Archives for : August2016

Repost: most typologies are “deep but not connected”

Since we are introducing a new typology, below we repost our brief analysis of others’ typologies from our first report.

CLAIM: Typologies are deep but not connected

What about overviews of the field by experts? Overviews gain their power by drawing boundaries, often using typologies. To achieve clarity and depth, typologies have to leave things out (usually for good reasons). Field leaders and academics create typologies to fill specific gaps in conceptualizing the field, declaring what counts, and elevating the most important categories. The value is often greatest for a specific target audience — such as a particular sector or discipline.

Yet there is a downside to growth. As overviews proliferate by sub-sector, the ordinary consumers of these resources find it hard to see the big picture. Assumptions are often hidden in the sector or discipline of origin. How do various typologies relate? First we show how each must exclude just to accomplish its overview.

Consider a few different ways games have traditionally been organized:

Continue Reading >>

Proposing “impact types” across fields (typology part B)

We are quietly circulating a new way to visualize our field, emphasizing the range of social impact that is possible with games. We have been testing our visuals and concept at several conferences recently.

In brief: these “six types” of impact define a perimeter for what games can do. Big picture perspective on impact is an art, as we explained in our last post on the range of impact. Our approach is unusual, in part because it is:

  • visual,
  • useful (not just truthful), and
  • more inclusive.

Others have tried, but we found that they all seemed to be preaching to a disciplinary or academic audience. As we said in our first report, most typologies are deep but not connected. So our method begins with practitioner communities that have distinct tools for measuring impact.

Here is a visual explanation…

Feature #1: Professional communities are distinct


…did any of these surprise you? Our goal is to show the breadth of impact. For each type, there are distinct professionals trying to make sense of games — with their own tools. Look how different the impact indicators are too…

Feature #2: Indicators are very different


Feature #3: Simple language to hint at layers

impact-structuredOur titles are crazily short — typically just two words for each category. At best, they hint of more layers. Such minimalist language risks being simplistic. Of course things are more complex. But that’s the point: rather than maximum detail, we want to prioritize useful framing.

Framing is a delicate art. The language must be simple, yet valid and inviting to newcomers. Our goal is to orient new funders and producers, facilitate comparisons between disciplines, and reduce friction in the design process.

It is essential to hit the right level of granularity. We would rather error on the side of simplicity and accessibility. As our prior post argued, we need perspective across the range of impact. Our bias is toward accessibility, especially since academic publications of typologies tend to be biased toward discipline-specific language.

Feature #4: Tested across groups (in the wild)

We refine our framing “in the wild” by trying it. Validity comes from observing the typology in action. Most prominently, Asi Burak (see our advisory) has been testing it in keynote presentations — especially to non-game audiences. He also deserves credit for much of the visual look and the case study work below.

Success is measured in translation across very different stakeholders — not just disciplines, but gaps in practice between designers, funders, and researchers.  (The dangers of fragmentation are spelled out in our first report.)

We are bravely trying this all in public, including with this blog post. Interviews at conferences, often following presentations, are a primary way to gather data (e.g., see our talk at DiGRA-FDG). Our methodology may shift to more controlled laboratory conditions soon, but we resist the temptation to dive into the laboratory prematurely. The pressing challenge is to develop a valid portfolio of impact categories. Once we establish first-order legitimacy with the design, there will be a variety of ways to test and refine the components and language.

Feature #5: Horizontal format — no “super theories”

It is tempting to create a sequence with these types, and declare one as “most important.” We resist this approach, based on the research in our first report, as divisive and generally arbitrary.

super-theory-engagement-pyramidThere is a bit of truth in the temptation to sequence. For example, broadcast media strategists often talk of a “funnel,” beginning with raising awareness to a mass audience, after which a subset actually learns something, and hopefully some of them change their behavior or vote. That sequence is legitimate. But it is also legitimate to build some habits (like reading the news) that lead to learning later.

We similarly reject blanket statements (e.g., “policy change is the only real way to have an impact”) as exclusionary. Our goal is to have an open conversation about impact, and avoid the tendency to shut some people out prematurely.

So… how did we actually pick the categories?

  • visible success stories — with recognizable names that serve as shortcuts, decreasing the amount of explaining we need to do
  • research basis — with published evidence of impact
  • portfolio contrast — so that each is distinct

Beware some assumptions:

  • overlap is inevitable — every game does more than one of these, including the examples above; in fact, one of our goals is to help projects be brave enough to admit
  • this will evolve — first as new games take off, and as our understanding of what games can do continues to broaden; this typology is therefor a work in progress, and your feedback is welcomed!

Feature #6: Framing with examples

Our goal is to frame the categories, and to stay concrete. Actual games are shown immediately (and discussed below). In contrast to most academic norms, we chose to be illustrative rather than verbosely precise.

Specific games include:



MORE ON THESE GAMES (preliminary images for now… more details to come as we get feedback):






(Slides based on originals from Asi Burak.)


Can you use this typology or image? A: YES! This is licensed for free re-use, we just ask you to give attribution to the Game Impact Project and link back to this site in some way.

Our next iteration will be coming soon. If you have ideas or reactions, let us know!

Posted on behalf of Benjamin Stokes, Aubrey Hill and Asi Burak

gathering input at conferences

We have been having a great time getting feedback at events. Last month we were in NYC for the 13th annual Festival of Games for Change. We had some great conversations, like with the visualizations of Dot Connector studio on engagement models.

Here is a snapshot of the “crowd-sourced” discussion we facilitated about barriers to impact:


To gather input, the crowd presented a fascinating sample: about 10-20% were highly experienced, including designers and academics who had been attending similar events for years; another 30% were newcomers, hungry for perspective; and perhaps 50% were somewhere in-between, including funders with deep experience in a content domain, but eager for ways to be smarter and learn from other disciplines.

Asking the right questions is one of our primary goals. We found particular traction from these questions:

  • What barriers? Newcomers especially wanted a glimpse of what’s hard, and how to get started.
  • What language? Experts immediately wanted to debate the right language.  Conflicting views emerged immediately.
  • Is this our field? Critical mass is necessary for engagement, and the right identity frames helped build a broad tent.

More analysis to come soon, after our talk with folks at DiGRA-FDG next week…

The range of impact (typology part A)

What types of impact are possible? If you can imagine a kind of social change, games are there. Thousands of possibilities exist — from tiny to massive, global to local, economic to sociological.

It is tempting to map them all:

But then we lose perspective.  What we need is the big picture.  Especially to address a few of the most important needs in our field:

  1. To orient new funders and producers.  What options are possible?  Where to begin? The goal is to articulate the forest, not just trees with deep roots.
  2. To compare similar projects, i.e., based on similarities in logic models and theories of change, not content areas
  3. To reduce friction in the field, e.g., talking past each other

The dream is more like:


What’s the difference?

  1. Organizes with big categories
  2. Less overwhelming
  3. Hints at layers of depth

But what should the umbrella nodes and categories be? If we’re not proactive, one group may define impact for the field leaving out a crucial breadth of perspectives and practices:

Any one discipline in isolation has blinders, leading to some classic problems:

  • Not inclusive of people (splinters the movement)
  • Not inclusive of impact types — overlooks key forms (e.g., sociology rarely invoked by psychologists)
  • Confuses truth with being useful; in fact, narrow truths often inhibit broader understanding, and broad understanding may require some deliberate and strategic ambiguity

Wanting to create a useful understanding of impact means that this a design challenge, with obstacles to be overcome (like getting the framing right). Solutions to this design challenge will be successful if they:

  1. change how we design
  2. bring people together (cohesion)
  3. foster more useful debate (the right kind of disagreements)

What does it look like?  Watch for our next post…