2022
Karhulahti, Veli-Matti
Reasons for Qualitative Psychologists to Share Human Data Journal Article
In: British Journal of Social Psychology, 2022, ISSN: 0144-6665.
Abstract | Links | Tags: Ethics, Human data, Open science, Qualitative Methods
@article{Karhulahti2022b,
title = {Reasons for Qualitative Psychologists to Share Human Data},
author = {Veli-Matti Karhulahti},
url = {http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:jyu-202209124552},
doi = {10.1111/bjso.12573},
issn = {0144-6665},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-09-06},
urldate = {2022-09-06},
journal = {British Journal of Social Psychology},
abstract = {Qualitative data sharing practices in psychology have not developed as rapidly as those in parallel quantitative domains. This is often explained by numerous epistemological, ethical and pragmatic issues concerning qualitative data types. In this article, I provide an alternative to the frequently expressed, often reasonable, concerns regarding the sharing of qualitative human data by highlighting three advantages of qualitative data sharing. I argue that sharing qualitative human data is not by default ‘less ethical’, ‘riskier’ and ‘impractical’ compared with quantitative data sharing, but in some cases more ethical, less risky and easier to manage for sharing because (1) informed consent can be discussed, negotiated and validated; (2) the shared data can be curated by special means; and (3) the privacy risks are mainly local instead of global. I hope this alternative perspective further encourages qualitative psychologists to share their data when it is epistemologically, ethically and pragmatically possible.},
keywords = {Ethics, Human data, Open science, Qualitative Methods},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Qualitative data sharing practices in psychology have not developed as rapidly as those in parallel quantitative domains. This is often explained by numerous epistemological, ethical and pragmatic issues concerning qualitative data types. In this article, I provide an alternative to the frequently expressed, often reasonable, concerns regarding the sharing of qualitative human data by highlighting three advantages of qualitative data sharing. I argue that sharing qualitative human data is not by default ‘less ethical’, ‘riskier’ and ‘impractical’ compared with quantitative data sharing, but in some cases more ethical, less risky and easier to manage for sharing because (1) informed consent can be discussed, negotiated and validated; (2) the shared data can be curated by special means; and (3) the privacy risks are mainly local instead of global. I hope this alternative perspective further encourages qualitative psychologists to share their data when it is epistemologically, ethically and pragmatically possible.
2021
Karhulahti, Veli-Matti; Backe, Hans-Joachim
Transparency of Peer Review: A Semi-structured Interview Study with Chief Editors from Social Sciences and Humanities Journal Article
In: Research Integrity and Peer Review, vol. 6, iss. 1, pp. 1-13, 2021, ISSN: 2058-8615.
Abstract | Links | Tags: Ethics, Journalology, Open science, Peer review, Social sciences and humanities
@article{Karhulahti2021e,
title = {Transparency of Peer Review: A Semi-structured Interview Study with Chief Editors from Social Sciences and Humanities},
author = {Veli-Matti Karhulahti and Hans-Joachim Backe},
url = {http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:jyu-202111225749},
doi = {10.1186/s41073-021-00116-4},
issn = {2058-8615},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-11-18},
journal = {Research Integrity and Peer Review},
volume = {6},
issue = {1},
pages = {1-13},
abstract = {Abstract Background Open peer review practices are increasing in medicine and life sciences, but in social sciences and humanities (SSH) they are still rare. We aimed to map out how editors of respected SSH journals perceive open peer review, how they balance policy, ethics, and pragmatism in the review processes they oversee, and how they view their own power in the process. Methods We conducted 12 pre-registered semi-structured interviews with editors of respected SSH journals. Interviews consisted of 21 questions and lasted an average of 67 min. Interviews were transcribed, descriptively coded, and organized into code families. Results SSH editors saw anonymized peer review benefits to outweigh those of open peer review. They considered anonymized peer review the “gold standard” that authors and editors are expected to follow to respect institutional policies; moreover, anonymized review was also perceived as ethically superior due to the protection it provides, and more pragmatic due to eased seeking of reviewers. Finally, editors acknowledged their power in the publication process and reported strategies for keeping their work as unbiased as possible. Conclusions Editors of SSH journals preferred the benefits of anonymized peer review over open peer and acknowledged the power they hold in the publication process during which authors are almost completely disclosed to editorial bodies. We recommend journals to communicate the transparency elements of their manuscript review processes by listing all bodies who contributed to the decision on every review stage.
},
keywords = {Ethics, Journalology, Open science, Peer review, Social sciences and humanities},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Abstract Background Open peer review practices are increasing in medicine and life sciences, but in social sciences and humanities (SSH) they are still rare. We aimed to map out how editors of respected SSH journals perceive open peer review, how they balance policy, ethics, and pragmatism in the review processes they oversee, and how they view their own power in the process. Methods We conducted 12 pre-registered semi-structured interviews with editors of respected SSH journals. Interviews consisted of 21 questions and lasted an average of 67 min. Interviews were transcribed, descriptively coded, and organized into code families. Results SSH editors saw anonymized peer review benefits to outweigh those of open peer review. They considered anonymized peer review the “gold standard” that authors and editors are expected to follow to respect institutional policies; moreover, anonymized review was also perceived as ethically superior due to the protection it provides, and more pragmatic due to eased seeking of reviewers. Finally, editors acknowledged their power in the publication process and reported strategies for keeping their work as unbiased as possible. Conclusions Editors of SSH journals preferred the benefits of anonymized peer review over open peer and acknowledged the power they hold in the publication process during which authors are almost completely disclosed to editorial bodies. We recommend journals to communicate the transparency elements of their manuscript review processes by listing all bodies who contributed to the decision on every review stage.
2020
Alha, Kati
The Rise of Free-to-Play: How the Revenue Model Changed Games and Playing PhD Thesis
2020, ISBN: 978-952-03-1774-4.
Abstract | Links | Tags: Attitudes, Augmented reality, Ethics, Evaluation, Experience, Facebook, Free-to-play, Freemium, Future, Game industry, Grossing, Heuristics, Literature review, Metascore, Mobile gaming, Paying, Playability, Pokémon Go, Reviews, Sales, Social games, Social networks, Virtual goods
@phdthesis{Alha2020,
title = {The Rise of Free-to-Play: How the Revenue Model Changed Games and Playing},
author = {Kati Alha},
url = {http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-03-1774-4
},
isbn = {978-952-03-1774-4},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-12-11},
abstract = {Free-to-play games have permanently transformed the game industry. Offering a game for free and gaining income through voluntary purchases during gameplay have proven to be the most successful way to gain revenue. Due to the model, more people than ever before play games, and the economic significance of games as business has multiplied. Simultaneously, the model has received a backlash for offering inferior, imbalanced game experiences that take advantage of players, manipulating them into playing and paying.
Despite the criticism and changes in game experiences, the research on free-to-play games is still heavily focused on economic aspects, with the goal to maximize revenue and find the best practices by which to implement the model. The voices of players are measured mostly through log data or quantitative surveys, while exploratory, qualitative research has been in the minority. The significance of free-to-play games and their connection to our game culture and society are still lacking critical inspection.
This dissertation takes up the challenge by studying free-to-play games from various perspectives through multiple methods, concentrating on qualitative approaches. The work shows the broad view of how and why free-to-play games have become so successful, how they have transformed games, and what problematic aspects are connected to them. The main claims of this dissertation are connected to: 1) the undervaluation of free-to-play games; 2) the unique challenges between money and gameplay experience; 3) the different framings of fairness and equality; 4) the need for transparency and legislation; and 5) the transformative power of free-to-play games on the consumption and creation of games.
The results show that while free-to-play games are played extensively, they are less valued than other games. This is especially true with mobile or casual free-to-play games and is descriptive of how we appraise and evaluate games. The lack of appreciation is connected to the nature of many free-to-play games, which are often never-ending and slow-paced, and offer challenges that differ from other games. The experiences that these games offer are different from the traditional, meritocratic values we have come to expect from games, and especially allowing advancement with money is in direct conflict with these values. The devaluation is shown in how the games are discussed, how they are reviewed (or not reviewed at all) by game journalists, and how they are studied. The players who engage with these games can also be excluded from gaming communities and gaming identities. At the same time, the challenges of the revenue model have resulted in new, creative solutions that bring diversity into game experiences and offer flexible playing for wider audiences.
The ethical issues connected to free-to-play games do need to be taken seriously. Problems connected to a lack of transparency, problematic playing, a resemblance to gambling, marketing to under-aged players, and privacy issues raise valid concerns. While free-to-play companies need to be especially mindful in giving players enough information and to implement tools to prevent accidental purchases and problematic playing, the industry also needs regulation that comes from outside itself. Thus, to create fair and functional legislation, we need academic and industry expertise in the committees doing the legislative work.
Despite the challenges and undervaluation that free-to-play games encounter, it is an indisputable fact that their impact on the game industry and on game consumption is both formidable and irreversible. They therefore deserve our attention and a critical exploration as a legitimate part of game culture. If you do not know free-to-play games, you do not know games.},
keywords = {Attitudes, Augmented reality, Ethics, Evaluation, Experience, Facebook, Free-to-play, Freemium, Future, Game industry, Grossing, Heuristics, Literature review, Metascore, Mobile gaming, Paying, Playability, Pokémon Go, Reviews, Sales, Social games, Social networks, Virtual goods},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {phdthesis}
}
Free-to-play games have permanently transformed the game industry. Offering a game for free and gaining income through voluntary purchases during gameplay have proven to be the most successful way to gain revenue. Due to the model, more people than ever before play games, and the economic significance of games as business has multiplied. Simultaneously, the model has received a backlash for offering inferior, imbalanced game experiences that take advantage of players, manipulating them into playing and paying.
Despite the criticism and changes in game experiences, the research on free-to-play games is still heavily focused on economic aspects, with the goal to maximize revenue and find the best practices by which to implement the model. The voices of players are measured mostly through log data or quantitative surveys, while exploratory, qualitative research has been in the minority. The significance of free-to-play games and their connection to our game culture and society are still lacking critical inspection.
This dissertation takes up the challenge by studying free-to-play games from various perspectives through multiple methods, concentrating on qualitative approaches. The work shows the broad view of how and why free-to-play games have become so successful, how they have transformed games, and what problematic aspects are connected to them. The main claims of this dissertation are connected to: 1) the undervaluation of free-to-play games; 2) the unique challenges between money and gameplay experience; 3) the different framings of fairness and equality; 4) the need for transparency and legislation; and 5) the transformative power of free-to-play games on the consumption and creation of games.
The results show that while free-to-play games are played extensively, they are less valued than other games. This is especially true with mobile or casual free-to-play games and is descriptive of how we appraise and evaluate games. The lack of appreciation is connected to the nature of many free-to-play games, which are often never-ending and slow-paced, and offer challenges that differ from other games. The experiences that these games offer are different from the traditional, meritocratic values we have come to expect from games, and especially allowing advancement with money is in direct conflict with these values. The devaluation is shown in how the games are discussed, how they are reviewed (or not reviewed at all) by game journalists, and how they are studied. The players who engage with these games can also be excluded from gaming communities and gaming identities. At the same time, the challenges of the revenue model have resulted in new, creative solutions that bring diversity into game experiences and offer flexible playing for wider audiences.
The ethical issues connected to free-to-play games do need to be taken seriously. Problems connected to a lack of transparency, problematic playing, a resemblance to gambling, marketing to under-aged players, and privacy issues raise valid concerns. While free-to-play companies need to be especially mindful in giving players enough information and to implement tools to prevent accidental purchases and problematic playing, the industry also needs regulation that comes from outside itself. Thus, to create fair and functional legislation, we need academic and industry expertise in the committees doing the legislative work.
Despite the challenges and undervaluation that free-to-play games encounter, it is an indisputable fact that their impact on the game industry and on game consumption is both formidable and irreversible. They therefore deserve our attention and a critical exploration as a legitimate part of game culture. If you do not know free-to-play games, you do not know games.
Despite the criticism and changes in game experiences, the research on free-to-play games is still heavily focused on economic aspects, with the goal to maximize revenue and find the best practices by which to implement the model. The voices of players are measured mostly through log data or quantitative surveys, while exploratory, qualitative research has been in the minority. The significance of free-to-play games and their connection to our game culture and society are still lacking critical inspection.
This dissertation takes up the challenge by studying free-to-play games from various perspectives through multiple methods, concentrating on qualitative approaches. The work shows the broad view of how and why free-to-play games have become so successful, how they have transformed games, and what problematic aspects are connected to them. The main claims of this dissertation are connected to: 1) the undervaluation of free-to-play games; 2) the unique challenges between money and gameplay experience; 3) the different framings of fairness and equality; 4) the need for transparency and legislation; and 5) the transformative power of free-to-play games on the consumption and creation of games.
The results show that while free-to-play games are played extensively, they are less valued than other games. This is especially true with mobile or casual free-to-play games and is descriptive of how we appraise and evaluate games. The lack of appreciation is connected to the nature of many free-to-play games, which are often never-ending and slow-paced, and offer challenges that differ from other games. The experiences that these games offer are different from the traditional, meritocratic values we have come to expect from games, and especially allowing advancement with money is in direct conflict with these values. The devaluation is shown in how the games are discussed, how they are reviewed (or not reviewed at all) by game journalists, and how they are studied. The players who engage with these games can also be excluded from gaming communities and gaming identities. At the same time, the challenges of the revenue model have resulted in new, creative solutions that bring diversity into game experiences and offer flexible playing for wider audiences.
The ethical issues connected to free-to-play games do need to be taken seriously. Problems connected to a lack of transparency, problematic playing, a resemblance to gambling, marketing to under-aged players, and privacy issues raise valid concerns. While free-to-play companies need to be especially mindful in giving players enough information and to implement tools to prevent accidental purchases and problematic playing, the industry also needs regulation that comes from outside itself. Thus, to create fair and functional legislation, we need academic and industry expertise in the committees doing the legislative work.
Despite the challenges and undervaluation that free-to-play games encounter, it is an indisputable fact that their impact on the game industry and on game consumption is both formidable and irreversible. They therefore deserve our attention and a critical exploration as a legitimate part of game culture. If you do not know free-to-play games, you do not know games.
Chee, Florence M.; Karhulahti, Veli-Matti
The Ethical and Political Contours of Institutional Promotion in eSports: From Precariat Models to Sustainable Practices Journal Article
In: Human Technology, vol. 16, iss. 2, pp. 200-226, 2020, ISSN: 1795-6889.
Abstract | Links | Tags: Electronic sports, Ethics, Institutional promotion, League, Rights, Video game labour
@article{Chee2020,
title = {The Ethical and Political Contours of Institutional Promotion in eSports: From Precariat Models to Sustainable Practices},
author = {Florence M. Chee and Veli-Matti Karhulahti},
doi = {10.17011/ht/urn.202008245642},
issn = {1795-6889},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-08-01},
journal = {Human Technology},
volume = {16},
issue = {2},
pages = {200-226},
abstract = {This study evaluated five early cases in which esport developer Riot Games made rulings regarding activities and infractions by members of various institutions related to its product, League of Legends. The findings of this study support future theoretical exploration of other esports in seeking a fuller understanding of issues related to consent, power differentials, and roles and behaviors expected of the institutional activities of players and teams in competition. Increased investigation of these-and other-issues from an ethical standpoint could lead to a framework that not only would facilitate future study but also bring opportunities for improvements in practices in concert with necessary policy changes. },
keywords = {Electronic sports, Ethics, Institutional promotion, League, Rights, Video game labour},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
This study evaluated five early cases in which esport developer Riot Games made rulings regarding activities and infractions by members of various institutions related to its product, League of Legends. The findings of this study support future theoretical exploration of other esports in seeking a fuller understanding of issues related to consent, power differentials, and roles and behaviors expected of the institutional activities of players and teams in competition. Increased investigation of these-and other-issues from an ethical standpoint could lead to a framework that not only would facilitate future study but also bring opportunities for improvements in practices in concert with necessary policy changes.
2018
Alha, Kati; Kinnunen, Jani; Koskinen, Elina; Paavilainen, Janne
Free-to-Play Games: Paying Players' Perspective Proceedings Article
In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Academic Mindtrek Conference, pp. 49–58, 2018.
Abstract | Links | Tags: Attitudes, Digital games, Ethics, Experience, Free-to-play, In-game purchases
@inproceedings{Alha2018,
title = {Free-to-Play Games: Paying Players' Perspective},
author = {Kati Alha and Jani Kinnunen and Elina Koskinen and Janne Paavilainen},
url = {https://researchportal.tuni.fi/en/publications/free-to-play-games-paying-players-perspective},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1145/3275116.3275133},
year = {2018},
date = {2018-10-01},
urldate = {2018-10-01},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the 22nd International Academic Mindtrek Conference},
pages = {49–58},
abstract = {This paper investigates the free-to-play revenue model from the perspective of paying players, focusing on high-spenders. As the free-to-play model has proven successful, game developers have increasingly adopted it as their revenue model. At the same time, worrying concerns over the revenue model have been voiced, calling it exploitative, unethical, or simply claiming it to offer poor gameplay experiences. We investigated these concerns by conducting an interview study with 11 players who have spent money on free-to-play games, on their perceptions about free-to-play games, experiences on playing them and paying in them, and opinions on ethical issues in the games. The results shed light on how players themselves experience these games.},
keywords = {Attitudes, Digital games, Ethics, Experience, Free-to-play, In-game purchases},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inproceedings}
}
This paper investigates the free-to-play revenue model from the perspective of paying players, focusing on high-spenders. As the free-to-play model has proven successful, game developers have increasingly adopted it as their revenue model. At the same time, worrying concerns over the revenue model have been voiced, calling it exploitative, unethical, or simply claiming it to offer poor gameplay experiences. We investigated these concerns by conducting an interview study with 11 players who have spent money on free-to-play games, on their perceptions about free-to-play games, experiences on playing them and paying in them, and opinions on ethical issues in the games. The results shed light on how players themselves experience these games.