Affiliation:
1. Institut de Psychodynamique du Travail, France
2. ENSTA-Bretagne, France
Abstract
This chapter shows that, contrary to what some researchers claim, setting up the conditions for a “playful environment” is not so simple, in particular when it comes to organizing a new competition for the popularization of science (MT180®). In fact, we will see that popularization does not fit so easily into the “playful environment” desired by the organizers due to the gamified nature of the approach, which gradually colonizes the initial desire to present one's scientific work and pushes some participants to exaggerate their results in order to go as far as possible in the competition. It is therefore feared that the gamification of scientific work, while compatible with neoliberal expectations, will in fact lead to the production of bad science. The question then arises as to whether the need to turn researchers into effective communicators with a view to building the “knowledge society” advocated by international institutions can be achieved through gamified approaches, with the risk of creating an ever-greater distance between (real) scientific knowledge and citizens.
Reference41 articles.
1. Bandler, J. W., & Kiley, E. M. (2018). The Clarity of Hindsight: The First-Ever IMS Three Minute Thesis Competition. IEEE Microwave Magazine, 116-123.
2. Bogost, I. (2011). Gamification is bullshit. http://bogost.com/writing/blog/gamification_is_bullshit
3. Le champ scientifique
4. Bouveresse, J. (1999). Prodiges et vertiges de l’analogie. Raison d’agir.