IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/simgam/v49y2018i3p207-245.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the Architecture of Game Science

Author

Listed:
  • Jan HG Klabbers

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Jan HG Klabbers, 2018. "On the Architecture of Game Science," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 49(3), pages 207-245, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:simgam:v:49:y:2018:i:3:p:207-245
    DOI: 10.1177/1046878118762534
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1046878118762534
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1046878118762534?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard N. Landers & Elena M. Auer & Andrew B. Collmus & Michael B. Armstrong, 2018. "Gamification Science, Its History and Future: Definitions and a Research Agenda," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 49(3), pages 315-337, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jörg Stolz, 2023. "The theory of social games: outline of a general theory for the social sciences," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-12, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maria Elena Latino & Marta Menegoli & Fulvio Signore & Maria Chiara De Lorenzi, 2023. "The Potential of Gamification for Social Sustainability: Meaning and Purposes in Agri-Food Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-18, June.
    2. Ozgul Cetin & Fethiye Erbay, 2021. "Gamification Practices in Museums," Journal of Tourismology, Istanbul University, Faculty of Economics, vol. 7(2), pages 265-276, December.
    3. Chirag Arora & Maryam Razavian, 2021. "Ethics of Gamification in Health and Fitness-Tracking," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-19, October.
    4. Jan HG Klabbers, 2018. "On the Architecture of Game Science: A Rebuttal," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 49(3), pages 356-372, June.
    5. Elena Bakhanova & Jaime A. Garcia & William L. Raffe & Alexey Voinov, 2023. "Gamification Framework for Participatory Modeling: A Proposal," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 1167-1182, October.
    6. Pilar Martín-Hernández & Marta Gil-Lacruz & Ana I. Gil-Lacruz & Juan Luis Azkue-Beteta & Eva M. Lira & Luis Cantarero, 2021. "Fostering University Students’ Engagement in Teamwork and Innovation Behaviors through Game-Based Learning (GBL)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-16, December.
    7. Francesco Bellosi & Maria Spadafora & Mario Rapaccini, 2023. "Creating the Culture for Sustainable Innovation: A Gamified Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-14, November.
    8. Willy C. Kriz & J. Tuomas Harviainen & Timothy C. Clapper, 2018. "Game Science: Foundations and Perspectives," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 49(3), pages 199-206, June.
    9. Jaakko Stenros & Annakaisa Kultima, 2018. "On the Expanding Ludosphere," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 49(3), pages 338-355, June.
    10. Leclercq, Thomas & Poncin, Ingrid & Hammedi, Wafa, 2020. "Opening the black box of gameful experience: Implications for gamification process design," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    11. Thomas, Nibu John & Baral, Rupashree & Crocco, Oliver S. & Mohanan, Swathi, 2023. "A framework for gamification in the metaverse era: How designers envision gameful experience," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    12. Donafeby Widyani, 2021. "Gamification as a marketing strategy for Garuda Indonesia loyalty program," International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), Center for the Strategic Studies in Business and Finance, vol. 10(7), pages 418-422, October.
    13. Alfonso D. Gajardo Sánchez & Luis R. Murillo-Zamorano & Joséà ngel López-Sánchez & Carmen Bueno-Muñoz, 2023. "Gamification in Health Care Management: Systematic Review of the Literature and Research Agenda," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(4), pages 21582440231, December.
    14. Pinski, Marc & Haas, Miguel & Benlian, Alexander, 2024. "Building Metaknowledge in AI Literacy – The Effect of Gamified vs. Text-based Learning on AI Literacy Metaknowledge," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 142981, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    15. Jacek Woźniak, 2020. "Gamification for Sales Incentives," Contemporary Economics, University of Economics and Human Sciences in Warsaw., vol. 14(2), June.
    16. Legaki, Nikoletta-Zampeta & Karpouzis, Kostas & Assimakopoulos, Vassilios & Hamari, Juho, 2021. "Gamification to avoid cognitive biases: An experiment of gamifying a forecasting course," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    17. David Gundry & Sebastian Deterding, 2019. "Validity Threats in Quantitative Data Collection With Games: A Narrative Survey," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 50(3), pages 302-328, June.
    18. Hassan, Lobna & Dias, Antonio & Hamari, Juho, 2019. "How motivational feedback increases user’s benefits and continued use: A study on gamification, quantified-self and social networking," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 151-162.
    19. Aubert, Alice H. & Schmid, Sara & Lienert, Judit, 2024. "Can online interfaces enhance learning for public decision-making? Eliciting citizens’ preferences for multicriteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 314(2), pages 760-775.
    20. Richard A. Oxarart & Jeffery D. Houghton, 2021. "A Spoonful of Sugar: Gamification as Means for Enhancing Employee Self-Leadership and Self-Concordance at Work," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-16, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:simgam:v:49:y:2018:i:3:p:207-245. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.