Designing Peace and Conflict Exercises

Abstract

Attentiveness to and transparency about the methodological implications of the level of analysis selected for peace and conflict exercises constitute essential elements of good game design. The article explores the impact of level of analysis choices in the context of two key portions of exercises, scenario construction and role specification. It weighs the consequences of these choices in terms of the differing conclusions one can draw from exercises and potential pitfalls of careless choices. Finally, it argues that level of analysis considerations in game design parallels specific debates within segments of the social science literature, connections that are also explored in this article for their relevance to game design.Peace and conflict exercises 1 are widely used in teaching and analytical contexts as ways to think through and gain traction over these complex, often ill-defined, phenomena. Using exercises has many potential advantages, ranging from affordability to portability (depending on design), but in almost all circumstances their chief benefit is the

A Conflict Management Game in Project-based Learning

“…Employing authentic scenarios increased the relevance of the presented conflicts and the subsequent discussions, feedback, and solutions. Furthermore, our findings support Trepte et al (2012) and Bartels et al (2013) arguments concerning the benefits of games in providing safe environments for training students in conflict resolution through social interactions, collaboration, and iterative skill development.…”

“…In some game contexts, players must negotiate and find mutual solutions to problems, with cooperation often leading to better chances of success. These situations offer safe environments for learning conflict resolution skills without resorting to violence or negative behaviours (Bartels et al, 2013).…”

How cyber operations can reduce escalation pressures: Evidence from an experimental wargame study

“…Wargames offer a viable method for evaluating propositions on the character of escalation under the context of cyber operations and disruptive technology more generally. The use of wargames to evaluate interdependent decision-making has a long tradition in the military profession and strategic studies communities (Bartels, 2020; Bartels et al, 2013; Caffrey, 2019; Emery, 2021; Lin-Greenberg et al, 2022; McDermott et al, 2008; Perla, 1990; Reddie et al, 2018). Wargames, as a form of simulation, are a useful method for evaluating competing hypotheses, focusing data investigations, and delineating patterns otherwise unobserved (Druckman, 1994; Lin-Greenberg et al, 2022, Valeriano and Jensen, 2022; Wilkenfeld et al, 2003).…”

Simulating Peace Negotiations

“…Simulations benefit student motivation (Switky & Aviles, 2007; Weir & Baranowski, 2011) and are more effective than lectures, discussions, and papers in generating “a self-sustaining reaction that develops its own momentum and course independent of the limits or boundaries with which the analyst starts out” (Asal, 2005; Bloomfield & Padelford, 1959, p. 1115; Taylor, 2013; Weir & Baranowski, 2011). With regards to simulating peace negotiations, scholars generally agree on the usefulness of simulations to illustrate the complexities and challenges of peace talks (Bartels, McCown, & Wilkie, 2013; Bloomfield & Padelford, 1959; Brynen & Milante, 2013; Crookall, 2013; Dougherty, 2003; Ebner & Efron, 2005; Kanner, 2007; Lantis, Kuzma, & Boehrer, 2000; McMahon & Miller, 2013; Powers & Kirkpatrick, 2013; Williams & Williams, 2007; Yilmaz, Ören, & Ghasem-Aghaee, 2006).…”