What if much of the fragmentation discussed in our first report comes from a few hidden assumptions held by project leaders and funders in our field? Below we identify one such “risky assumption” that may impact several areas, as well as an idea for reframing.

Look for a few additional thoughts as well as a revised report in the coming weeks. (These additional thoughts are partly due to some great feedback and ideas we have received in recent months from the community. Thank you all!)

Risky Assumption #1: “Research is Separate from Design (and is Conducted Externally).” In this provocation, we caution against separately framing design and research. In our view, a frame of “mutual iteration” will yield better impact for many projects, and simultaneously reduce fragmentation. In part, this requires a broader notion of “research” as overlapping with standard design practice.

With that in mind, we urge more respect for user testing as a kind of essential research, and thus more respect for designers as applied researchers, since all good games require play testing. This is a surprisingly overlooked reality, both by designers and researchers. Ultimately, although there are some understandable reasons for emphasizing and scrutinizing robust research design, we argue that placing research on a pedestal, also comes with risks. Most importantly, impact could be lessened if research is delegated to external sources at the expense of deeper integration with design iteration.

Game designers may not realize their options — let alone their own role in “research.” In particular, when designers see game testing and usability as separate from “research,” they may fail to capture valuable data on impact. For example, if they only ask whether their players are “engaged” in a narrow sense, they may miss deeper engagement with the issues that brought the player to the game in the first place (e.g., to connect with others, to engage with a social issue, to have an excuse to make a difference). Of course, some research is impractical for making short-term decisions. But we argue that there is great value in empowering designers to optimize the game with the “research” model — i.e., the model for observing impact that might be used in a formal evaluation after the game has launched.

Additionally, we suspect that there is particular tactical value in mutual advice between designers and researchers. Specifically, designers can be asked to recommend how they might evaluate the game (summative); simultaneously, evaluators can be asked to recommend how they might improve the game (formative). Improving the linkage between formative and summative research (and formative and summative researchers) seems likely to reduce fragmentation and improve our field-level conversation. Along the way, we are helping to take the word “research” a notch down from its pedestal to be more accessible to all.

…positive reframing: Iterative Design Should Include “Mutual Iteration” with the Research Approach and “Paper Prototype” Evidence (they should co-evolve; good designers must think like researchers and vice-versa)

Sound useful? Let us know what you think!
—–
(This post was written by Benjamin Stokes and Gerad O’Shea.)