Planspiel-Literaturdatenbank des ZMS

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878118762534 

Abstract: Background. Game studies show a high diversity of university departments that contribute to the field. They offer a cross-disciplinary image that includes a range of professions. Game science is responsive to the needs of government institutions, to industry, and to individuals vis-à-vis institutions. That pragmatism makes the field issue-oriented, representing a post-normal science approach in a context of political pressure, values in dispute, high decision stakes and high epistemological and ethical systems uncertainties. The body of knowledge is not yet in the form of a cohesive structure: a game science paradigm. Thematic diversity, theoretical and methodological pluralism, and a strong focus on the instrumentality of games are weak credentials within academia, arranged according to analytical science (normal science) principles. Moreover, within the conventional academic settings, game science faces serious limitations, due to the fragmented positioning in different departments and faculties (Klabbers, 2009). Aim. A comprehensive and coherent view on game science is needed that connects three levels of inquiry: the philosophy of science level, the science level, and the application level. Advances in physics have impacted on the philosophy of science, on modernism and postmodernism, and as a consequence, on game science. Being able to understand the current position of game science requires that we are aware of its scientific roots, and future options for research and professional practice. Method. Literature review with emphasis on theories of knowledge (epistemology) that focuses on game architecture, and the player’s experience. The analytical science approach to game science is insufficient to deal adequately with key questions societies nowadays are facing. Therefore, in addition to the analytical science, the design science approach to gaming is needed to be able to address issues that apply to various zones of practice, and related questions about social problem solving. Results. A coordinating frame-of-reference – a game science paradigm – is presented, independent of the instrumentality of games - taking into account the great variety of forms of play, and gaming applications. Conclusion. To advance game science, well-equipped game centers are needed that cover the three levels of inquiry: the philosophy of science level, the science level, and the application level. They should pursue a long term coherent research and educational policy, in line with the natural sciences tradition, offering both continuity and innovation.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878118779706 

Abstract: Background. Game studies offer a cross-disciplinary image that includes a range of professions. Game science is responsive to the needs of government institutions, to industry, and to individuals vis-à-vis institutions. That pragmatism makes the field issue-oriented, representing a post-normal science approach in a context of political pressure, values in dispute, high decision stakes and high epistemological and ethical systems uncertainties. The body of knowledge is not yet in the form of a cohesive structure: a game science paradigm. Thematic diversity, theoretical and methodological pluralism, and a strong focus on the instrumentality of games are weak credentials within academia, arranged according to analytical science (normal science) principles. Moreover, within the conventional academic settings, game science faces serious limitations, due to the fragmented positioning in different departments and faculties. Aim. A comprehensive and coherent view on game science is needed that connects three levels of inquiry: the philosophy of science level, the science level, and the application level. Based on radical developments during the early 20th century, physicists are introducing doubt, uncertainty, undecidability and imprecision into the world of physics. These advances have impacted on the philosophy of science, on modernism and postmodernism, and as a consequence, on game science. Being able to understand the current position of game science requires that we are aware of its scientific roots, and future options for research and professional practice. Method. Raising a debate among peers, addressing the questions and frame-of-reference presented in the introductory paper “On the architecture of game science”. Results. Referring to the frame of reference, offered by the introductory paper (Klabbers, 2018), the authors have presented five very interesting articles addressing their varying views on, and approaches to game science. Their contributions range from the linkages between game science and complex social systems, to gamification science, and game studies, focusing on the ludosphere, the realm of digital games. Combined, all papers present a comprehensive overview of the field, covering game science and its application levels, with special attention to the varying design and research methodologies and practices. They mention linkages with the philosophy of science level, however refrain to work out their implications for designing, facilitating, and debriefing games. This shortcoming leaves little room for reflecting on the unique role of the players, their explicit knowledge and tacit knowing included, and omits important epistemological questions, raised in Table 1 (Klabbers, 2018), which relate to the triple hermeneutic: the players’ reality created during game play. Conclusion. The collected papers offer a challenging overview of the current state of the art, craft, and science, and a good understanding of important questions that are on the minds of the authors. Together, they present a stimulating platform for a lively debate, and a good basis for advancing game science, more particularly, the connected philosophy of science, science, and practical levels. For the following reason, further research is needed and highly recommended.