See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/346916588

The limits of gamification

Article  in  Convergence · December 2020

DOI: 10.1177/1354856520984743

CITATIONS READS

11 3,309

2 authors:

Carina Soledad González González Vicente Navarro-Adelantado

Universidad de La Laguna Universidad de La Laguna
508 PUBLICATIONS   4,451 CITATIONS    94 PUBLICATIONS   632 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Accessibility in video games View project

Competencias digitales para la docencia en línea View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Carina Soledad González González on 18 March 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Article

Convergence: The International

Journal of Research into
The limits of gamification New Media Technologies
1–18
ª The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1354856520984743
Carina S González-González journals.sagepub.com/home/con
University of La Laguna, Spain

Vicente Navarro-Adelantado
University of La Laguna, Spain

Abstract
Gamification faces an epistemological problem of game transversality presenting limits from the
playfulness. However, describing these limits is difficult if there is no interpretive model that
explain the transition between the game and the gamification. This work proposes a systemic
game–gamification model to understand the phenomenon of the gamification procedure. This
structural-functionalist and systemic model can respond to different fields interested in gamifica-
tion under the same elements and assume to serve as an interpretation only for this phenomenon’s
social reality from the complexity. Some risks of gamification are highlighted, such as isolating and
considering only some elements that do not even belong to the game, as is frequently the case with
the competition system, an issue that, in analogy with game-sport, becomes sportification.

Keywords
Game studies, gamification, ludology, model

Introduction
One of the most well-known studies in the modern study of games is ‘Homo Ludens: a study of the
play element in culture’ (Huizinga, 1984), which is the reference for some contemporary game
studies to propose the ‘rules of play’ (Salen and Zimmerman, 2004). Another relevant and classic
author in game studies, Roger Caillois, considered that ‘the play is an activity essentially free and
voluntary, rated and defined by space and time, uncertain in outcome, unproductive, governed by
rules, and make-believe instead of real-life’ (Caillois, 1967 [1958]). Both authors have profoundly
influenced the conception of the structural elements of play in game studies. Lately, these rules and
game elements applied to nongame contexts are defined as ‘gamification’ (Deterding et al., 2011).

Corresponding author:
Carina S González-González, Department of Computer Engineering and Systems, University of La Laguna, Tenerife 38293,
Spain.
Email: cjgonza@ull.edu.es
2 Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies XX(X)

Sociologist Zygmunt Bauman argues that play in our playful culture is no longer limited to
childhood but has become a lifelong attitude: ‘The mark of post-modern adulthood is the will-
ingness to embrace play wholeheartedly children do’ (Raessens, 2014). We can then say that play
has infantilized adults and adulterized childhood. Huizinga’s definition of play has met with three
main types of criticism. First, his definition would be universalist and essentialist in that it aims to
cover the immense variety of games and play. However, this could be countered by understanding
the six elements I have distinguished in Huizinga’s definition as a set of criteria that together
constitute a family resemblance in Wittgenstein’s sense. An activity belongs to the family of play
when it meets at least some of these characteristics. We believe that play’s characteristics –
pleasure, uncertainty, agreement-rules, and unproductiveness – must be given simultaneously to
identify an activity as play (Navarro, 2002). According to Raessens (2014), Huizinga does not do
justice to the game’s ambiguity (Sutton-Smith, 1997), precisely its specific definition. For us, the
game’s ambiguity is one more argument to look for a General Game Theory. Thus, we present a
gamification system that makes us understand how games are articulated among themselves,
reducing the game-playing complexity and opening a route in the absent General Game Theory
(Fuchs et al., 2014).
For Huizinga, there is almost no game in modern culture, and one of the main reasons for the
disappearance of the game, he argues, is the emergence of technology (Raessens, 2006). We can
think that the video game is based on the struggle of confrontation and meritorious prizes. Also
seen as an e-sport, and sport (sportification) would be two of these ‘new’ ways of playing in the
21st century, which, for Huizinga, would not be game, or would be so with much debate.
However, if we observed the work of Huizinga, we can say that he was a panludist. However,
he would not be a gamifier because, although he understood that the game was present in other
organizational aspects of life as a promoter of culture, he could not conceive it in a partial way
and with interests outside the playful. He argued that play postpones utility and that taking the
playful factor to increase performance turns the game into something serious (Huizinga, 1984).
Nevertheless, what remains of the game when we are gamifying? We need to specify the limits
of the gamification regarding the game. For this purpose, both concepts and their contributions to a
theoretical framework and its procedures need to be defined.
The gamification process consists of creating new activity from the elements of the game that
are transposed (Zichermann and Cunningham, 2011). However, this process has its limits; even
though the ‘game’ is not fully taken entirely, the user does not give up perceiving a full and fun
activity (Järvinen, 2008). Besides, Fuchs et al. (2014) invited to rethink gamification and think
outside the box. Deterding (2014) proposed abandoning ‘a narrow, atomistic, decontextualized
notion of gamification as the implementation of technical design elements’. He suggested viewing
the extensive systems and contexts, such as social situations, frames, meanings, norms, practices,
and affordances as actor–environment relations. Also, he proposed the ‘Eudaimonic Design’ of the
gamification, following Aristotle’s idea of ‘eudaimonia’ (autotelic, self-determined activity and
excellence and own joy). Therefore, for him, play is the typical accomplishment of eudaemonia.
Thus, some of the questions in this article are the following: what is the limit of transferring the
game elements to another human activity as a reductionist procedure concerning what we
understand as a game? What elements of the game are more gamified, and why? Is it possible to
form a playful-gamifying system? When does gamification satisfy everyone the most? Where are
the limits of gamification? Do we call gamification to ‘sportification’? or Does each gamification
refer to the social organization’s specific criteria that give it coverage and relevance?
González-González and Navarro-Adelantado 3

This article intends to address these questions and objectifies the gamification regarding its
relationship to the game.

State of the art: Game versus gamification

The game is a compact concept that brings together a series of pertinent and inseparable features
that, for Navarro (2002), are pleasure, uncertainty, agreement-rules, and unproductiveness. People
perceive these closely linked traits associated with practice as a complete recreational reality.
On the game concept, we can only establish a consensus based on different realities where it
manifests itself, whether it is a game based on pure body movement, based on the symbolic world,
or founded under the rule (Aarseth, 2003; Stenros, 2017). The game is denatured when the game
leaves its habitual context of practice.
From a systemic point of view, games can be observed like systems made of parts that interact
dynamically (Juul, 2005; Salen & Zimmermarn, 2004), focusing more on the ‘artifact’ than the
‘activity’ (Stenros, 2017). Deterding (2013) defined a game as a systemic artifact with constitutive
rules of ‘playing games’. Some authors refer to this systemic approach as ‘ludology’ (Frasca,
2003). They have proposed game analysis and design methods in an ‘applied ludology’ (Järvinen,
2008). However, another formula for the game’s projection and playing is opened, such as
gamification (Deterding et al., 2011).
Certain elements and systems are taken from the games to improve a result or intensify a
process to gamify an activity or process. Thus, gamification comes from the game and has been
applied to various fields. For example, the gamification has been used for the improvement of
education (Dicheva et al., 2015; González et al., 2016), to business (Kappen and Nacke, 2013), and
to politics and news (Conill and Karlsson, 2016; Ferrer-Conill, 2017; Vanolo, 2018). In these
approaches, the games’ elements or mechanics have been used to be gamified and used as a
technique, method, or strategy. Besides, the gamification procedure seems to be used more as a
tool and has frequently focused on the results or score system over the process itself. So, these
studies place gamification at an epistemological level in forming a model since a construct
developed with a sound transference of the gamification/game problems.
We must delve into the gamification’s goal and how gamification is comparable to the game.
Gamification does not involve a game nor does it follow its autotelic function because it fulfills an
end. On the contrary, gamification uses the game elements and professes a function of utility and
achievement (Deci and Ryan, 1985; Fogg, 2009), looking for the player’s satisfaction mediated by
what he/she tries to achieve (Deterding et al., 2013). The fact that the game brings passion in the
human being explains that it has been projected in different facets of our personal and social
behavior, motivating the player. This same fact allows us to understand that the game constitutes a
universal of cultures (Huizinga, 1984) and that it is a familiar concept to be approached with
market strategies and social penetration and other times to promote straightforward advance tools
for the society, such as entertainment, health, and education.
The controversy between the game and making it a playful activity means losing part of the
game’s intrinsic nature along the way. Gamification has followed this path to obtain achievements,
changing behaviors, and processes through a playful immersion (Deci and Ryan, 1985; Fogg,
2009). Let us accept that gamification just intended an application of game, and this is enough to
take some aspect from the game world. Therefore, we need to identify the elements and systems of
the gamification procedure and its uses. With this, it is intended to verify to what extent the
elements or mechanics of the game being transferred are being extracted, how it complies with the
4 Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies XX(X)

contexts of the person and society. Consequently, we can analyze how the game moves away or
approach to the gamification limits.

Gamification through game mechanics and dynamics: An issue with

inconsistencies
Using techniques, with their elements and dynamics typical of games to move to a context, starts
from the game for, in principle, not straying too far from it. A gamifying procedure takes parts of a
game structure to transfer them to a particular design in a specific field (e.g. education, business).
For example, the first gamification for airlines’ customer loyalty was established through the game
scoring system used as a prize because the accumulation of products or results differentiates
customers from each other (Zichermann and Cunningham, 2011).
However, the game mechanics and dynamics offer some inconsistencies evidenced in cate-
gorical confusions in gamification. For example, points and rewards, which are not mutually
exclusive or may be so in certain conditions; the same occurs with the recognition obtained by
procedural aspects regarding feedback derived from an accumulated result as a product. These four
categories (points, rewards, process, and result) require declaring under what criteria they are
judged; apparently, they are related but cannot be taken as categories in themselves if they are not
linked to a construct. Thus, some inconsistencies in the gamification procedure are revealed; for
example, the process is typical to everyone in the lived experience. The rewards are selective and
lived only by a part of the people. So, the gamification procedure is reductive if it is considered a
tool, without construct concerning the game in which it is inspired. For example, through the
Kahoot tool, gamification is carried out through a competition based on the speed of response
(time) and the success in it, in a closed situation and determined through the tool, focusing activity
on the objective of the task, not in the person, the latter being the center of the playfulness (Stenros,
2015).
Let us see what interpretation can order a suitable model to organize a system that integrates
both gamification and game.
First, we resorted to the concept in the use of ‘game mechanics’ (Marczewski, 2013; Sicart, 2008)
and ‘game dynamics’ (Forrester, 1971; Werbach and Hunter, 2015). ‘Game mechanics’ are the rules
(or norms) that ensure that the activity susceptible to gamification is assimilated into a game. ‘Game
dynamics’ are the resources and values that influence the player’s perception. The ‘mechanics’
search for the game rules to identify and establish a configuration of elements to transfer to the
gamified activity; thus, they leave ready the function that it must fulfill or the same: the dynamics
it involves.
Therefore, when we talk about mechanics, we refer to the game structure for the new activity,
and when we talk about dynamics, we refer to a function of the game for the new activity. As the
function refers to the person and their social relationship, structure, and function do not let out any
game element or any dynamism derived from them. Gamification drinks from this same structure
(mechanics) and function (dynamics) of the game. An issue that immediately hangs over our
deduction is that the game’s structure and function is a contextualized conception in the social
sciences. The structure and function of communication systems reference general systems theory
(Von Bertalanffy, 1968). Thus, there are reliable references that argue for the ‘gamification’
construct.
González-González and Navarro-Adelantado 5

Looking for a systemic model for a complete gamification

There are various approaches to structure in the social sciences that would not help us analyze our
object of analysis because all the structural visions depend on their object and objective. Only one
approach inseparably connects structure and function: the Racdliffe-Bronw’s structural-
functionalism (Kuper, 2004), and also Parsons’ (1959, 1991) systemic structural vision, since
this author considers the actor linked to role and system. What we seek is to make a conception of
the game structure compatible with the systemic conception. Furthermore, we link this approach to
communication structures since it is a content context made up of symbols and signs organized in
certain interrelated structures. The interpretation of the action of gamifying refers first to the game’
structure and the context of communication. In this way, the game’s dynamism is described by the
weight in the person’s system and their interaction environment, being the context’s closure.
The model is interested in associating the subjective vision of structure with the realistic vision of
functionalism. Hence, systemic structuralism serves well as an internal structure of game mechanics.
However, it requires adding a relevant part of reality, in terms of the game’s dynamics, as the person
(motivation, perception of situations, persistence in practice, disposition regarding achievement, etc.)
and the social environment in which it is framed. There are different systemic analogies for the
games in the literature, such as comparing organic life and social life (Kuper, 2004; Luhman, 1998;
Luhmann and López, 1984). The question is, what analogy should impregnate the conception of a
video game’s software. In our opinion, the answer can be ‘the social and communication concep-
tions’ (Luhmann, 1998; Parlebas, 1981, 1988; Parsons, 1959). Therefore, the gamification process
should be guided by these two large macro dimensions.
The systems theory in gamification is reinforced by Luhmann’s approach since a system is
transformed by building new subsystems or by decomposing elements and relationships between
them; the former is justified by differentiation and the latter by systemic complexity (Luhmann,
1998). Furthermore, his conception of the relationship between elements is critical because he sees
it as a possibility of relationships. In such a way, they condition each other, and in this way, their
greater or less complexity is justified. Hence the difficulty in reducing the complexity of the set,
which is interdisciplinary. Therefore, tackling the gamification complexity problem recognizes its
intervening systems, its subsystems, and environments, describing their differences and their
moments of openness or stability.
The limits of gamification are not linear but systemic. Gamification shows the opening of the
‘game’ system to other environments, albeit with its closure. This opening–closing process offers
us more open and connected gamification with the game, as it occurs with video games’ design and
development. Also, the reversible effect of the el game’s adaptation shows the opening–closing of
the game–gamification system. This phenomenon has occurred in the practice of the chase game
(motor or movement game) of the video game Pacman, which children practice in physical edu-
cation classes chasing and fleeing on the sports spaces’ superimposed lines. In the latter case (see
Figure 1), it is a penetration of the video game ‘Pacman’ into the practice of physical education,
taking the logic of virtual achievement but with an application linked to educational curricular
objectives.
To seek the structure’s analysis’s compatibility to understand gamification’s limits, a structural-
functional and systemic model compatible with the communication and the social environment is
required. This model needs to reveal the systems of the games to be gamified. Gamification is a
fact, but not far away from the game, which is the model best perceived by people when they have
fun and entertain themselves. As gamification drinks from the game sources, from its elements and
6 Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies XX(X)

Figure 1. Model for the game–gamification system.

systems of operation or dynamics, likewise, interrelations define the macrosystem person-activity,

person-context, and role-institution, as Parsons (1951) explained.
So far, we have proposed a common foundation through a structural-functionalist and systemic
model for the game–gamification system, based on theoretical support to interpret its relationships.
We rely on graph theory and praxeology because they are theories that combine communication
and play (Parlebas, 1981, 1988, 2001). The graphs would describe the relationships established by
combining the person or persons (potential players) with the structure of the new gamified activity,
and resulting in a particular communication structure, but – and most importantly – describing
homogeneities concerning other similar communication structures. This communication structure
should have to be considered to gamify an activity and guarantees that gamification involves the
person and that (a) establish concrete levels of the ‘person-activity’ and ‘person-environment’
macrosystem, and ‘role-institution’; (b) direct access to recreational phenomena (player motiva-
tion, entertainment function, satisfaction with others); and (c) organization of the strategy for
action (achievements, procedures, attitudes). Figure 1 shows how the gamification procedure
addresses the core of the game, takes a structural element (or elements) and their relationships, and
generates its difference by crossing the environment and applying itself to a new reality; in parallel,
it shares regulatory and cultural values (Parsons, 1951). In this way, it shows the opening of the
game–gamification system.
The structure of the games encloses the game mechanics. Specifically, we find it in the
structural elements: spatial, temporal, player, achievement, and the rules, which describe the
relationships and limits of the actions that put conditions on the behavior of people. Each of these
previous structural relationships brings functional consequences (Navarro, 2002) in practice. All of
González-González and Navarro-Adelantado 7

them can be identified in the different structures and systems that support the game (communi-
cation network, brand interaction network, score system, role systems, and sub-role system1).
Function constitutes the system’s dynamic process (Parsons, 1951) because it fulfills the role
expectations and shows the system’s changing character. Finally, aesthetics shapes the connection
of the game with the person. It represents the person’s experience and expression, emotionality,
and narrative surrounding them through an idea’s character or personification (Marczewski, 2015).
Beyond the person, it is the society that opens the door to interactions, just describing environ-
ments where relationships acquire shared meaning with others (groups, institutions), with culture
being the deepest level of meaning. With different levels of relationships and rules of order and
operation, the structure and function constitute a systemic model to face gamification.
Usually, however, many components and principles of gamification design are taken in various
game structures. These elements have been widely described and studied by different authors, from
a pure game design perspective (Salen and Zimmerman, 2004; Shell, 2008) to application in
nongame contexts (Marczewski, 2013; Werbach and Hunter, 2012; Zichermann and Cunningham,
2011). Therefore, the need for a formal and recognized proposal in-game design led to developing
the formal frameworks, such as MDA (Mechanics, Dynamics, and Aesthetics) (Hunicke et al.,
2004). The MDA framework analyzes the player’s game process in three parts: (a) rules, (b)
system, and (c) fun. These parts of the player experience correspond to the video game design
process from the designer’s perspective: (a) mechanics, (b) dynamics, and (c) aesthetics. We can
see how the structural elements of the game are found in the mechanics (rules as guidelines of
order) and dynamics (interaction system), and how in the player’s playful experience, we find
aesthetics (fun experience). Under the category of aesthetics are a set of elements of the playful
experience, such as sensation (game as pleasure of sense), fantasy (game as simulation), narrative
(game as drama), challenge (game as obstacle course), companionship (game as a social frame-
work), discovery (game as unexplored territory), expression (game as self-discovery), and
recreation (game as a hobby). Aesthetics can be understood as the components of the playful
experience; for the players, it is the end in itself of the game (autotelic), but, for the designers, they
are the responses or emotional states that they want to provoke in the players through the use of the
dynamics and mechanics of the game (Kim, 2015). In this sense, different gamification design
frameworks try to help and guide designers in designing playful experiences (Hamari and Eranti,
2011; Mora et al., 2017).
In the proposed model, this transition between mechanics, dynamics, and aesthetics establishes
the rules with two levels. The first level orders relationships between game mechanics that do not
allude to the person and relate ontic elements of the game (Santos, 2015). On a second level, the
rules are constructed in symbolic narrative form or practical social relations. Both are rules, the
first being (relationships of ontic elements), sometimes, a technical relationship required to
establish support on which the person will act (e.g. a space that separates, a scene of adventure).
However, the second norms are the right projections of the rules because they give meaning and
value to the behavior. It should be clarified that these last rules are of great significance in the
model since they connect with society and culture. At the first level, these rules describe the
relationships of elements that exclude the person. At the second level, the relationships contain
reciprocal interaction and are carriers of shared sociocultural meaning. They describe the condi-
tions and limits of the person’s actions as such. At this last level, institutions guide the designer’s
actions through values, which are the crux of the cultural question since it implies a system of
symbols in continuous transformation (sometimes since the crisis of one of them). From the
designer’s point of view, in this model, the person frames his action concerning different game
8 Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies XX(X)

elements, taking into account the symbolic and the social relations sought; consequently, the
connection between the elements, the context, and the value is established.
For gamification, it is needed to think as a ‘game designer’. That means the designer should
consider the interaction between elements, the context, and the values for the society. Let us think
about how this responsibility fits into some video game designs. For instance, Fortnite 2019 (Gil
et al., 2019) shows characters’ reciprocity based on hunter and prey’s roles. It is framed in violent
action, and with a status for an accumulation of results, set in a battle royal of human hunting, with
a childish aesthetic of cartoons, and a predatory elitist social construction around a dominant
violence value.
From the proposed model, to gamify an element or a relation of elements is extracted, resorting
to the game more openly or partially, but respecting systemic relations at different levels.
Therefore, it is assumed that any model adopted is not neutral when designing a game or a video
game or any activity, so any design is not neutral either because everything carries a value burden
in society.

Gamified structural and functional elements with transverse validity

To progress in the analysis of gamification, we will first place the systemic elements that can be
gamified and that remain valid in other fields of application of the game; for this, we will resort to
framing the mechanics and dynamics of the game about their references regarding the game, the
person and the institution. Our purpose is to seek consistency of structure and function for the
procedures to justify gamification and relate the person in its social context (Table 1). In Table 1,
the game elements have been selected due to their intern logic and systemic nature. Likewise, also
to reveal which aspects are most gamified of the entire possible spectrum of gamification from the
game and which are not, undoubtedly due to the lack of a model that makes sense of the problem as
a whole or due to loss of sight of the game at the time to gamify.
According to Table 1, aspects of the structure and function of the game are not gamified by the
absence or lack of awareness of how to materialize them. The structure clarifies the diversification
of communication networks and score trade interaction networks that could be incorporated into
other activities’ gamification. Thus, for example, and in a context of exergames with gamified
points, the ‘fluctuating’ ambivalence would allow a user of a gym, through an app to complete a
physical performance routine (practice without confrontation, individual), for example, with a
yoga routine (introjected, individual practice) or with a martial arts kata routine (with an opponent,
but who does not take opposition initiatives); in this way, the practitioner fluctuates between
indifference, solidarity or rivalry, that is, ambivalently. If these points are gamified in small
groups, the practitioners of a gym of different specialties sports activities could follow a coop-
erative type score (cooperative score trade interaction).
Regarding the symbolic world of narrative, in symbolic games, we can recognize the same
communication networks and roles as the main identifying aspects (Navarro, 2005) of a narrative
approach, so it behaves, from communication and to the gamifying systemic effects, like the other
games. Therefore, this proposal does not differentiate between ludology and narratology because
they seem compatible (Frasca, 2013) under the same umbrella; the argument is that the narrative is
a part of the (symbolic) structure of the playful activity since it links the symbolic role with the
meaning, that is, text and discourse as elements belonging to the game–gamification system.
Perhaps what is related to the institution is the most delicate point for the system when it comes
to gaining or losing transversality. If an institution’s goals and objectives are not considered in
 Table 1. Gamification based on game mechanics and dynamics, from the structure to its function.
Reference for the game
System of score
System of roles
The confrontation of the game affects
only one event.
(no in-game reference)
Finalist situation describing the task
Score addition (not necessary for the
game, as such, to occur)
Space
STRUCTURE
Time
Symbolic plot
Motor communication network
(Parlebas, 1981, 1988: 215)
Score trade interaction network
(Parlebas, 1981: 200)
9
Gamification
Game mechanics Game dynamics Reference for the game
Points Finished work, punctuation
Role and sub-role, role
Behavior levels
transition
Competitions (Only in sport: organized
reiteration of the confrontation. E-Sports take Desire and condition of status and promotion in
this element when gamifying due to parallelism the development of the activity Macrosystem of score
with sport)
Classifications, competition system
(no in-game reference)
(only in sports; also, in e-Sports)
Desire to achieve a goal and the perception of
Achievement The goal of the activity
related competition
Produce a new result (it is
Awards, gifts The desire for reward and satisfaction added to the accumulated
result, reinforcing it)
Interaction space (regarding a machine, Location (a spatial situation,
Locus (space created, located) regarding people) locations located by the
Immersion space narrative)
FUNCTION
Task completed
With completion Activation of rebalances to keep the game alive
Limited time
Without completion Duration stability Without conclusion
Action time Temporary adaptation to the task Resolution time
Identification with the characters Character functions
Script Projection of an idea that is
The personification of an idea
transmitted
Communication functions
Communication relationship* Desire and conditions to exercise solidarity,
(know, relate, express, and live
Networks of communication** rivalry, or ambivalence
the experience through play)
Antagonistic: The success of a player or side wins Personal satisfaction of achievement in the final The function of recording the
in the result while the opponent loses it. result (score) in a confrontational situation; achievement in the final result
Cooperative: The game is won by cooperatively satisfaction of achievement in the result in a (score)
(continued)
10
Table 1. (continued)
Reference for the game
(communication interaction that is
taken into account in the score
Gamification
Game mechanics Game dynamics Reference for the game
hitting a single side. collaborative situation of own contribution to
Mixed: Antagonistic and cooperative score trade others; or its equivalent version but in a
interactions occur (e.g. basketball) simultaneous confrontation with cooperation
and opposition that produces a result in the
score.
Fantasy Introjected (internalization,
Challenges The desire for exploration (discovery) sensations),
Collaborative action (fellowship) Expression Motivation, Emotions,
Unlocking and opening (towards discovery) Recreation (entertainment) Identification with the role,
Role and function of the character Role expectations

PERSON
PERSON

Adaptation to the task Role in interaction

Group or groups of people who
participate in the gamified activity under
certain conditions and expectations
Social organization to satisfy a need of the group Internal criteria of the
Social interaction that is generated in the group
or groups in a social context in which the institution to make sense of
or groups because of the gamified activity
gamified activity is developed gamification

INSTITUTION
INSTITUTION

*Communication relationship:
– No interaction
– With interaction: opposition, cooperation, cooperation, and opposition.
**Communication networks (exclusive, ambivalent)
– Exclusive-stable: (rivalry or solidarity)
1. exclusive of individuals, teams
2. exclusive (machine-player or two players face each other) with symmetrical or asymmetric duel; n-exclusive (many players independently oppose themselves through the machine
or with each other). n-exclusive teams (n > 2)
– Exclusive-unstable: the rule regulates the change of sides:
Exchange: the change of sides is reversed according to the development of the game.
Convergent: the change of sides reverses the network concerning its initial disposition.
Fluctuating: the change of equipment arises, at a particular moment, in a random way.
– Ambivalent-stable: three or more individuals or teams face each other.
– Ambivalent-unstable: the rule regulates the change of role by which solidarity or rivalry can be exercised (permutant), and the rule allows a player’s will to place him in a role by which he
exercises solidarity or (fluctuating) rivalry.
González-González and Navarro-Adelantado 11

Table 2. Communication, interaction, symbolic, person, and institution dimensions.

Dimensions Communication
 Communication network (exclusive, ambivalent)
 Type of relationship
Interaction
 Mark (score, award, task [achievement, goal], record memory [rankings]
 Role system (result in the brand)
Symbolic
 Plot (characters, personification on an object)
Person
 Perception of the protagonist of the activity
 Emotions triggered (observed or declared)
 Satisfaction with the role played
Institution
 Group (group promotion of the members regarding their roles in the institutional
framework)
 Organization of the group(s) (interaction in the logic of the institution’s norms and values)
 Internal criteria (in correspondence with the goals and objectives of the institution)

gamifying an activity, it causes the system to place the limits of gamification where there should
not be. For example, in some cases, it is intended to include a video game designed for enter-
tainment in the educational field without considering that it must be adapted to curricular purposes
using didactic strategies.

From categories to gamification dimensions

After what has been exposed in the previous Table 1, five robust dimensions are outlined, bringing
together all the mechanics and dynamics of the game and its contexts: communicative, interaction,
symbolic, person, and institution (Table 2). The ‘communication’ dimension refers to the rela-
tionship structure between senders and receivers. The ‘interaction’ dimension refers to the actions
of reciprocity between the participants and their consequences. The ‘symbolic’ dimension refers to
the narrative and its elements and functions in developing characters or personification. The
‘person’ dimension refers to the identifiers of perceiving, motivating, getting excited, identifying
in a role or expected role. Finally, the ‘institution’ dimension refers to acting within the group
through roles, compliance with the regulation of group actions about the values in correspondence
with the institution, and the applicable internal criteria that make the institution’s purposes viable.
Next, it is possible to synthetically appreciate what is covered by each dimension and the operative
contents for each one of them (Table 2):
The dimensions allow finding theoretical frames of reference, describe the most relevant indi-
cators rigorously, and assign variables to operationalize. The categories derived from the dimensions
help diagnose the most representative, frequent, or infrequent phenomenon in gamification.

Reflections on the gamification criteria and a more complete game

It seems that gamifying was a good idea because, although there is a little disagreement about the
concept (Bogost, 2015; Deterding, 2014; Fuchs et al., 2014; Raessens, 2014), it seems to works
12 Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies XX(X)

(Hamari et al., 2014; Nacke and Deterding, 2017). The utilitarian discourse triumphs focused on
why not take advantage of the game to motivate people in their hard work, be loyal, compensate or
liven up the learning task, solve problems, or maximize an activity. What is the validity criterion
when gamifying? It seems to be perceived inertia to transfer the game outside the original
environment. It acquired its meaning from different criteria specific to each sector (market, edu-
cation, health, company, etc.), more or less consistent with the human activity that takes as a
reference.
We perceive four indissoluble criteria in gamification: loyalty, entertainer, enhancer, and peda-
gogical. Loyalty is an idea followed by companies to improve their clients’ adherence and organize
memory records of their employees’ results. According to Gartner (2015), in 2015, 70% of com-
panies gamified their challenges about their customers and their employees. Currently, this gami-
fying habit is becoming more and more consolidated in this sector. The resources most used under
this criterion are PBL (points, badges, and leaderboards) (Nacke and Deterding, 2017). The enter-
tainment is perhaps the most lucid criteria because it seeks to make the activity pleasant, friendly, and
pleasant, like the gamification used in events (Moise and Cruceru, 2014). The video game includes
the criteria of enhancer, as it seeks to create game mechanics conducive to optimizing the player’s
playful experience. The pedagogical criterion transfers gamification to activities with a formative
sense (González et al., 2016). However, most gamification aims to transform a situation by revealing
its positive meaning for behavior or life in general; that is, it traces a user’s pedagogical path.
The four criteria have a useful meeting point. However, efficiency hinders the player’s expe-
rience, which is assured in the authentic game. This transposition line should not be crossed
because the person is, hierarchically, the most relevant element of the system. Loyalty, enter-
tainment, empowerment, and pedagogy constitute an ideal of the gamification strategy that
involves interacting with the person without losing the social reference. Raising the interaction in a
situation close to the game is a challenge for the gamification and a commitment to its quality.
Interaction humanizes gamification when it seeks to unleash positive emotions in people with
the activity. So, when it comes to unleashing emotions, when is the person most predisposed? In a
more complete game, even with a win or lose results system, the player has a procedural experience
covering the entire spectrum of emotions. In the world of gamification, the player experience has
had a strong meaning, an experience that has a before and after, which is directed toward the
desired result. The game tells us that emotions are always positive for all players when they
identify with the process and not with the product. The nuance that marks the limit of the gami-
fication is in understanding that the core of meaning is not in the experience but the experience,
that is, in vivifying the experience and experiencing the emotions and the process. In this sense, the
experience is the person’s emotion (user, player, client, employee, etc.), that is, and as an analogy:
the player’s pleasure when playing. The process is the core of the person’s pleasure in the gamified
activity because it is available to everyone and not only for those who obtain a particular result.

Gamify the process and not only the result giving quality to the interaction
Indeed, the experience of play is twofold: process–result. Gamification is less fortunate when it
focuses more on the result, which is a part of the experience, linking recognitions and awards as
record memories. People who are not rewarded for their work develop fewer positive emotions and
are more vulnerable to demotivation. The key is to assess the process, and this is a prerogative of
the complete game world that gamification would always have to assume and include in its
practical version.
González-González and Navarro-Adelantado 13

However, the process and result do not receive the same treatment when they are gamified. The
process is common to all games, and the product is typical of all games based on rules and has a
completion. However, the product is built in two versions: with or without registration. The first is
based on explicitly leaving others a memory in the form of points or a result system; some games
do not accumulate records and use only the successes of each situation (touching an opponent in a
chasing game and changing the role, continuing in a situation). This indicates the validity of the
process for fun and its emotional consequences, and what is more important: that the emotions and
states that unleash the player while playing are not exclusive to obtaining a product or final result;
likewise, it validates the process of experiencing emotions. This emotional experience has an
enhancer in interaction because it establishes reciprocity in communication and opens the door to
interactive quality.
The interaction is more robust and effective according to their reciprocal relationships, the more
emotions the communication unleashes because they can be shared. When an interaction occurs
between a person and an institution indirectly or with a computerized emitter–receiver, it becomes
weaker. It is more likely to be on the limits of gamification. The explanation for this could be that
the emotions do not emerge directly in the interactions but in a delayed or remote-controlled way.
Thus, it is a weak interaction to gamify the quality of care provided by an employee of a
department store when the customer’s assessment does not include the interaction between the
employee and the buyer – only that of the buyer – more beyond marking an emoticon on a screen,
hidden from the employee.
So, giving quality to gamification is giving proximity to interaction, taking a more humane
model in which there is a flow of emotions associated with moments of the gamification expe-
rience. The moment most like the human game model is the process, without compromising adding
the result, but not just the result. Therefore, it is necessary to identify which emotions correspond to
the process.
By gamifying more, the process, and less the result, by establishing a more human and less
deferred interaction, thanks to the emotional resource, we get closer to the concept of play, which is
autotelic (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997). Looking for a more humanized interaction means not leaving
this relationship in the channels and media’s distance. It is about the person internalizing an
experience and personifying it in a role because it is the only one who gives meaning to the
gamified proposal.

From ludema to ludology: Gamification or sportification?

The interaction, the person (personal identification, role, and emotions), giving continuity to
gamification and not isolating a game element, are key aspects of gamification. Many times,
gamification is located too far from the ludema (playful unit of meaning), whose meaning is the
person’s action at the game. This is because its meaning is not a complete game but a pseudo-game
that partially disposes of the person to play. Because it is more complete gamification when the
playful interaction is round trip, not one-way and reciprocal; in this way, a humanized gamification
must ensure the person a balance between the expectations of the role and the emotions that are
promoted. In other words, the gamified achievement must be within reach of the person partici-
pating in the activity, without losing sight of the process, and not far from what is intended to be
achieved.
That is why the ludema is not an isolated unit but a playful unit of an ever-larger project. A limit
of gamification has been to move away from what the game offers in the set of relationships that
14 Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies XX(X)

emanate from its structure, function, perspective of the person, and institutions’ goals and
objectives. The distancing supposes weak gamification because it reduces the construction of
a project of meanings for the person.
From the gamification point of view, promoting the game in a sportsmanlike way (Parlebas,
2001: 131) defines a limit in favor of sport. In this sports process, the nuances of the concept
‘game’ do not help, which can mean both ‘game’ and ‘sport’. However, in the previous analysis, it
has been seen how there are elements susceptible to gamification that are not characteristic of the
game but are of sport. Hence, ‘gamification’ is a concept somewhat contaminated by the hege-
monic sociocultural vision of sport over the game (Elias and Dunning, 1986; Parlebas, 1988).
As a phenomenon, the game includes the symbolic game and the game with rules, while the
sport is only a game with rules; the game uses sufficient rules to play and are only for the
development of the game, while the sport incorporates a codification of the rules aimed at sanc-
tions and a competition system that extends beyond the development of the game itself. Fur-
thermore, the game has a greater balance between process and product, while the sport focuses on
the product, always reverting to the value of the result. By gamifying, a sportive approach
is removed from the game compared to a gamified proposal. This argument fills a part of the empty
space between the paidea and ludus poles of Caillois (1967), although it is also true that many
traditional adult games behave like sports. In this sense, gamification from the ludus of Caillois is
to move away from the most satisfying game for the person. However, it is feasible to gamify under
the premises of ludus-sport, but it is less available to everyone.
The weak side of gamification is when, in the name of a gamification cause, the recreational line
is crossed to enter the sport. Sport differs from the game in that it highlights the maximum dif-
ference between opponents and includes a competition system that is implemented outside of what
is obtained during the practice of the activity itself. We see this sporty vision against the gami-
fication in the example of the ranking of workers who can make more beds in hotels or who make
more sales in a chain of stores. Wild competition creates great stress for workers because it subjects
them to a competitive system fueled by the demand for job performance, without expectations of
everyone’s role. After all, the model followed is very selective. It is also sportification and not
gamification to establish categories on a company’s customer cards according to the level of
purchases with the silver, gold, and platinum levels because it is to resort to the promotion of status
that follows from the analogy of sports excellence. The difference between gamification and
sportification is clear, and it should be not taking one for the other.

Conclusions
Undoubtedly, in the construction of ludology, gamification has its theoretical background for debate.
Little progress has been made in constructing the disciplinary transversality of gamification, which
requires some coherent model to concretize its discourse. The limits of gamification are part of this
problem.
Gamification has limits on its centrifugal path away from the idea of the game. We have pos-
tulated a centripetal gamification correction that brings it a little closer to a more complete game.
When gamifying, it is necessary to do it based on some model capable of giving theoretical
coherence to the set of elements brought together. For this, in this article, a structural-functional,
systemic model has been exposed, articulating the elements and their relationships. The link between
mechanics and game dynamics is constituted by the role, which is the protagonist of the system’s
interaction, linking the dimensions of communication, interaction, symbolism, person, and
González-González and Navarro-Adelantado 15

institution. The role is the cause of the system opening outwards and inwards and integrates the
person in a place of relevance in the interaction. It is also activated in the group when it comes to
institutions.
Extracting elements of the game without a more global playful pretense is to be at the limits of
gamification; likewise, if gamification is left at the tool or resource level and the interaction is
forgotten, it loses meaning in a playful system. By gamifying and isolating elements, there is a risk
of focusing gamification on particular aspects that do not even belong to the game’s core. It occurs
with the competition system, an issue that, in analogy with game-sport, becomes more than
gamification in sportification.
The model that we have presented is a theoretical model that equally describes the territory of
gamification. Furthermore, the cultural tendencies are those that deviate or focus the use and
practice of it through the conceptions and/or interests of the groups and institutions. Perhaps with
significant influence of the video game and its guidelines, the culture is shown to us in the current
gamification, but the model presented in this article is a complete description of the options
available to us to focus on gamification in all its amplitude.
Gamification teaches us that the game has enormous potential to interest the human being but to
lose sight of its origin is not to consider the weight that the person has in the game–gamification
system and how it is articulated systemically. Therefore, motivating the person is achieved by
approaching the game and, undoubtedly and more effectively, by the game itself.
Ludology is shown as a discipline that, perhaps, has encountered the vast problems of being a
multifaceted game that accompanies and interests the human being throughout their life. It is
unlikely that gamification can grow outside the game’s theoretical sphere. Hence, it needs to be
approached as a complex system that validates its transversality. In fairness, although Huizinga
was the fruit of his time, it is likely that, in current reality, he shared the gamification not far from
the game and with playful coherence.

ORCID iD
Carina S González-González https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5939-9544

Note
1. Actions linked to each role

References
Aarseth E (2003, May) Playing research: Methodological approaches to game analysis. In: Proceedings of the
Digital arts and Culture Conference. København: IT University of Copenhagen, pp. 28–29.
Bogost I (2015) Why gamification is bullshit. In: Walz SP and Deterding S (eds) The Gameful World:
Approaches, Issues, Applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, p. 65.
Caillois R (1967 [1958]) Les jeux et les hommes (Man, play, and games). Paris: Librairie Gallimard.
Conill RF and Karlsson M (2016) The gamification of journalism. In: Davis DZ (ed) Emerging Research and
Trends in Gamification. Pennsylvania, PA: IGI Global, pp. 356–383.
Csikszentmihalyi M (1997) Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York:
Harper Perennial, p. 39.
Deci EL and Ryan RM (1985) Self-determination and intrinsic motivation in human behavior. In: Deci EL
and Ryan RM (eds) Try the new Google Books. Berlin: Springer.
Deterding S (2013) Modes of Play. A Frame Analytical Account of Video Game Play. Ph.D. Thesis, Uni-
versität Hamburg, Germany.
16 Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies XX(X)

Deterding S (2014) Eudaimonic design, or: Six invitations to rethink gamification. In: Fuchs M, Sonia F,
Paolo R, et al (eds) Rethinking Gamification. Lüneburg: Meson Press, pp. 305–323.
Deterding S, Björk SL, Nacke LE, et al. (2013) Designing gamification: Creating gameful and playful
experiences. In: Mackay WE (ed) CHI’13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 3263–3266.
Deterding S, Dixon D, Khaled R, et al. (2011, September). From game design elements to gamefulness:
Defining “gamification.” In: Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envi-
sioning Future Media Environments. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 9–15.
Dicheva D, Dichev C, Agre G, et al. (2015) Gamification in education: A systematic mapping study. Journal
of Educational Technology & Society 18(3): 75–88.
Elias N and Dunning E (1986) The quest for excitement in leisure. Quest for Excitement: Sport and Leisure in
the Civilizing Process, 63–90.
Ferrer-Conill R (2017) Quantifying journalism? A study on the use of data and gamification to motivate
journalists. Television & New Media 18(8): 706–720.
Fogg BJ (2009, April) A behavior model for persuasive design. In: Chatterjee S (ed) Proceedings of the 4th
International Conference on Persuasive Technology. New York, NY: ACM Press, pp. 1–7.
Forrester JW (1971) World Dynamics. Cambridge: Wright-Allen Press.
Frasca G (2003) Simulation versus narrative. Introduction to Ludology. In: Wolf Mark JP and Bernard P (eds)
The Video Game Theory Reader. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 221–235.
Frasca G (2013) Newsgames: el crecimiento de los videojuegos periodı́sticos. Homo videoludens 2: 254–263.
Fuchs M, Fizek S, Ruffino P, et al. (2014) Rethinking Gamification. Lüneburg: Meson press.
Gartner I (2015) Gartner’s 2015 hype cycle for emerging technologies identifies the computing innovations
that organizations should monitor. Gartner Web site. Available at: https://www.gartner.com/en/news
room/press-releases/2015-08-18-gartners-2015-hype-cycle-for-emerging-technologies-identifies-the-com
puting-innovations-that-organizations-should-monitor (accessed 05 January 2021).
Gil RM, González C, Paderewski P, et al. (2019, June) Z Generation and Fortnite: New ethical paradigms in
video games design. In: Proceedings of the XX International Conference on Human-Computer Interac-
tion. Donostia Gipuzkoa Spain, June, 2019, pp. 1–2.
González CS, Gómez N, Navarro V, et al. (2016) Learning healthy lifestyles through active videogames,
motor games and the gamification of educational activities. Computers in Human Behavior 55: 529–551.
Hamari J and Eranti V (2011, September) Framework for designing and evaluating game achievements. In
Digra conference.
Hamari J, Koivisto J, and Sarsa H (2014, January) Does gamification work? – A literature review of empirical
studies on gamification. In: 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Waikoloa,
HI, USA, 6–9 January 2014, pp. 3025–3034.
Huizinga J (1938) Homo Ludens (1984). Madrid: Alianza, p. 74.
Hunicke R, LeBlanc M, and Zubek R (2004, July) MDA: A formal approach to game design and game
research. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI 4(1): 1722).
Järvinen A (2008) Games Without Frontiers: Theories and Methods for Game Studies and Design. Tampere:
Tampere University Press.
Juul J (2005) Games telling stories. In: Raessen J, Goldstein J, and Goldstein JH (eds) Handbook of Computer
Game Studies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 219–226.
Kappen DL and Nacke LE (2013, October) The kaleidoscope of effective gamification: Deconstructing
gamification in business applications. In: Nacke LE (ed) Proceedings of the First International Confer-
ence on Gameful Design, Research, and Applications. New York, NY: Association for Computing
Machinery, pp. 119–122.
Kim B (2015) Understanding Gamification. Chicago, IL: ALA TechSource.
Kuper A (ed) (2004) The Social Anthropology of Radcliffe-Brown (Vol. 7). East Sussex: Psychology Press.
Luhmann N (1998) Sistemas Sociales: Lineamientos Para Una Teorı́a General (Vol. 15). Newnham: Anthro-
pos editorial.
González-González and Navarro-Adelantado 17

Luhmann N and López P (1984) Sociedad y sistema: la ambición de la teorı́a (No. 301.05 L84).
Marczewski A (2013) Gamification: A Simple Introduction and a Bit More. 2nd ed. self-published on Amazon
Digital Services, Kindle edition.
Marczewski A (2015) Even Ninja Monkeys Like to Play: Gamification, Game Thinking and Motivational
Design, 1st ed. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, pp. 65–80.
Moise D and Cruceru AF (2014) The use of gamification in events marketing. International Journal of
Economic Practices and Theories 4(2): 185–190.
Mora A, Riera D, González C, et al. (2017) Gamification: A systematic review of design frameworks. Journal
of Computing in Higher Education 29(3): 516–548.
Nacke LE and Deterding CS (2017) The maturing of gamification research. Computers in Human Behaviour
71: 450–454.
Navarro V (2002) El afán de Jugar. Teorı́a y Práctica de los Juegos Motores. Inde: Barcelona.
Navarro V (2005) El juego simbólico en Educación Fı́sica desde la perspectiva de la Praxiologı́a. Revista
Iberoamericana de Psicomotricidad y Técnicas Corporales.
Parlebas P (1981) Contribution a un léxique commenté en science de laaction motrice. Paris: INSEP.
Parlebas P (1988) Elementos de sociologı́a del deporte. Málaga: Universidad Internacional Deportiva.
Parlebas P (2001) Léxico de praxiologı́a motriz. Barcelona: Paidotribo.
Parsons T (1951) The Social System. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
Parsons T (1959) General theory in sociology. In: Merton RK, Broom L, and Cotrell LS Jr (eds) Sociology
Today. New Yourk: Basic Books.
Parsons T (1991) The Social System. East Sussex: Psychology Press.
Raessens J (2006) Playful identities, or the ludification of culture. Games and Culture 1(1): 52–57.
Raessens J (2014) The ludification of culture. In: Fuchs M, Sonia F, Paolo R, et al. (eds) Rethinking
Gamification. Lüneburg: Meson Press, pp. 91–114.
Salen K and Zimmerman E (2004) Rules of Play: Fundamentals of Game Design. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Santos RM (2015) Juegos, reglas y azar (2a parte). La lógica jurı́dica del baloncesto. Retos: nuevas tendencias
en educación fı́sica, deporte y recreación 27: 159–165.
Shell J (2008) The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.
Sicart M (2008) Defining game mechanics. Game Studies 8(2). Available at: http://gamestudies.org/0802/
articles/sicart.
Stenros J (2015) Playfulness, Play, and Games: A Constructionist Ludology Approach. Tampere: Tampere
University Press.
Stenros J (2017) The game definition game: A review. Games and culture 12(6): 499–520.
Sutton-Smith B (1997) The Ambiguity of Play. Harvard University Press.
Vanolo A (2018) Cities and the politics of gamification. Cities 74: 320–326.
Von Bertalanffy L (1968) General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. New York:
George Braziller. Inc.
Werbach KH and Hunter D (2012) For the Win: How Game Thinking Can Revolutionize Your Business.
Philadelphia, PA: Wharton Digital Press.
Werbach K and Hunter D (2015) The Gamification Toolkit: Dynamics, Mechanics, and Components for the
Win. Philadelphia, PA: Wharton School Press.
Zichermann G and Cunningham C (2011) Gamification by Design: Implementing Game Mechanics in Web
and Mobile Apps. Newton, MA: O’Reilly Media, Inc.

Author biographies
Carina S González-González is a Full Professor at the Department of Computer Engineering and Systems at
University of La Laguna (ULL). Ph.D. in Computer Science (2001) and Social Science and Education (2020).
For over 20 years she has focused on the field of the technologies applied to education and human-computer
18 Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies XX(X)

interaction (intelligent tutoring systems, intelligent interfaces, human-centered design, UX, serious games,
gamification, eLearning, digital culture). She has published widely on these topics. She also has been the
director of the Master in Creation of Videogames (UOC-ULL) and she is the head of the Interaction,
Education and Technology Research Group, and the Digital Culture chair at the University of La Laguna.
ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5939-9544.
Vicente Navarro-Adelantado is a Professor in the Department of Specific Didactics at the University of La
Laguna (ULL). Ph.D in Physical Education (1995). For 30 years he has focused his research on motor play
(sports game, traditional game, motor triad, motor game design, physical education), with accredited publi-
cations and research projects. He is a member of the Teaching Research and Innovation Group in Physical
Activity and Sport at the University of La Laguna. He has published widely in the area of game studies and
motor games. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9732-2492.

View publication stats