Critical Gambling Studies <p><em>Critical Gambling Studies</em> is an open access, double-blind peer-reviewed journal published bi-annually. We welcome original research and writing from researchers working in established disciplines including: philosophy, psychology, anthropology, sociology, politics, criminology aesthetics, history, economics, literature, theology, art history and architecture, tourism and leisure studies, public health and law. We are also keen to consider interdisciplinary approaches to gambling research within an activist tradition.&nbsp;</p> en-US <p><span style="color: #4b7d92;">This work is licensed under an&nbsp;<a href="" rel="license">Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a> <br>Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to <em>Critical Gambling Studies</em>.</span></p> <p><a href="" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="color: #4b7d92;"><img src="/public/site/images/emma/CGS_creative_commons_small.png"></span></a></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> (CGS Admin) (CGS Admin) Thu, 09 Apr 2020 13:24:50 -0600 OJS 60 Book review: Kah-Wee, Lee. (2019). Las Vegas in Singapore: Violence, Progress and the Crisis of Nationalist Modernity. Singapore: NUS Press. 35.59 Can$. ISBN# 978-981-47-2290-2 (paperback). <p>_</p> Murat Akcayir Copyright (c) 2020 Murat Akcayir Thu, 09 Apr 2020 00:00:00 -0600 Where Isn’t the Action? <p>Erving Goffman’s seminal essay on gambling and risk-taking, ‘Where the Action Is’ was published over 50 years ago. This paper reconsiders the concept of action, and the related concept of ‘character’, for contemporary socio-cultural and economic conditions, where gambling opportunities abound. The paper also addresses the availability of action in other contemporary social domains and scenes. Action opportunities in late modernity have implications for the way character is conceived: thus, a late modern characterology is posited to address the changing social structural, cultural, and economic circumstances through which opportunities for action are distributed in variable ways.</p> James Cosgrave Copyright (c) 2020 James Cosgrave Thu, 09 Apr 2020 00:00:00 -0600 How Luhmann’s systems theory can inform gambling studies <p>Gambling and problem gambling studies tend to be characterised by individual-based approaches both theoretically and methodologically, while sociological approaches remain underutilised or even marginal. In this study, we discuss the potential of Niklas Luhmann’s systems theory in the analysis of gambling. As opposed to positivist or individualistic approaches, Luhmann’s work is strongly constructivist: neither systems nor their components are seen to be made up of individuals. Using systems theory in informing gambling research distances the research interests from individuals and directs it towards societal mechanisms, structures, and processes. Therefore, a systems theoretical approach can offer novel tools to study gambling, but also the paradigm of gambling research itself. This paper demonstrates how systems theory can critically inform gambling research through five operationalisations: gambling as a system, the gambling experience, the regulation of gambling economies, gambling providers as organisations, and systems theory as a methodological program. These five operationalisations can serve as an important window to widen perspectives on gambling.</p> Michael Egerer, Virve Marionneau, Mikko J. Virtanen Copyright (c) 2020 Michael Egerer Thu, 09 Apr 2020 00:00:00 -0600 Responsible Gambling: A Scoping Review <p>Gambling markets have drastically expanded over the past 35 years. Pacing this expansion has been the articulation of a governance framework that largely places responsibility for regulating gambling-related harms upon individuals. This framework, often defined with reference to the concept of responsible gambling (RG), has faced significant criticism, emphasizing public health and consumer protection issues. To study both the articulation and critique of the concept of responsible gambling, we conducted a ‘scoping review’ of the literature (Arksey &amp; O’Malley 2005). Literature was identified through searches on academic databases using a combination of search terms. Articles were independently reviewed by two researchers. Findings indicate 142 publications with a primary focus on responsible gambling, with a high volume of publications coming from the disciplinary backgrounds of the first authors representing the fields of psychology, business, and psychiatric medicine. Further, publication key themes address topics such as responsible gambling tools and interventions, corporate social responsibility and accountability, responsible gambling concepts and descriptions, and to a lesser extent, critiques of responsible gambling. The scoping review of the literature related to responsible gambling suggests the need to foster research conditions to invite more critical and interdisciplinary scholarship in an effort to improve public health and consumer protection.</p> Jennifer Reynolds, Sylvia Kairouz, Samantha Ilacqua, Martin French Copyright (c) 2020 Jennifer Reynolds Thu, 09 Apr 2020 00:00:00 -0600 What is special about gambling? A comparison of public discourse on Finnish state monopolies in rail traffic, gambling, and alcohol <p>Finland has one of the last fully monopolistic gambling sectors in Europe. Unlike in most Western European countries, the monopoly is also consolidated and enjoys a wide support as opposed to license-based competition. This paper analyses whether this preference for monopoly provision is due to the particularities of the Finnish society or rather to those of the Finnish gambling sector. We do this by comparing public discourses in media texts (N=143) from 2014 to 2017 regarding monopolies operating in alcohol retail, rail traffic and gambling sectors. The results show that gambling appears to be special even in the Finnish national context. While the Finnish alcohol retail and railroad traffic markets have been liberalised during the study period, the gambling monopoly has been concurrently strengthened despite similar political and international pressures towards dismantling. The discussion suggests that the differing outcomes reflect the varying positions of monopolies, their stakeholders and the justifications put forward. Intertwined stakeholder interests in the gambling sector appear to amplify consensus politics and set gambling apart from the other cases.</p> Virve Marionneau, Matilda Hellman Copyright (c) 2020 Virve Marionneau Thu, 09 Apr 2020 00:00:00 -0600 Comparative Sociology of Dangerous Consumptions: An Interview with Robin Room <p>Interviewer: Professor Fiona Nicoll, University of Alberta<br>Participant: Professor Robin Room, Centre for Alcohol Policy Research, La Trobe University<br>Date: Dec. 29, 2019</p> Robin Room, Fiona Nicoll Copyright (c) 2020 Robin Room Thu, 09 Apr 2020 00:00:00 -0600 Editorial, Volume 1, Issue 1 <p>_</p> Fiona Nicoll, Murat Akcayir Copyright (c) 2020 Fiona Nicoll Thu, 09 Apr 2020 00:00:00 -0600