Approaching game-studies: towards a reflexive
methodology of games as situated cultures

Sybille Lammes Utrecht University, Netherlands Sybille.Lammes@let.uu.nl

ABSTRACT

This paper will address why and how a reflexive and situated methodology
could be employed to study cultural functions of play. Starting from the supposition
that playing is pivotal to all game-research, I will follow Aarseth’s claim that
any (cultural) approach of games asks for an inclusion of the position of the
player/researcher in its methodology [1]. Being particularly interested in games as a cultural
practice, I will add to his claim that for such kind of research a methodology
is needed that enables us to see games as
culture. My hypotheses will be that reflexivity and situatedness lie at the
heart of any approach that wants to include both issues. I will show that reflexivity and
situatedness may be needed as complementary tools to come to a cultural study
of games that takes Aarseth’s call for reflectivity serious.

I will claim that the researcher needs the combined tools of reflexivity
and situatedness because both
situatedness (intertwining agent and environment) and reflexivity
(distance/proximity) take into account the involvement of the researcher/player
with its material and view this as a cultural praxis. Situatedness allows for
game-research that shows the physical locality of playing whilst still relating
play to a more global or national context. Reflexivity permits us to show how the
researcher is culturally and locally involved in her quasi-object of study
through play.

Author Keywords

Methodology,
player/researcher, reflectivity, situatedness, games as culture

Introduction

Clear methodologies

Game-studies as
practiced within the humanities still lacks clear methodologies. It remains
debatable whether this should be conceived as a shortcoming or an advantage.
Seen from one angle it is seems unavoidable that an interdisciplinary field combines
different approaches and as such game-studies can never have a clear demarcated
methodology. Although this is of course true to a certain extent, game-studies nevertheless
still needs clear methodologies. Every research topic
calls for a fitting and coherent approach that enables the researcher to find
an answer to a posed question. However diverse the issues at stake may be, the
approach should always be made explicit. Furthermore every research topic needs
a methodology that takes the qualities of the object that is studied into account.

Although I would
thus make a case for clarity rather than exclusivity when it comes to defining methodologies
for games-studies in the humanities, all approaches should take into account
that games have their unique intrinsic values. This uniqueness should be at the
centre of any chosen tactic, since it determines how one should approach its
material. As Espen Aarseth states in his paper “Playing Research: Methodological Approaches to
Game Analysis” the most important
quality that should be taken on board in any “aesthetic study of games” is that
of play, for the very simple reason that the researcher has to play to be able
to study a game. He therefore advocates a methodology that includes this
reflective position [1].

In
this paper I will take up the implicit challenge posed in Aarseth’s
paper and try to refine his first outline of a methodology by defining a
suitable approach for games as cultural spatial praxes. I will nevertheless do
more than refining his proposed methodology, by showing that when play as a
distinctive quality of games is acknowledged in the chosen method, an
interdisciplinary approach is not out of the question. I will demonstrate that the
tools of reflexivity and situatedness can help the researcher by keeping play
at the centre of her exploration as well as enabling her to study games as
culture. Hence it will become clear that an approach that takes the uniqueness
of games as its staring point can still look for methodological allies in other
disciplines. We are not all ships at sea.

To be able to
come to a better understanding of which methodologies may be needed to be able to study games as cultural
regimes, I will start this paper by discussing Aarseth’s paper and look at how
his proposal can be used for this objective. Which of his strategies can be
used for such a methodology and where are other insight needed that are fit for
studying games as culture? Secondly I will turn to an article by Tom Boelstorff
“ A Ludicrous Discipline? Ethnography and Game Studies” that appeared in Games
and Culture in which he calls for using anthropological ways of inquiry for
cultural game-studies [3]. Here my main question will to what extent his proposed
methodology can be used as an addition or refinement of Aarseth’s.

Debating with Aarseth

Game as play

In his aforementioned
paper Aarseth makes an undeniable and strong plea to develop a methodology for
games that includes the position of the researcher as player. Aarseth’s paper
starts with the assertion that game-studies may have become a highly visible
field within the humanities, yet that hardly any work has been done on
developing a suitable methodology. The methods used so far seem to be rather
eclectic.[1]
Narrowing his scope to the study of games as aesthetic object, Aarseth sets out
to give a first outline for a fruitful approach to games.

What makes Aarseth’s argument so valuable and compelling is that he
tries to define a suitable approach by taking the basic qualities of a game as
its departure point. Hence his main objective seems to be to develop a
methodology that takes the intrinsic characteristics of games (what he calls “games in virtual environments”)
as its starting point. True to this line of thought he first of all states that
play should be an explicit central focus in any approach.[2]
This seems to be indeed a highly justified beginning of developing any suitable
methodology for game-studies.

Then he continues to give three intrinsic dimension of games, that could
according to Aarseth help specifying the research interests and line of inquiry
of the researcher, namely gameplay, game-structure and game-world. Gameplay
focuses on the player and her actions, game-structure
on the rules of the game and game-world
on the fictional and spatial content. While he first presents these categories
as of a similar order, he goes on to
recognize that game-structure is actually a prerequisite of the other
two categories (without rules no game). Hence, I one could actually alter his
typology slightly by naming gameplay
and game-world as central categories for
understanding games within the parameters of the stronger or weaker game-structure.

Aarseth states that different genres and different research interests
determine which category the researcher focuses on. Game-world would be the main centre of attention for “[a]rt,
aesthetics, history, cultural/media studies” and “economics” whilst game-structure would be more interesting
for designers, computer scientist and for studying issues of law and business. Finally, gameplay would be the predominant perspective for sociology,
ethnology and psychology [1].

At this point his argument becomes a bit tricky. To begin with, Aarseth
re-introduces an old matrix of disciplines that seems not to fit seamlessly on
game-studies. I can for example easily
name several articles or imagine possible topics that are about game-rules or game-play, but that are clearly situated in or indebted to social
studies, one of the fields he mentions under game-world [4, 5]. This partly has to do with
the fact that the difference that he makes between cultural studies (which he positions
in game-play) and sociology (which he
places in game-world) is not as clear
as he suggests it is. Aarseth’s quest for disciplinary order becomes clearly
problematic at this point: he tries to fit games-studies in a set of frozen
disciplines, that should be and are in themselves (as game-studies) changeable.

However, and most importantly, the categories he introduces could be
used in a different way to develop his own argument about methodology further.
It would be more true to his line of argument if these dimension would be
acknowledged in any research but at the same time to maintain that any
methodology should have the category of game-play
as it main starting point. Aarseth maybe
right that many aesthetic studies of games are more interested in the
game-world than in the other two categories and that different game-genres
accentuate different dimensions, yet their methodology should always have
gameplay (of the researcher, that is) as its main entrance. The first is a question in the order of
theory and the second of methodology. Here Aarseth looses himself in a
theoretical exercise of categorisation instead of staying close to this
objective of coming to a better methodology of game as play.

Situating
game-play

Nevertheless, Aarseth clearly does acknowledge
that computer game research cannot be limited to one field, and that the
methodology we choose is always predetermined by our research question “It all
depends on who we are and why we do it”, he states. He therefore calls for a methodology in which
the researcher explicitly acknowledges what type of player she is. Extending
Bartle’s typology of players of MUD’s he
comes to the following roles a researcher can take up depending on motivation
and material: the achiever, the killer, the socialiser, the explorer and the added type of cheater. Thinking in these types can
clarify position us as researchers and elucidate how we approach and are
involved with the game we play to research.

However helpful
these categories maybe, they present some restrictions. Limitations are of
course the downside of any categorisation, but as it happens these limitations have
repercussions for developing a cultural
methodology of game-play. Aarseth’s a priori belief that the given types “create
a general model of human behaviour in virtual environments” hinders a view of
game-play as being culturally heterogeneous.
It may for example be that the suggested types are not appropriate for
researching the gaming situation in Japan and are Eurocentric. It may
also be that I as a (female) player will categorise myself differently than how
an onlooker would typify me. Furthermore typologies may differ according to the
environments in which a game is played and with whom a game is played [4]. All these limitations point
to the fact that an all-purpose use of Bartle’s typology creates a blind spot for situating
the player/researcher in its particular local culture that is much more diverse
than these five categories seem to suggest. To refer to the title of this
conference: Bartle’s typology when used as a universal typology encumbers a
development of a methodology that situates play both culturally and locally. A
typology of the researcher as player alone seems to be too universal. To
situate us as part of our methodology we have to include our culturally embodied
positions as researchers.

Aarseth’s closed
circle

Clearly, Aarseth’s
project of finding a suitable methodology is rooted in a search for an approach
that takes the intrinsic qualities of games as its basis. This is a very
important way of anchoring any approach of games. Yet, it also has its
restrictions, since its claims about ‘the laws’ of games tend to be rather
universal and hermetic and make it harder to approach games as culture. Although
one should keep in mind that Aarseth does not pretend to give a complete and
all-encompassing methodology, this drawback does partly explain why he at first
includes culture in his definition of game-studies (by naming it as a disciplinary
field and focussing on game-studies in the humanities) yet comes to a first outline that misses any clear
cultural dimension. He seems to be captured by making typologies that describe
games and gaming in general, whilst play is a more messy cultural practice. We
need methodologies that enable us to describe it as such as well.

A 180°
turn: Talking to Boelstorff

Playing
with anthropology

In the first issue of the
journal Games as Culture
anthropologist Boelstorff points precisely towards this problem when he states
that most authors in game-studies employ a rather narrow definition of culture
in which it is presumed that social relation (in games) are determined by a set
of rules:

Most discussions of culture in game studies to
date (…) employ a symbolic or semiotic definition that frames culture in terms
of schemas, cognitive maps, and meaning. Although these elements are certainly
part of culture, they reflect somewhat outdated views of culture that
anthropologists would term structuralist, structural functionalist, or cognitive.[3]

Boelstorff indicates that perceiving
culture as a set of rules is problematic. His main objection against such a
view is that the idea of culture as governed by a grammar, a set of rules or
schemas, eludes the fact that culture is practiced by its participant as “an
intersubjective domain of experience, one that takes shape not in individual
heads but in social relations.” Besides that this lived reality is being
ignored when culture is seen as consisting of general rules, it also
obliterates omplex social issues of “economics,
power, and history”. Furthermore such a view produces a predetermined notion of
culture in which games have a preset place in relation to culture. Or as Boelstorff
puts it: “[s]uch theorizations of culture further the idea” that culture is
to game as context is to text, making it difficult to ask
how in some circumstances games can act as contexts for culture” [3]. Boelstorff therefore calls
for an approach that allows for a less fixed idea of game-culture.

He argues that anthropology
may offer game-studies an approach that overcomes such limitations since it is
a discipline concerned with culture as an everyday practice. An
interdisciplinary connection between game-studies and anthropology may therefore
proof to be fruitful. In this respect Boelstorff especially finds the methods used
for participant observation helpful for game-studies since they permit the
researcher to be critically involved with its research material, instead of
claiming a position of overview and control:

In place of surveys or interviewing, participant
observation implies a form of ethical yet critical engagement that blurs the
line between researcher and researched, even when the researcher is clearly not
a member of the community being studied. It is a method based on failure, on
learning from mistakes to develop a theory for how a culture is lived—for its
norms and its “feel”—that may not be reducible to rules.[3]

He thus maintains that the method of participant observation allows the
researcher to leave the myth of being the objective researcher behind by making
its involvement with its research material part of its methodology. In such a
way game culture is no longer perceived as a frozen category but as a lived and
heterogeneous practice.

Although Boelstorff’s assertion that anthropology and especially
participant observation should be the prevalent methodology for studying games
as culture seems to me somewhat too pre-determined, anthropology may indeed
offer some interesting tools to study games as culture. It would however be
necessary to enquire how one can make such a disciplinary leap without loosing
sight of the intrinsic qualities of games, in other words to investigate how
anthropological approaches may be compatible with what Aarseth sets out to
establish.

When anthropology
and game-studies meet

At first glance Boelstorff’s approach to games may seem irreconcilable
with that of Aarseth. While Aarseth takes the question of what a game is as his
central focus of attention and looks for rules of play that may help us with
developing a suitable approach, Boelstorff departs from the question of what culture
is and looks for a methodology that does justice to the messiness of games as culture.
Even so, a dialogue between these two positions seems to me pivotal when one
wants to come to an approach of games as culture that still does right to what
games are about.

The strongest compatibility between there views is that they both stress
that an involvement between the researcher and its material is unavoidable. Boelstorff
says that such is the case with any cultural/anthropological research. Aarseth
draws our attention to the specificity of game-studies in this respect since
the researcher has to play games to research them and is therefore strongly and
interactively involved with her research material. To a certain extent the
researcher becomes her study of object (or quasi-object). To use an
anthropological term for Aarseth’s assertion, the game-researcher has “to go
native” to be able to study her quasi-object. Hence the position of the
researcher as player as advocated by Aarseth always requires a degree of
participant observation and, vice versa, the method of participant observation as
proposed by Boelstorff always entails a degree of play when it is applied to
games. From this perspective their thoughts seems to be highly well-matched and
anthropology may actually offer us a strong methodology to realize the approach
of game studies as play.

Reflexivity

Actually both authors’ standpoint on this matter seems to be very close
to what is called a reflexive attitude of the researcher. Reflexivity is seen
as a means to show the position of the researcher as being simultaneously an
observer and a participant, or “that one is part of what is studied” [11, 17]. It is most commonly used in
the process of making description of fieldwork in which the researcher
unavoidably becomes more and more involved with her material. The tool of
reflexivity serves to render this process clearly by always reflecting upon
your own involvement, thus paradoxically creating distance in the process of
getting closer [7, 8]. Although reflexivity is not
explicitly mentioned in Boelstorff's article, it is definitely part of the anthropological
approach he advocates. It also comes near to what Aarseth means with reflectivity.
Aarseth considers reflectivity as an indispensable instrument for the
game-researcher. He describes this as a mode of observation in which the
position of the researcher as player is always taken into consideration.

Interestingly, a reflexive way of going about research makes the
assertion of Aarseth that ‘bad’ players are bad researchers per sé difficult to
maintain. A self confessed cheater/researcher that takes this position as a
reflexive practice could actually engender very interesting material. Surely, researchers should get acquainted with
their research material through playing extensively. In that sense the
researcher should not cheat and cut corners. Yet it may actually proof to be intriguing
if the moments of failure of which Boelstorff also speaks are made visible in
this process. Also, it could be enlightening if the researcher shows when play
is interrupted by looking for walk-throughs or more severe cheats.

It seems to me that reflexivity may proof a valuable tool for a lot of
game-research. It offers a methodological instrument that can make the playing
of the game part of our quest, without having to let go of our observational
role as academics. Instead a more complex process of observation is being made
part of our academic endeavours. Reflexivity thus offers a means to secure play
as a central focus when studying games as culture. By and large research on
games as culture would be enriched if the player/researcher shows her
trajectory of going tribal, of getting acquainted with her material starting
from a more or less informed position and including moments of failure and success.
In other words, when playing is seen as a quintessential part of any
methodology for researching games as an aesthetic culture, reflexivity seems to
be a necessary tool.[3]

Situatedness

Yet, as the title
of this paper indicates, I would maintain that such a methodology should also
contain an acknowledgment of the situatedness of games as culture. Keeping
faithful to the claim that games are about playing, one cannot see them as
separate from the local environment in which they are played. When I use a rather
broad definition of situatedness - since it is a common term that is used in
game-studies and in many related fields such as cognitive studies, educational
sciences, AI studies, feminist studies and science and technology studies - it
follows that an agent should be situated in
its environment and that (fractured) views, behaviour and cognitive processes
are always the outcome of this union [6, 9-16, 18]. Consequently situatedness enables
an approach in which games are seen as an outcome of local cultural practices.

Although reflexivity and situatedness are interconnected terms in that
they both leave behind a homogenous objective notion of the researcher and what
is researched, their emphasis and goals are dissimilar (which may have to do
with the fact that they were developed in different fields). While reflexivity
is always about paying tribute to the involved position of researcher – and in
this case about the researcher as player - the emphasis of situatedness lies on
the local embodiment of any agent, be it the researcher as player or the game
she studies. In the case of situatedness the emphasis lies therefore on the
embeddedness of any agent and not primarily on the involved position of the
researcher. Hence the first term serves to make sure that the researcher
position herself as a player, whilst the second is employed to secure that game
culture is viewed as a local and embodied social practice and to avoid making
universal knowledge claims.

As reflexivity,
situatedness is closely linked to what games are in essence about. While
reflexivity guarantees that a methodology includes the activity of play, situatedness
secures that the local embodiment that is part of every game is put on the
agenda. As terms they actually correlate with the two main characteristics of
game pleasure as being specified in the paper “Game Pleasures and Media
Practices”. Trying to identify a cultural notion of pleasure that is specific
to games, the authors of this paper define two traits of game pleasures, namely
embodiment and action [2]. It seems to me that the action of the researcher as player is
the main focus for the reflexive dimension of the proposed methodology, since
its emphasize lies on the researcher’s active involvement through playing and
that embodiment is more related to
the situatedness that such an approach entails, since it accounts for the way
the game (and the researcher/player as being part of that game) is locally and
physically embedded.

Depending on the cultural question the
researcher asks one of the two dimension may gain dominance. Take for example
Bryce an Rutter’s chapter “Killing Like
a Girl: Gendered Gaming
and Girl Gamers' Visibility” in
the Handbook of Computer Game Studies.
One of the main methodological statements the authors make is that a “game is only a
game when it’s played” [4]. They maintain that this idea
has not been sufficiently acknowledged in studies about gender and gaming so
far, which has according to the authors led to erroneous statements about the
relation between gender and games that underestimate how woman can be avid gamers
as well. To overcome this inadequacy they propose a spatial turn. They argue
that when games and their players are no longer seen as isolated from the
(public and semi-private) spaces in which they play, a different and more
heterogeneous picture about gender will emerge. Hence Bryce and Rutter tend
towards a methodology in which situatedness is pre-dominant. However, for
making such an approach possible, they would need a certain degree of
reflexivity. Since their proposed manner of research seems to be close to that
of participant observation it always includes, as Boelstorff indicates, “a form of ethical yet critical engagement that blurs the
line between researcher and researched, even when the researcher is clearly not
a member of the community being studied” [3]. To conduct research in a situated way one always needs a
certain degree of reflexivity. Conversely, a research question that calls primarily
for a reflexive angle, by for example studying a game-world as a cultural space through play, calls for a certain
recognition of situatedness in its approach since the researched material is
always rooted in the local or embodied space of the player/researcher and has
no universal meaning as such. Consequently reflexivity and situatedness are
complementary requirements for a cultural study of games.

Conclusion

In this paper I
have tried to further an indispensable discussion about what methodologies
game-studies needs to develop to study games as culture. Since not much has
been written on this subject so far, I have mainly focused on two authors that
have suggested valuable methodologies for studying games, one from the
self-proclaimed field of game-studies and one with anthropology as a
back-ground. I have tried to compare their views and distill from these the
necessary ingredients for such a methodology. While the authors started from
opposite directions, I have showed that a comparison between their views and
the fields in which they position themselves, can bring about a fruitful approach
that enables us to study games as culture.

The tools of
reflexivity and situatedness seems to be essential for studying games as
culture. They both guarantee that the researcher as player does not pretend to observe
her material from “out there” but through play. Reflexivity by rendering
visible how the researcher “goes native”, situatedness by not “standing back”
and rephrasing objectivity as a local, embodied and “fractured vision” [11]. Which of these two dimensions are more
prevalent in the used methodology and how these methods are exactly applied
(e.g. auto-ethnography, Actor-Network-Theory, participant observation) depends
on the specific research question that is being posed. But as an overall
methodological framework they both secure a cultural approach of games that
incorporates the position of the researcher/player.

REFERENCES

1. Aarseth, E. Playing Research: Methodological Approaches
to Game Analysis Digital Arts &
Culture 2003, Melbourne, 2003.

2. Ardévol, E., Roig, A., San
Cornelio, G., Pagès, R. and Alsina, P. Game Pleasures and Media Practices 9th Bi-Annual Conference. Europe and the World,
Bristol, UK, 2006.

3. Boellstorff, T. A Ludicrous
Discipline? Ethnography and Game Studies. Games
and Culture, vol. 1, no. 1 (January 2006), pp 29-35.

4. Bryce, J. and Rutter, J. Gendered
Gaming in Gendered Space. in Handbook of
Computer Games Studies, MIT Press, Massachusets, 2005, pp 301-310.

5. Consalvo, M. Rule Sets, Cheating,
and Magic Circles: Studying Games and Ethics. IRIE. International Review of Information Ethics, vol. 3 (December
2005), pp 7-12.

6. Copier, M. The Other Game
Researcher. in Copier, M. and Raessens, J. eds. Level Up: Digital Games Research Conference, Utrecht University,
Utrecht, 2003, pp 404-419.

7. Davies, C.A. Reflexive Ethnography: A Guide to Researching Selves and Others.
Routledge, London, New York, 1999.

8. Fook, J. Reflexivity as Method. Annual Review of Health Social Sciences,
vol. 9 (1999), pp 11–20.

9. Haraway, D. Situated Knowledges:
The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies, vol. 14, no. 3 (Autumn
1988), pp 575-599.

10. Haraway, D.J. A Game of Cat's Cradle:
Science Studies, Feminist Theory, Cultural Studies. Configurations, vol. 2, no. 1 (Winter 1994), pp 59-71.

11. Law, J. On the Subject of the Object:
Narrative, Technology, and Interpellation. Configurations,
vol. 8, no. 1 (Winter 2000), pp 1-29.

12. Lindblom, J. and Ziemke, T. Social
Situatedness: Vygotsky and Beyond, 2002. Available at http://www.lucs.lu.se/ftp/pub/LUCS_Studies/LUCS94/Lindblom.pdf

13. Simpson, D. Situatedness, or, Why We Keep Saying Where We're Coming From. Duke
University Press, Durham and London, 2002.

14. Smith, B. Situatedness-Embeddedness The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences,
1999, pp 769–770.

15. Squire, K. Cultural Framing of
Computer/Video Games. Game Studies,
vol. 2, no. 1 (2002).

16. Steinkuehler, C.A. Learning in
Massively Multiplayer Online Games. Proceedings
of the 6th International Conference on Learning Sciences (2004), pp
521-528.

17. Woolgar, S. and Ashmore, M. The Next
Step: An Introduction to the Reflexive Project. in Knowledge and Reflexivity: New Frontiers in the Sociology of Knowledge,
Sage, London and Beverly Hills, 1988, pp 1-11.

18. Yates, S.J. Understanding Computer
Game Cultures: A Situated Approach. Information,
Communication & Society, vol. 2, no. 4 (1999), pp 566-583.