Scholars have largely focused on gamification as a means to motivate students, and to a lesser degree on the faculty whose engagement is essential for fostering innovation in higher education.

A recent study by Dr. Silva Karkoulian, professor and director of the Graduate Business Programs at the Adnan Kassar School of Business, titled “Boosting faculty engagement: the cultural and gender dynamics of gamification in universities,” has provided insights into the cultural and gender factors that influence how faculty adopt gamification with direct implications for both teaching and policy.

“Most gamification research targets students, but long-term success depends on faculty adoption,” explained Dr. Karkoulian. “Faculty engagement is often overlooked because it involves complex factors such as culture, workload and professional identity. This research shows that it is the leverage point: When faculty members adopt innovations, education becomes more consistent, more innovative and more outcome-focused.”

The need for faculty to innovate and diversify gamification is evident in students’ interactions with the medium. Students who struggle with confidence, for instance, may find competitive games demoralizing rather than motivating, while games that are used repeatedly risk losing their novelty and becoming distractions.

The onus falls on faculty to come up with more imaginative formats, such as collaborative challenges, immersive story-based simulations, or achievement badges that keep students engaged without excluding those who may not thrive under pressure.

Taking students’ responses into account, faculty members who are engaged with gamification “are more willing to experiment, adapt tools and sustain innovations, leading directly to stronger learning outcomes and better student experiences at universities,” said Dr. Karkoulian.

The success of faculty engagement, however, depends on the cultural environments of the institution, of which there are four, according to the study: clan, market, adhocracy, and hierarchical.

Institutions with a clan culture, where relationships and trust are most valued, are most receptive when gamification is collaborative and peer-led. By contrast, a market culture that emphasizes results and measurable outcomes responds best when gamification is tied to recognition and competition. More flexible institutions with an adhocracy culture thrive on experimentation and creativity, making them fertile ground for playful, risk-taking forms of gamification. Meanwhile, universities with a hierarchical culture, where structure and rules dominate, are more likely to succeed when gamification aligns smoothly with established systems and clear procedures.

“One-size-fits-all approaches simply do not work,” stressed Dr. Karkoulian. “Each culture has its own rhythm, and strategies must adapt to those realities.”

While certain applications are effective with students, others are more suited to the faculty’s professional growth. “For students, gamification can take the form of badges, challenges and simulations to keep them engaged,” explained Dr. Karkoulian. For faculty members, on the other hand, “gamified professional development may include micro-credentials, leaderboards and rewards for innovation. The key is alignment—tools need to connect with real outcomes; otherwise, they risk becoming gimmicks,” she added.

Inclusivity emerged as another critical dimension of the study’s findings. Gender differences shape the way faculty respond to gamification, highlighting the need for flexible entry points, varied incentives and responsive scheduling. Gathering gender-disaggregated feedback is essential to ensure fairness, said Dr. Karkoulian, noting that inclusivity is as much about process as it is about outcome.

Programs that succeed are those that are relevant, flexible and social, allowing faculty to act not only as participants but as co-designers. For example, women faculty may benefit more from flexible scheduling that accommodates competing responsibilities, while men might be more responsive to performance-based recognition. Some faculty members prefer social, collaborative rewards, while others are drawn to more individualized incentives.

This spectrum of needs calls for varied pathways into gamified programs, from microlearning modules that can be completed on demand to peer mentoring networks that foster a sense of community. “When faculty members feel ownership,” Dr. Karkoulian explained, “innovation is no longer temporary; it lasts.”

It falls on the universities to design strategies that reduce inequalities and foster more equitable global partnerships by tailoring gamification to cultural and gender dynamics.

Looking ahead, Dr. Karkoulian is eager to expand the scope of the work and build international collaborations and comparative studies that test cultural and gender dynamics across contexts “to create adaptable toolkits that universities everywhere can use to sustain long-term innovation,” she said.

“At LAU, research is not only about theory and data but about people,” she added. “It is about helping faculty members, students and communities build solutions that are innovative, inclusive and sustainable. That is how we turn knowledge into impact.”

To browse more scholarly output by the LAU community, visit our open-access digital archive, the Lebanese American University Repository (LAUR)