The following are questions I’ve been grappling with as I begin to narrow my focus for my M.A. Thesis research:
1. What are the socially defined boundaries between “work” and “play”? How can aspects of “play” and “playfulness” be incorporated into “work” activities? Would this intertwining of work and play have any benefit to the overall outcome (i.e. bottom line – ROI) of the work activity, beyond (possibly) adding enjoyment for the worker?
2. The increase in the size and prominence of the freelance workforce has disrupted(?) the traditional workweek of Monday-Friday, as well as the traditional 9-5 workday. What role have digital technologies played in this shift? In what way does this diversion from the cultural norm represent playfulness? Is the freelance workforce, or are some members of the freelance workforce, better able to incorporate play not only into their workflow, but also into their everyday, non-work activities?
3. What kinds of interactions inspire groundbreaking work and ideas? How can digital technologies recreate (create? / generate?) these interactions? Can these interactions be considered play within the context of a work environment? What parameters need to be defined in order for the interactions to be considered serious play?
4. Are there organizational processes (such as venture capital funding, talent recruitment, product development, etc.) that could benefit from serious play practices? How playful can these activities be without being seen as degrading to the work?
5. Is there an alternative to gamification that allows room for play and playfulness in a work environment? What is the ideal balance between the freedom to play and the parameters, rules, and boundaries set forth by a project or task? To what extent can these acts still be considered play if they include parameters, rules and boundaries?
6. Despite the fact that there are several rhetorics employed when discussing play and play theory, one prominent rhetoric is that of play as progress, or the idea that children’s play contributes to the adaptation and development of children, but neglects how play can be used by adults. To what degree is the language used to talk about play and other play practices (playfulnees, game, gamification, etc.) helpful or detrimental to incorporating the practices into professional spheres? Is there alternative language that could be used in professional spheres that carries similar meaning, but that takes on a more serious, authoritative tone than the language used when talking about play in other, more “juvenile” spheres?
Trackbacks/Pingbacks