No 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.

No abstract

Those who are involved in research in gaming and simulation find themselves in a dual position. One reason for this duality relates to the fact that researchers in gaming and simulation represent two distinct branches of science: the design and analytical sciences. The basic idea of the design sciences is to build and assess artifacts. The scientific method of the analytical sciences aims at developing and testing theories. Both pay attention to different notions of causality and apply different criteria of success. This article presents a framework both for artifact assessment and theory testing, which helps to better understand the distinct scientific and professional issues involved and to offer directions for cross-fertilization.

The science of design deals with synthesis. It is both the world of engineering and the world of social construction of reality,as for example in education, policy making,or ganization, and management. Science is concerned with analysis and decomposition. Engineering and technology pay attention to natural objects: objects that refer to matter. Their claims about material artifacts are universal and therefore context independent. Constructionism deals with objects that are established by our practices. Both branches of the science of design emphasize the building metaphor of assembling parts,the systematic arrangements of elements,whic h become part of a whole. In this article,the author pays attention to organized complexity, especially to complex adaptive systems and their emergence from double interacts between individuals. The author elaborates on the idea of reflexive actors in social systems,faces of knowledge, and the interplay between design-in-the-large and design-in-the-small.