesellschaft für Soziologie (Eds.), Technik und sozialer Wandel: Verhandlungen des 23. Deutschen Soziologentages in Hamburg 1986. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
  37. Malaby, T. M. (2007). Beyond Play: A New Approach to Games. Games and Culture, 2(2), 95–113.Google Scholar
  38. Malone, T. W. (1982). Heuristics for Designing Enjoyable User Interfaces: Lessons From Computer Games. In J. A. Nichols & M. L. Schneider (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1982 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 63–68).Google Scholar
  39. Marrs, K. (2010). Herrschaft und Kontrolle in der Arbeit. In F. Böhle, G. G. Voß, & G. Wachtler (Eds.), Handbuch Arbeitssoziologie. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  40. McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality Is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World. New York: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
  41. McIlroy, S., Ali, N., & Hassan, A. E. (2016). Fresh Apps: An Empirical Study of Frequently-Updated Mobile Apps in the Google Play Store. Empirical Software Engineering, 21(3), 1346–1370.Google Scholar
  42. Miller, V. (2008). New Media, Networking and Phatic Culture. Convergence, 14(4), 387–400.Google Scholar
  43. Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428.Google Scholar
  44. Pagano, D., & Bruegge, B. (2013). User Involvement in Software Evolution Practice: A Case Study. In 2013 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE).Google Scholar
  45. Pentland, B. T. (1997). Bleeding Edge Epistemology: Practical Problem Solving in Software Support Hotlines. In S. R. Barley & J. E. Orr (Eds.), Between Craft and Science: Technical Work in U.S. New York, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Pfeiffer, S. (2010). Technisierung von Arbeit. In F. Böhle, G. G. Voß, & G. Wachtler (Eds.), Handbuch Arbeitssoziologie. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  47. Raffetseder, E.-M., Schaupp, S., & Staab, P. (2017). Kybernetik und Kontrolle. Algorithmische Arbeitssteuerung und betriebliche Herrschaft. Prokla, 187, 229–247.Google Scholar
  48. Rammert, W. (2006). Technik, Handeln und Sozialstruktur. Eine Einführung in die Soziologie der Technik. Accessed 13 March 2017.
  49. Rammert, W., Böhm, W., Olscha, C., & Wehner, J. (1991). Vom Umgang mit Computern im Alltag. Fallstudien zur Kultivierung einer neuen Technik. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  50. Rigby, C. S. (2015). Gamification and Motivation. In S. P. Walz & S. Deterding (Eds.), The Gameful World: Approaches, Issues, Applications. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  51. Schiller, D. (2000). Digital Capitalism: Networking the Global Market System. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  52. Schiller, D. (2014). Digital Depression: Information Technology and Economic Crisis. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  53. Schobin, J. (2017). Vom Spiel getrieben? Die Digitalisierung des Alltags als Ludifizierungsprozess. Leviathan, 45(3), 309–334.Google Scholar
  54. Schulz-Schaeffer, I. (1996). Software-Entwicklung zwischen Ingenieur- und Designwissenschaft: Überzeugungskraft und nützliche Widersprüchlichkeit von Software-Engineering und Software-Gestaltung. In H. D. Hellige (Ed.), Technikleitbilder auf dem Prüfstand: Leitbild-Assessment aus Sicht der Informatik- und Computergeschichte. Berlin: Ed. Sigma.Google Scholar
  55. Solow, R. (1987). We’d Better Watch Out. New York Times Book Review, 1987, 36.Google Scholar
  56. Staab, P. (2016). Falsche Versprechen. Wachstum im digitalen Kapitalismus. Hamburg: Hamburger Edition, HIS.Google Scholar
  57. Staab, P., & Nachtwey, O. (2016). Market and Labour Control in Digital Capitalism. Triple C. Communication, Capitalism, Critique, 14(2), 457–474.Google Scholar
  58. Walz, S. P., & Deterding, S. (2015). An Introduction to the Gameful World. In S. P. Walz & S. Deterding (Eds.), The Gameful World: Approaches, Issues, Applications. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  59. Wehner, J., & Rammert, W. (1990). Zum Stand der Dinge: Die Computerwelt und ihre wissenschaftliche Beobachtung. In W. Rammert (Ed.), Computerwelten - Alltagswelten. Wie verändert der Computer die soziale Wirklichkeit? Opladen: Westdt. Verl.Google Scholar
  60. Weyer, J. (2008). Techniksoziologie: Genese, Gestaltung und Steuerung sozio-technischer Systeme. Beltz: Juventa.Google Scholar
  61. Woodcock, J., & Johnson, M. R.(2017). Gamification: What It Is, and How to Fight It. The Sociological Review, 66(3), 542–558.Google Scholar
  62. Zichermann, G., & Linder, J. (2010). Game-Based Marketing: Inspire Customer Loyalty Through Rewards, Challenges, and Contests. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  63. Zichermann, G., & Linder, J. (2013). The Gamification Revolution: How Leaders Leverage Game Mechanics to Crush the Competition. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Kassel, Humboldt UniversityBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations