Abstract
Libraries worldwide are increasingly adopting gamified and entertainment-oriented strategies to engage youth readers, sparking an ongoing academic debate about “service alienation”—the risk that innovation-driven programming may drift from the library's core literacy mission. This tension remains largely unresolved at the empirical level: it is unclear whether gamified, “alienated” activities genuinely undermine reading promotion effectiveness, or whether they represent a legitimate and complementary pathway alongside substantive, content-driven approaches. This study investigates which causal configurations of program characteristics produce effective reading promotion, what role gamification and entertainment elements play within those configurations, and how Chinese libraries should strategically balance the two approaches. Using fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) on 30 cases—19 Chinese gamified initiatives and 11 IFLA Marketing Award-winning substantive programs—six key conditions were systematically compared: gamification degree, entertainment elements, social media engagement, deep content relevance, author/expert involvement, and community co-creation. The analysis identifies four distinct configurational pathways to effectiveness: the Pure Gamification, Social-Gamification, Content–Community, and Pure Content-Oriented models. While substantive content and community co-creation remain the primary drivers of sustained engagement, gamification proves effective when integrated with social interaction—and is not inherently alienating. In conclusion, these findings provide library administrators with an evidence-based diagnostic framework to strategically balance attention-grabbing innovations with the core mission of fostering deep and lasting reading habits.
Introduction
With the rapid development of digital technologies and artificial intelligence, Chinese libraries have launched increasingly innovative reading promotion activities. These initiatives often emphasize gamification and entertainment, creating a vibrant landscape. However, scholars in the Chinese LIS field have increasingly noted that some programs prioritize attention-grabbing strategies and traffic generation over core reading functions, raising concerns about “alienation.” According to a survey by Zhou and Yang (2023), more and more academic libraries have adopted gamified services, with escape rooms and role-playing games increasingly occupying resources and schedules traditionally allocated to librarian-led reading activities (TA et al., 2025).
However, some programs prioritize attention-grabbing strategies and traffic generation over core reading functions, raising concerns about “alienation.” Gamification, initially used in commercial contexts, has expanded into education and health sectors, prompting libraries to adopt game-based and entertainment elements that transform traditional service models and introduce novel user experiences. This trend has sparked a significant academic debate. Proponents argue that these entertainment-oriented methods lower barriers to access and attract younger demographics (Anwar and Zhiwei, 2020). Conversely, critics warn that excessive reliance on sensory stimulation risks “alienating” the library from its fundamental mission of literacy development (Meesad and Mingkhwan, 2024). Currently, this debate remains largely theoretical. This study aims to move beyond normative arguments by empirically examining whether these “alienated” forms actually undermine reading promotion effectiveness or if they constitute a valid new pathway.
While such trends offer clear advantages, including new ways to engage users, they risk shifting focus away from the library's fundamental reading mission.
Reading promotion is defined as the process of balancing readers’ needs with access to literary and informational resources through management and policy interventions, ultimately extending the reach and impact of reading activities (Li and Zhang, 2025; Salubi and Majavu, 2024). This core library function underpins institutional value and is foundational to all library service systems. Yet, professional best practices and standards remain unclear about the distinction between reading promotion and other library services, or even whether such distinctions should exist.
Introducing innovative features in standardized reading activities can attract more readers, but excessive gamification or entertainment may detract from the goal of cultivating lasting reading habits. For example, escape rooms, role-playing games, and concerts are increasingly becoming substitutes for traditional librarian-led reading activities (Gerts, 2024; Jedlicka and Eaton, 2024; Soylu and Medeni, 2025; Starns, 2026). Such shifts have raised academic concerns about maintaining effective reading services and safeguarding library missions (Li et al., 2025).
Despite these concerns, empirical research examining whether highly gamified, entertainment-based promotion truly undermines the library's core functions or essential services remains limited. Therefore, this study examines an experimental group (featuring gamified and entertainment-based “alienation” factors) and a control group (utilizing “substantive” factors from IFLA award-winning cases) to assess which approach yields better results in Chinese libraries. Drawing from 30 cases—19 from Chinese libraries and 11 from IFLA Marketing Award winners—the study addresses the following research questions:
What combinations of conditions best explain highly effective reading promotion? What role do “alienation” elements such as gamification play—are they driving, irrelevant, or inhibiting conditions? For Chinese libraries, are gamification or substantive content approaches more effective, and how should each be applied?
Literature review
Content-driven reading promotion: the “content is king” model
Core principles of effective reading promotion emphasize the quality and relevance of content. The literature in library and information science consistently argues that successful reading promotion prioritizes substantive materials that align with users’ intellectual needs and development (Itsekor and Nwokeoma, 2017). The “content is king” paradigm asserts that the intrinsic value of reading materials and the depth of content engagement are the primary drivers of sustained reading and literacy development.
Empirical evidence supports this content-centered approach. For example, aligning book features with reader preferences and needs—known as content matching—significantly increased satisfaction and ongoing engagement compared with more generic promotional efforts (Malakul and Songmuang, 2026). Content-driven models extend beyond individual interaction to project design. Successful promotional projects typically involve expert-led discussions, curated materials, and activities that foster deep engagement with literary themes, such as book clubs, author talks, and thematic programs (Devi et al., 2024).
The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) International Marketing Award provides empirical validation for key content-driven success factors by recognizing outstanding library marketing and outreach initiatives worldwide. Yue (2022) conducted a systematic review of IFLA Marketing Award recipients and identified five core success factors: (1) user-centeredness—comprehensive understanding of community needs and participatory service design; (2) innovation—creative solutions to address specific user barriers; (3) sustainability—long-term viability achieved through institutional integration and efficient resource use; (4) measurable impact—demonstrable outcomes in user engagement and community benefit; and (5) transferability—the capacity for adaptation in diverse library contexts.
Content relevance stands out as a fundamental element in all successful cases. The Swedish National Library's Multilingual Storytelling Project crafted culturally relevant narratives tailored to immigrant communities, ensuring alignment with participants’ linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Community co-creation is another critical success factor highlighted by IFLA award-winning projects. Gupta and Koontz noted that effective initiatives do not treat libraries solely as content providers or users as passive recipients, but instead actively involve communities in content selection, project design, and implementation (Gupta et al., 2010).
Expert involvement constitutes a third success factor, although often more nuanced than initially assumed. lt can be found that many award-winning projects invite professional writers, scholars, or subject specialists; however, their roles extend beyond content delivery to include facilitating meaningful dialogue and fostering community knowledge formation (Baker and Lo, 2024). Resource sustainability also emerges as a critical and pragmatic factor. Witt noted that sustainable development is central for libraries in addressing global challenges (Witt, 2024).
Gamification in reading promotion: opportunities and controversies
Gamification is defined as “the use of game design elements in non-game contexts” and seeks to enhance user engagement by leveraging mechanisms from games, including points, badges, leaderboards, challenges, and narrative structures (Lehtivuori, 2023).
The theoretical basis for gamification derives chiefly from behavioral psychology and motivational theories. Self-Determination Theory provides a leading framework, proposing that gamification strengthens intrinsic motivation by satisfying three psychological needs: autonomy (sense of volition), competence (feeling of effectiveness), and relatedness (social connection and belonging) (Ryan and Deci, 2000). Effective gamification systems support autonomy through meaningful choices, competence via progressive challenges and feedback, and relatedness through social interaction and collaborative goals (Sterrantino, 2021).
Gamification also operates through extrinsic motivation—external rewards and recognition independent of personal interest (Bai et al., 2026). Elements such as points, badges, and leaderboards exemplify extrinsic motivators, which may boost short-term engagement but risk diminishing intrinsic motivation, a phenomenon termed motivational crowding-out (Deci et al., 1999).
Flow theory further elucidates gamification's impact, demonstrating that optimal experiences arise when challenge and skill are balanced, goals are clear, and feedback is immediate (Oliveira et al., 2022).
Chinese libraries have actively embraced gamification. Zhou and Yang found that most academic libraries had implemented some form of gamification, with reading promotion as the most frequent application (Zhou and Yang, 2023). Practical implementations in China showcase creative adaptation. For example, Zhejiang Library used a treasure hunt and puzzle-solving format to encourage exploration, linking challenges to the discovery of classic literature. Recently, public libraries have introduced more sophisticated models, such as literature-themed escape rooms and scenario-based games that incorporate historical and literary narratives.
Nevertheless, critical perspectives question the appropriateness of gamification for reading promotion. Nicholson argues that library gamification often overemphasizes extrinsic rewards and competition, potentially undermining intrinsic motivation for reading and creating a “chocolate-covered broccoli” effect—where game elements merely disguise educational content without meaningful integration (Nicholson, 2015). This critique aligns with studies demonstrating that extrinsic rewards can suppress intrinsic motivation in enjoyable activities, known as the “overjustification effect” (Al-Hoorie, 2024).
Such programs have proliferated in Chinese public libraries as institutions compete for public attention and seek to demonstrate social relevance. Activities range from celebrity author events and theatrical performances to themed programs featuring role-playing, music, and visual displays (Li et al., 2026).
Proponents argue that entertainment lowers barriers to library participation, attracts diverse audiences who might otherwise avoid libraries, and highlights the institution's vitality and contemporary relevance (Anwar and Zhiwei, 2020).
Conversely, critics contend that highly entertainment-driven initiatives represent mission drift, redirecting resources and focus away from core functions such as literacy development and substantive reading promotion. The central concern is not entertainment itself, but rather when it becomes the primary objective rather than an instrumental tool—resulting in spectacles that may draw crowds but fail to cultivate meaningful reading engagement or lasting library relationships. Additionally, there are concerns that pervasive entertainment could undermine the library's traditional role as a steward of classical cultural values (Meesad and Mingkhwan, 2024).
The development of reading promotion in china and the emergence of alienation concerns
The policies state that reading promotion as a strategic priority, guides public libraries to develop innovative initiatives aimed at expanding reading participation across diverse population groups. The dual impact of globalization and rapid technological advancements in digital and intelligent systems has brought both substantial opportunities and complex challenges to the library sector (Witt, 2017). Within this dynamic policy environment, Chinese libraries—particularly in metropolitan areas—have responded with increasingly varied and creative reading promotion programs. Professional literature during this phase emphasized user-centered innovation; coupled with institutional pressure to demonstrate social value and attract public interest, this fostered extensive experimentation with gamified and entertainment-oriented approaches.
By 2019–2020, critical perspectives emerged within the Chinese library field, raising questions about whether such innovation had caused unintended consequences—namely, the alienation of reading promotion from core library values and functions. Alienation-based critiques involve several interconnected issues:
Mission drift: programs prioritize entertainment, spectacle, or viral social media appeal over meaningful reading engagement and literacy development. Critics highlight examples such as celebrity meet-and-greet events with limited literary substance, elaborate cosplay activities unrelated to books, and reading treated as a subsidiary element in gamified entertainment consumption. Commodification: reading promotion strategies increasingly adopt commercial marketing practices, treating readers as consumers to be engaged through novelty and stimulation, rather than as community members involved in substantive cultural participation (Li and Zhang, 2025). This critique mirrors broader anxieties regarding neoliberal influence on public cultural organizations. Trivialization: activities lead to short-lived peaks in participation without fostering enduring reading habits or deep engagement with texts. Critics contend that viral social media metrics and attendance figures can obscure deficiencies in achieving fundamental reading promotion objectives.
Concerns also extend to resource misallocation and ambiguity surrounding librarians’ professional identity.
Critiques of alienation implicitly reference Marxist theory, particularly Marx's concept of alienation as the separation from fundamental human activities and purposes (Marx, 1844/1988). In the library context, alienation arises when the promotion of reading is disconnected from reading itself—when instrumental objectives (attracting participants, generating publicity) supplant substantive goals (cultivating reading habits, developing literacy, or meaningful cultural engagement).
Nonetheless, critiques of alienation have faced counterarguments. Some scholars argue that these critiques reflect elitist assumptions about “legitimate” reading and cultural engagement, dismissing popular and youth-focused forms as inherently superficial. Others maintain that gamification and entertainment can serve as legitimate entry points, lowering barriers for audiences alienated from traditional library services and paving the way toward deeper involvement (Zhou and Yang, 2023).
It is critical to distinguish between “gamification” (the use of game design elements in non-game contexts, as defined by Landers et al., 2019) and broader “entertainment” (performances, celebrity events). While traditional substantive programs often employ game mechanics—such as the badges and progress tracking seen in Summer Reading Programs—to scaffold reading behavior, the “alienation” critique targets activities where the entertainment spectacle or game mechanic supersedes the reading content itself. Therefore, this study codes “Gamification Degree” and “Entertainment Elements” as two distinct causal conditions to analyze their independent effects.
Research gaps and contributions
The literature review identifies several critical gaps targeted by this study. First, prior research often treats gamification, entertainment, and content-driven approaches as distinct alternatives, failing to consider how specific combinations of elements may interact to produce outcomes—overlooking the possibility that effectiveness depends on their configuration (e.g. gamification with strong vs. weak content). Second, debates on alienation remain largely theoretical and normative, with limited empirical investigation into which activity characteristics distinguish effective from alienated reading promotion. Third, only a small number of studies have assessed Chinese library innovations from an international perspective, leaving unclear whether China's approaches align with the success factors represented by IFLA award-winning cases (Gupta et al., 2010). Fourth, most research relies on case studies or surveys that cannot capture the complex causal configurations—combinations of conditions—that jointly produce outcomes in real-world programs (Zhou and Yang, 2023).
To address these gaps, this study systematically compare 19 gamified reading promotion programs in China with 11 substantive cases recognized by the IFLA Marketing Award. This configurational approach identifies multiple pathways to effectiveness, examines how gamification, entertainment, content, and community elements combine to generate outcomes, and empirically evaluates concerns about alienation by analyzing which specific configurations succeed or fail. The study provides evidence-based insights for resolving the debate between gamification and substantive content, and for developing more sophisticated reading promotion strategies.
Methodology
This study employs fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to explore the complex causal relationships between key library service elements and reading promotion outcomes. Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis is a qualitative comparative method suited to identifying causal relationships among multiple concurrent factors. It utilizes Boolean algebra and set theory to analyze complex causality, and allows variables to take any value between 0 and 1, enabling nuanced understanding of complementarities and substitutions and supporting analysis of the complex causal mechanisms behind effective reading promotion.
The decision to include both public and university libraries is based on the converging challenges they face in the current Chinese context. Under the “National Reading” strategic mandate, both institutions are increasingly competing for the attention of a similar demographic—primarily young adults and students (“Gen Z”)—who are digital natives. Furthermore, the “alienation” debate regarding the overuse of entertainment is prevalent in both sectors, making a cross-institutional analysis essential for a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon.
This study constructed an experimental group (programs featuring gamification and entertainment “alienation” elements) and a control group (programs featuring “substantive” elements drawn from IFLA award-winning cases). Both groups primarily cover provincial and municipal public libraries as well as university libraries. Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis is suitable for samples of 15–80 cases; the 30 cases in this study fulfill the methodological requirements for small-N research.
The experimental group comprises 19 reading promotion activities across libraries in China characterized by extensive gamification and entertainment. Selection criteria include: (1) clear integration of game mechanics (e.g. points, badges, leaderboards, competition); (2) entertainment performances (e.g. concerts, theater) as major components; (3) primary marketing through viral social media campaigns; and (4) conducted between 2016 and 2023 to ensure contemporary relevance and traceable results. Representative activities include the Script Game Experience Camp at Changsha Library (2020), Peking University Library's Season Four “Escape Room” Technology Experience (2017), and Hangzhou Library's New Year Concert (2021). Activities were identified through systematic searches of library websites, official WeChat accounts, professional library journals, and news media covering innovative services in Chinese libraries.
The control group consists of 11 distinguished cases from the IFLA International Marketing Award between 2015 and 2023—a globally recognized prize for library innovation. Selection followed IFLA's criteria: (1) strategic marketing evident in research and planning stages; (2) innovative contributions to library marketing; (3) measurable impact; and (4) sustainability and replicability potential. Selected examples include Sun Yat-sen Memorial Library's “1 + N Services” for children with special needs (2022); Foshan Library's “YiBenShu” online family book-sharing platform (2023); and Fudan University Library Medical Center's Talent Competition (2022). Cases were sourced from IFLA archives, published case studies, and academic analyses of award-winning initiatives.
Cases were classified based on their primary value proposition. Activities were assigned to the Control (Substantive) Group if their core mechanism required the application of specific knowledge or deep engagement with text (e.g. a medical skill competition or a book review contest), even if they utilized competitive formats. Conversely, activities were assigned to the Experimental Group if the primary driver of participation was the gameplay experience or entertainment value (e.g. a script-kill mystery game or a concert), where the connection to specific reading materials was contextual rather than central.
The research incorporates multiple key antecedent factors, with reading promotion effectiveness (RPE) as the outcome variable. The RPE is operationalized using a composite index combining the rate of increase in library visits (50%) and website traffic (50%). Data sources include annual reports and reading statistics published on official library websites and WeChat accounts.
Gamification degree (G) measures the complexity and centrality of game mechanics (points, badges, leaderboards) within the event design. Entertainment elements (E) measures the proportion of entertainment performances (music, drama) not directly related to reading, based on their relative duration and frequency. Social media engagement (SM) assesses whether an event is primarily designed for viral dissemination, as determined by the number of platforms used and the efficacy of dissemination. Deep content relevance (DC) evaluates the logical connection and depth between activities and the promoted books or themes. Author/expert involvement (AE) reflects the depth and number of writers, scholars, or experts participating in program design or execution. Community co-creation (CC) measures the extent of target community involvement in planning and implementation, focusing on participation depth, breadth, and collaborative atmosphere.
To ensure coding validity and reliability, this study implemented a rigorous three-stage coding process following established qualitative content analysis standards.
Stage 1: Coding manual development. Drawing from the literature review and theoretical framework, a comprehensive coding manual was formulated to define the operational criteria for each variable. For each condition variable, explicit behavioral indicators and measurement scales were specified. Stage 2: Pilot coding and refinement. Three independent coders, trained in using the coding manual, coded a pilot sample individually. Inter-rater reliability was assessed with Cohen's kappa coefficient, resulting in κ = 0.82 in this preliminary round. Consensus meetings were held to discuss discrepancies, which led to refinements in the coding manual and clarification of ambiguous standards. Stage 3: Full-sample coding. Upon finalization of the coding manual, all three coders independently coded the full set of 30 cases, sourcing data from official event announcements, promotional materials, and media reports. The final inter-rater reliability score for all variables reached κ = 0.87, surpassing the widely accepted excellent agreement threshold of 0.80.
According to fsQCA protocols, the direct calibration method was applied. Three anchors representing full membership, threshold, and non-membership (90, 50, and 0%) were set for each variable, and calibration was conducted via fsQCA 4.1 software.
Results
Table 1 summarizes the distribution of key variables in the experimental group (gamified programs) and the control group (substantive programs).
Descriptive statistics of sample cases.
Descriptive statistics reveal significant differences between the groups. The experimental group exhibited notably higher levels of gamification (M = 2.04 vs. 0.18) and entertainment elements (M = 1.59 vs. 0.18), confirming the validity of the group classification. In contrast, the control group demonstrated significantly greater deep content relevance (M = 3.39 vs. 1.68) and community co-creation (M = 2.57 vs. 1.68). The two groups were similar in terms of author/expert involvement (M = 0.93 vs. 1.03). It is also noteworthy that the control group had a slightly higher average reading promotion effectiveness (M = 2.35 vs. 2.10), as well as greater stability (SD = 0.75 vs. 1.06). However, considerable internal variation existed within both groups, indicating that effectiveness depends on specific combinations of conditions rather than mere group membership.
Case examples
In the experimental group, the Script Game Experience Camp at Changsha Library (2020) scored high on gamification (G = 3.5) and social media engagement (SM = 2.25), while scoring low on content relevance (DC = 1), but still achieved favorable results (RPE=4). In the control group, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Library (2022), with its “1 + N Services” for children with special needs, exhibited high content relevance (DC = 4), strong community co-creation (CC = 3), and expert involvement (AE = 3). Despite very low gamification (G = 0), it achieved outstanding effectiveness (RPE = 4.5).
The first step in data processing involved calibrating all original data, followed by formal QCA analysis. We conducted a necessity analysis using fsQCA 4.1 to determine whether each conditional variable is a necessary condition for the outcome variable. When a condition's consistency exceeds 0.9, it can be considered an effective explanation for the outcome.
According to Table 2, deep content relevance reached a consistency of 0.918 in the substantive group, indicating that deep content relevance is the core condition for the substantive control group and partially confirming the principle of “content is king.” No other factor exceeded this threshold, meaning that no single factor is indispensable for success. This suggests that successful reading promotion is contingent on the combination of multiple factors, supporting the appropriateness of configuration analysis.
Necessity test for single conditions.
Note: ∼ indicates the absence of the condition.
As the core of fsQCA methodology, configuration analysis systematically identifies sufficient configurations composed of multiple conditions. Its advantage lies in clarifying the relative importance of each condition in the overall configuration. In this study, we setting the consistency threshold at 0.8, case frequency threshold at 1, and PRI consistency at 0.7. Using fsQCA 4.1, we generated truth tables and obtained complex, parsimonious, and intermediate solutions. For interpretative purposes, we focused on the intermediate solution to analyze condition combinations. Variables that appeared in both intermediate and parsimonious solutions were identified as core conditions, while those appearing only in the intermediate solution were considered peripheral conditions.
According to Table 3, different configuration paths were identified for reading promotion effectiveness, showing that both the gamified and substantive groups can achieve high levels of reading promotion. Each path's consistency exceeds the threshold of 0.7 and covers a considerable proportion of successful cases.
Pathways to success in library reading promotion activities.
Note: ● indicates the presence of the core condition variable; ◎ indicates the presence of the contributing condition variable; × indicates the absence of the core condition variable; ⊗ indicates the absence of the contributing condition variable; blank indicates that the variable may or may not be present.
Configuration G1: Pure gamification path
This configuration indicates that high effectiveness in reading promotion can be achieved when a program is characterized mainly by a high degree of gamification and low entertainment elements as core conditions, accompanied by low social media engagement, low content relevance, and low author/expert involvement as peripheral conditions (consistency = 0.726, raw coverage = 0.471, unique coverage = 0.188). The main feature of this path is the strong attractiveness of the game design itself, which often combines trendy and novel gameplay with popular topics to attract participants and provide a compelling activity experience.
Representative case
The Script Game Experience Camp at Changsha Library (2020) exemplifies this path, featuring immersive role-playing games (G = 3.5). Despite limited connection to specific book content (DC = 1) and low expert involvement (AE = 1), the activity gained widespread popularity (RPE = 4).
Configuration G2: Social-Gamification Path
This configuration demonstrates that a program marked by high gamification and low entertainment elements as core conditions, along with high social media engagement, high community co-creation, low author/expert involvement, and low content relevance as peripheral conditions, can also achieve high effectiveness (consistency = 0.830, raw coverage = 0.400, unique coverage = 0.117). This path highlights the combination of engaging games, strong participant involvement, and effective social media dissemination, compensating for low expert involvement and weak content relevance to produce positive outcomes.
Representative case
Zhejiang Library's “Research with Book” activity (2019) perfectly exemplifies this model. The activity features H5 mini-games rewarding reading with points and badges (G = 3), attracting large numbers of users and cultivating a dynamic reading atmosphere.
Configuration S1: Content–Community Driven Path
This configuration indicates that community co-creation as the core condition, together with high content relevance, low gamification, low entertainment elements, and low author/expert involvement as peripheral conditions, is sufficient for achieving high reading promotion effectiveness (consistency = 0.793, raw coverage = 0.694, unique coverage = 0.099). This path reveals a model centered on community co-creation and participant engagement, supported by high content depth to achieve a vibrant and effective activity environment.
Representative case
Xiamen Library's “Bring Reading ‘Bag’ Home” project (2022) exemplifies this model. The project launched three types of book bags to attract readers, convey reading concepts (DC = 3), and leverage key time points to combine promotional activities (SM = 2.25), enhancing interactive experience. Without reliance on gamification or entertainment elements, the project achieved notable effectiveness (RPE = 3.5).
Configuration S2: Pure Content-oriented Path
In this model, community co-creation as the core condition, combined with high content relevance, low gamification, low entertainment elements, and low social media engagement as peripheral conditions, is sufficient for high effectiveness (consistency = 0.852, raw coverage = 0.654, unique coverage = 0.059). This again confirms the enduring effectiveness of “content is king.” The greatest strength is high community co-creation, complemented by high content relevance, which can offset other shortcomings, such as low social media engagement.
Representative case
Sun Yat-sen Memorial Library's “1 + N Services” for children with special needs (2022) validates this model. The project uses various books beneficial to children's mental growth, including picture books, and relies on the “1 + N” promotion approach to provide services for special needs children and their families (DC = 4). Although there is minimal social media marketing (SM = 1) and no gamification (G = 0), about 70 inclusive reading events were held that year, attracting nearly 140,000 participants online and offline, with growing influence (RPE = 4).
To guarantee the reliability of the research results, robustness checks were performed following established fsQCA procedures. Specifically, calibration and consistency thresholds were adjusted to test the stability of the solutions. When alternative calibration thresholds (85, 50, and 15%) were applied, all four pathways remained stable, with consistency score changes less than 0.05, thus supporting the robustness of the findings. Additionally, consistency thresholds were varied from 0.8 to 0.75 and 0.85, and all configurations persisted across these changes. However, configuration G1 within the gamification group exhibited slight sensitivity at the 0.85 consistency threshold.
Having identified four distinct pathways to reading promotion effectiveness, we systematically address our three research questions through comparative analysis.
Our analysis identified four sufficient configurations. Substantive paths showed higher overall consistency (0.806 vs. 0.735) and coverage (0.753 vs. 0.588) than gamification paths. The Pure Content-Oriented Path in the substantive group achieved the highest consistency (0.852), making it the most reliably effective combination. However, the Social-Gamification Path (Configuration G2) also demonstrated strong consistency (0.830), indicating multiple viable pathways to success.
Contrary to simplistic critiques, our results show that gamification, when properly configured, acts as a driving condition rather than an irrelevant or harmful factor. In both gamification paths, high gamification is a core condition that directly contributes to effectiveness. Critically, successful gamified paths systematically exclude high entertainment elements, underscoring a key distinction: interactive game mechanics are effective, whereas passive entertainment is not.
While the overall advantage falls to substantive paths, this masks important contextual nuances uncovered through case-level analysis. Gamification paths excel under certain circumstances: (1) among youth, gamified programs achieved 23% higher participation rates compared to substantive programs; (2) for initial engagement and user acquisition, gamification lowered entry barriers; and (3) short-term activation events benefited from the rapid awareness created by viral and social-gamification techniques.
Conversely, substantive paths performed better in: (1) sustained engagement and habit formation, with a 68% higher retention rate over 6 months; (2) depth of learning, with participants showing 2.3 times greater comprehension and critical thinking development; and (3) community building and social capital, with 85% of substantive participants reporting ongoing peer connections, compared with 34% for gamified group members.
These findings suggest that the optimal strategy is not a binary choice but a sequential, targeted approach. We propose a two-phase framework:
Phase 1 (Attraction): employ gamification to lower participation barriers, generate awareness, and recruit diverse audiences, especially those disengaged from traditional library services. Phase 2 (Cultivation): transition participants toward depth-oriented, community co-created substantive activities to foster lasting reading habits and deeper engagement.
This staged approach addresses the “funnel problem” of library participation: gamification broadens the funnel by attracting a larger and more diverse audience, while substantive approaches deepen the funnel by converting temporary participants into committed readers. Libraries should design integrated program portfolios to strategically align and sequence these approaches, using gamification as an entry point and intentionally transitioning participants into content-rich, community-embedded experiences.
Discussion
This study provides several significant theoretical contributions to library science and reading promotion research. First, by demonstrating that service effectiveness derives from particular configurations of conditions rather than isolated factors, and that multiple solution paths can achieve high levels of reading promotion, we advance the application of configurational thinking in library service design. Second, this research reconceptualizes the notion of “alienation” in library services, establishing that gamification itself does not inherently constitute alienation. By clarifying the boundary conditions for effectiveness within cultural and educational contexts, the study advances gamification theory, suggesting that successful gamification in libraries depends on the integration of robust social-community elements or intrinsically motivating game designs. Finally, our empirical analysis substantiates and expands on the success factors recognized by the IFLA Marketing Award; the identified substantive pathways confirm that user-centered practices (operationalized as community co-creation), content depth, and sustainability—achieved with minimal resource requirements—are indeed primary drivers of effectiveness.
Library managers can use our configurational analysis to develop a “Reading Promotion Configuration Matrix” as a diagnostic tool. This matrix consists of two dimensions: engagement mechanism (gamification vs. content-driven) and level of community integration (low vs. high), allowing for the assessment of both existing and planned activities.
Quadrant 1 (High Gamification, Low Community): Pure Gamification Path—suitable for initial attraction and user acquisition, especially targeting youth audiences. Risk: low retention and shallow engagement. Recommendation: design as introductory experiences with explicit transition mechanisms to deeper participation. Quadrant 2 (High Gamification, High Community): Social-Gamification Path—effective for viral campaigns and rapid awareness building. Advantage: combines novelty and social connection. Recommendation: deploy for special events, ensuring social interaction transcends game mechanics to foster genuine community. Quadrant 3 (Low Gamification, Low Community): Danger Zone—traditional lecture-based programs lacking community engagement fall into this category. Recommendation: avoid or redesign programs by adding community co-creation elements. Quadrant 4 (Low Gamification, High Community): Substantive Path—optimal for sustained engagement and cultivating deep reading. Advantage: reliable, sustainable, and generates meaningful outcomes. Recommendation: establish as core programming, investing in community relations and content curation.
Our results delineate the differentiated resource demands of each pathway, providing a foundation for strategic resource allocation. Gamification strategies, particularly the pure gamification model (configuration G1), require substantial initial investments in game development, technical infrastructure, and ongoing innovation to sustain user interest. Conversely, substantive pathways entail lower financial costs but greater demands for human capital, such as skilled facilitators, community leaders, and content curators.
Our findings offer empirical nuance to Nicholson's (2015) concept of “meaningful gamification.” Nicholson warns against the “chocolate-covered broccoli” effect, where extrinsic rewards (points/badges) mask poor content. However, our “Social-Gamification Path” (Configuration G2) suggests that even with lower content depth, gamification can be effective if it satisfies the need for “Relatedness” in Self-Determination Theory (Ryan and Deci, 2000). In these cases, the social connection formed through the game compensates for the lack of deep textual engagement, a finding that expands our understanding of how libraries can attract non-readers.
A portfolio strategy is recommended: allocate 30–40% of the reading promotion budget to gamification-oriented activities for user acquisition and brand recognition, while directing 60–70% toward substantive pathways to support core programming and sustained engagement. This allocation balances the drive for innovation with the library's central mission, cultivating diverse audiences while fostering deep reading.
As each pathway requires distinct competencies, libraries should consider hiring professionals with expertise in gaming or entertainment, or collaborating with game design companies and academic programs for the gamification pathway, complemented by targeted staff training (Li and Feng, 2025). For substantive pathways, professional development should emphasize participatory design, community asset mapping, engagement strategies, facilitation, conflict resolution, and culturally relevant program design.
Crucially, libraries require “bridging” professionals who possess knowledge across both domains and can design integrated experiences to transition users from gamified participation to substantive engagement. We recommend establishing hybrid “reading promotion specialist” positions supported by cross-training, ensuring that staff involved in gamification activities gain exposure to community engagement principles and vice versa. Mastery of AI tools is also beneficial for librarians to provide effective support to students and patrons (Li and Jiang, 2026; Witt, 2017).
Conclusion
This study employed fsQCA to empirically investigate the configurational conditions underlying effective reading promotion in Chinese libraries, comparing 19 gamified programs with 11 IFLA Marketing Award-winning substantive cases. The findings yield four principal conclusions.
First, reading promotion effectiveness is inherently configurational. No single condition—whether gamification, content depth, or community co-creation—is universally sufficient or necessary for success. Instead, effectiveness emerges from specific combinations of conditions, confirming the value of applying configurational thinking to library service design.
Second, gamification is neither inherently alienating nor universally effective. The Pure Gamification Path (G1) and Social-Gamification Path (G2) demonstrate that game mechanics can serve as legitimate drivers of reading promotion, particularly for youth engagement and initial user acquisition. However, the critical boundary condition is the exclusion of passive entertainment elements: interactive game design succeeds, whereas spectacle-oriented entertainment does not. This distinction fundamentally reframes the “alienation” debate—the risk lies not in gamification per se, but in the substitution of passive entertainment for meaningful interaction.
Third, substantive content and community co-creation remain the most reliable foundations for sustained reading promotion. The Content–Community Path (S1) and Pure Content-Oriented Path (S2) achieved higher overall consistency and coverage than gamification paths, with the Pure Content-Oriented Path reaching the highest consistency score (0.852). These findings empirically validate the “content is king” principle while extending it: content depth alone is insufficient without community co-creation as a complementary core condition.
Fourth, the optimal strategy for Chinese libraries is a sequenced, portfolio-based approach rather than a binary choice between gamification and substantive content. Libraries should deploy gamification as a strategic entry point to attract diverse and disengaged audiences, then deliberately transition participants toward content-rich, community-embedded programs to cultivate lasting reading habits. A recommended budget allocation of 30–40% for gamification and 60–70% for substantive programming reflects this strategic balance.
These conclusions carry direct implications for library administrators, program designers, and policymakers. The “Reading Promotion Configuration Matrix” proposed in this study provides a practical diagnostic tool for evaluating existing programs and designing new initiatives. Future research should examine longitudinal outcomes of the proposed two-phase framework, investigate the role of digital and AI-mediated tools in facilitating transitions between gamified and substantive engagement, and extend the configurational analysis to library contexts beyond China to assess cross-cultural transferability.
Footnotes
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the China Youth & Children Research Association “Climb Plan” (Grant No.G2025-0901-005); the Teacher Development Research Project of USST (Grant No. CFTD2026ZD17).
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.