On the Architecture of Game Science

Jan HG Klabbers

Simulation & Gaming, 2018, vol. 49, issue 3, 207-245

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.

Keywords: analytical science; communities of observers; communities of practice; design science; faces of knowledge; indeterminacy; modernism; normal science; physics; postmodernism; post-normal science; social problem solving; social organization; zones of practice (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1046878118762534 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:simgam:v:49:y:2018:i:3:p:207-245

DOI: 10.1177/1046878118762534

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Simulation & Gaming
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().