22.1 Introduction

The growing interest in the utilization of games for society, business, and politics—now commonly referred to as serious games (SG)—entails a growing need to understand the effects of what we are doing and promoting, out of professional and scientific curiosity as well as responsibility and accountability. There are many alternative terms for SG, as shown in Table 22.1 An emerging discipline that advocates the use of games for learning or to repair a broken reality (McGonigal 2012) has a responsibility to reflect critically on the short- and long-term value and structural consequences of the tools they are developing, promoting, and using, especially when vulnerable groups in society are involved, such as children, patients, or immigrants. Furthermore, “users” (sponsors, clients, educators, players) are becoming more exposed to, and familiar with, SG. They have the right to know what they are actually buying, using, or playing, what the games are for and what the effects or consequences of the application of SG and gamification are. We expect that the many stakeholders involved in SG will become more demanding, critical, and skeptical. Moreover, when institutional stakeholders—policymakers of many kinds—start to promote SG as a vehicle for economic competitiveness, as contributing to some of the grand challenges, for example, safety and security, for social cohesion, empowerment, or creating jobs (see references and examples below), then a critical, scientific, and professional reflection on the economic, social, and political benefits and limitations of SG is duly required.

To meet all of these needs, that is, responsibility, accountability, and economic viability, we require proper theories, methods, and principles that the fragmented SG communities can agree upon, validate, and apply; in other words, we must take a step towards a professional discipline of SG research and application (Mayer 2012; Mayer et al. 2013, 2014) and/or a science of game-based learning (Sanchez, Cannon-Bowers, and Bowers 2010).

22.2 Fragmentation

The utilization of games for various purposes has been around at least since the 1950s and firmly nests inside a great many communities of “learning” and “education,” “modeling and simulation,” “social change,” “organization and management,” “creative design,” “computer science,” “engineering,” “politics and policy”, to name a few. It is paradoxical that an increasing number of older (e.g., DiGRA 2015; ISAGA, 2015) and newly established institutions in the field (e.g., GALA n.d.; SGS n.d.; SGA n.d.) explicitly wish to overcome what they identify as “fragmentation” (De Gloria, Bellotti, and Berta 2012). This includes:

• geographical fragmentation: aligning, for example, countries and geographical markets in the EU or United States
• disciplinary fragmentation: aligning disciplines such as engineering, humanities, and social sciences
• institutional fragmentation: aligning, for example, different research institutes
• business chains and networks: aligning, for example, producers, consumers, financers, sponsors, publishers, stakeholders, etc.

Fragmentation has its roots in variety and can be an indicator of healthy competition, both of which are drivers of innovation. In this sense, fragmentation is problematic only when subsystems of research and innovation are geographically, disciplinarily, institutionally, or otherwise isolated and disconnected to such a degree that creative competition is prevented, hindered, or blocked. It makes no sense to force defragmentation and alignment upon the SG innovation system for the sole purpose of reducing variety. Variety is not the problem, but not knowing what makes one system “similar,” “different,” or “complementary” to another is a major obstacle to innovation and diffusion. In the field of SG there is a tendency to take overly strong positions and make claims about what SG are or are not and how effective SG are or are not. This produces a “language game” about preferred or rejected terms and definitions, as presented in Table 22.1, and, even worse, a “dialogue among the deaf.” Common ground on which to converse is duly needed.

22.3 Learning and Games

The current discourse about SG in society has a strong bias towards individual, educational learning. Much of the discussion centers on what is called “the efficacy of games.” Are games good didactical methods and why? Are games better than other pedagogical methods, and how do we know? Several review articles on the efficacy of game-based learning (GBL) have been published, and such articles are now appearing with increasing frequency (Adams 2010; Barlett, Anderson, and Swing 2008; Beyer and Larkin 1978; Boyle et al. 2012; Connolly et al. 2012; Coulthard 2009; Egenfeldt-Nielsen 2006; Garris, Ahlers, and Driskell 2002; Girard, Ecalle, and Magnan 2012; Gosen and Washbush 2004; Graafland, Schraagen, and Schijven 2012; Greenblat 1973; Hays 2005; Jenson and de Castell 2010; Ke 2009; Lee 1999; Leemkuil, Jong, and Ootes 2000; Mayer 2009; McClarty et al. 2012; Papastergiou 2009; Perrotta et al. 2013; Randel et al. 1992; Dvijak and Tomic 2011; Vogel et al. 2006; Wouters et al. 2011; Wouters and Van Oostendorp 2013). The overall conclusion is that games are widely applied for an almost endless variety of purposes. They seem to work fairly well, most of the time, but studies that establish this are not always of good quality. The design, validation, evaluation, and research motives of studies are not always clearly separated. Many studies, often by the makers themselves, simply try to prove that “the game worked,” which is commonly called validation. There is no established methodology for SG research and little consensus about what and how we should measure in terms of evaluation constructs. In recent publications, we have made a modest contribution by defining the building blocks for a science of SG, including an evaluation framework for comparative and longitudinal research, study designs, data-gathering techniques, models for testing etc. (Mayer et al. 2013, 2014; Mayer, Warmelink, and Bekebrede 2013). Underneath all this lies a more fundamental problem: we are still not quite sure what precisely we are studying and practicing. The discourse on SG in society and academia is full of confusion, contradiction, and polarization.

The utility of games for society, business, and politics is always mediated by “learning,” but learning does not equal education and can take many forms. First of all, GBL is not limited to students and pupils in formal education, since many games are used in highly professional environments, such as the corporate sector, health care, and the military. Even more important, individuals are not the only parties that can learn from playing games; groups, networks, organizations, and systems can also learn from SG (Argyris 1977; Meadows 1999; Schrage 1999; Senge 1990). Games are more and more used as deliberate interventions to examine or change groups, organizations, or systems (Duke and Geurts 2004; Mayer and Veeneman 2002). They are also used to foster public awareness and stimulate critical discourse concerning particular issues, thereby contributing to societal deliberations and social change (Bogost 2007; Rebolledo-Mendez, Avramides, and de Freitas 2009).

Paradoxically, many of these games with learning purposes beyond education are also relevant for education because educational institutions are also part of society, business, and politics. Hence, pupils at school can be asked to play a particular game that makes them aware of poverty (Poverty Is Not A Game (PING n.d.)) or makes them stand up against bullying (Howest n.d.; NSCC 2010). In higher education, students study the behavior and management of complex systems in the form of theories about social change, organizations, innovation, ecology, engineering systems, and more. The game language has proved very helpful to elicit how such complex things work. Hence, students can be asked to play a particular game like Fishbanks (Meadows, Sterman, and King n.d.) that makes them experience “the tragedy of the commons” or some other theory. Games can also be the subject of a curriculum, for instance when students are asked to design a game as part of their management, design, or informatics training. Curricula and classes can be “gamified,” for instance through leader boards. Last but not least, games can be a method of research or data gathering to be taught in higher education. Hence, the relationship between games, learning, and education is richer and more complex than is suggested by the learning efficacy frame.

In this chapter, we discuss one building block for a science of SG that has marked consequences for the development, use, dissemination, and evaluation of games for learning. We call this building block framing or frame-reflective discourse analysis. It starts from the following questions: Why do we use different words (see Table 22.1) for more or less the same thing? And the opposite: What happens when we use the same word, like serious game, with different meanings? Why do some fiercely reject the use of certain words, like “serious game” or “gamification” (Bogost 2011; Czauderna n.d.) Furthermore, why do some people talk about games in terms of efficacy, while others utterly reject the idea that games can be viewed in such terms? Are there other ways than efficacy to consider the utility of games for society, business, and politics? Before we start to design, use, disseminate, and evaluate games for learning, we’d better know what we are talking about.

The outline of the chapter is as follows. First, we illustrate why definitions and taxonomies do not clarify much in the confusing discourse about games, learning, and education. Then we present framing and frame-reflective discourse analysis as an alternative. We discuss what frames are and how frame-reflective discourse analysis works with respect to understanding games. We continue with a presentation of four frames that the authors find very meaningful and helpful. We illustrate them with examples. We then show how these frames influence policy and research agendas, and wrap up with a few practical implications of framing.

22.4 Definitions and Taxonomies

For any emerging science or methodology it is necessary to clearly specify the locus and focus of its research. The key issue or question in a SG area (Are serious games effective?) is the focus of research, whereas the application domain (education, healthcare) is the locus. Specifying the locus and focus of SG research can be done, for example, by providing clear definitions (see Table 22.1) and/or developing classifications and taxonomies (Anderson et. al. 2000; Bedwell et al. 2012; Elverdam and Aarseth 2007; Mueller, Gibbs, and Vetere 2008; Sawyer 2007).

Definitions or taxonomies, however, are generally problematic, especially in emerging interdisciplinary research areas such as SG. To begin with, there is the philosophical position that “games” cannot be defined at all (Rockwell and Kee 2011; Wittgenstein 1953). According to Wittgenstein—frequently quoted, little understood—games are a family of resemblances, there is no essence among them. However, this lack of essence does not stand in the way of the fact that even children learn what games are fairly easily. In short, we do not need a definition in order to be able to communicate about games, serious or otherwise:

How should we explain to someone what a game is? I imagine that we should describe games to him, and we might add: “This and similar things are called games.” And do we know any more about it ourselves? Is it only other people whom we cannot tell exactly what a game is? But this is not ignorance. We do not know the boundaries because none have been drawn. To repeat, we can draw a boundary for a special purpose. Does it take that to make the concept usable? Not at all! (Except for that special purpose.)

(Wittgenstein 1953)

In Gaming: the Future’s Language, Duke explicitly supported Wittgenstein’s anti-essentialism in relation to serious games (Duke 1975). Duke himself may, or may not, have been aware of the underlying philosophical debate, but his argument was solely based upon his extensive experience with simulation games.

A careful review of the variety of products currently available as serious games turned up the startling disclosure that they seem to share no single characteristic: neither subject matter nor technique, nor duration, nor client, nor audience configuration, nor paraphernalia, nor style. […] Curiously, professionals have no difficulty in alluding to all of these as games. Or addressing the phenomenon they use as “gaming” even though the particulars are so varied and diffuse.

(Duke 1975, xvi)

Nevertheless, ignorant of Wittgenstein’s language games, or as a critique of his anti-essentialist argument (Suits 2005), many have tried to define games (see again Table 22.1 for just a few examples). Suits’ (2005) definition of a game as “a voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles” is considered to be the best essentialist definition and riposte to Wittgenstein. Others have argued that Wittgenstein was right but that the notion of a “game” was perhaps not the strongest or that Wittgenstein never claimed that games cannot be analyzed because the family of resemblance itself is a form of analysis.

Albeit, to define “game” is not the same as to define “serious game” because the latter concept is less universal, and a variety of partly overlapping concepts, such as those in Table 22.1, are used to refer to more or less the same thing. The number of concepts and corresponding definitions that have been proposed in reference to “the utilization of games for …” is wide ranging: from war gaming, free-form gaming, operational gaming, scientific gaming and policy exercises to gamification, ludification, persuasive games and gameful design. SG comprise quite an extensive family—unfortunately, the family tree cannot fully be reconstructed from the different family names. Moreover, whether certain members even rightfully or legitimately belong to the family is questionable.

The problem with definitions (and taxonomies) is that they define who or what is “inside” and who or what is “at the edge” or “outside” the scientific, professional, or other type of community. “In” or “out” makes a big difference for access to resources (grants, funding, subsidies), publications, projects, meetings, workshops, conferences, etc., regardless of anonymous peer reviews. Every academic who has ever submitted a research proposal in request for funding knows that the right trigger concepts or buzz words may get you in, and the wrong concepts will certainly keep you out. In other words, underlying the search for definitions and taxonomies is a sociopolitical struggle driven not only by the search for truth but also for control over institutions and resources, and thereby the power to control (Kuhn 1996, 264; Berger and Luckmann 1967). One of the strategies in this struggle could be to initiate or support the replacement of serious games by persuasive games (or another concept), but, of course, the potential threat to persuasive games from the introduction of gamification (or any other concept) needs to be fiercely resisted:

Despite the possibility of rescuing serious games under the definition I have just offered, I do not want to preserve that name. Instead, I would like to advance persuasive games as an alternative whose promise lies in the possibility of using procedural rhetoric to support or challenge our understanding of the way things in the world do or should work.

(Bogost 2011, 2007, 59)

New terms such as “gameful design” (Deterding et al. 2011a) or games for impact (Czauderna n.d.) do not express more inherent value, and their definitions do not have more essence, since there probably is none. They mainly express support for, or the rejection of, institutionalized norms, beliefs, culture, and the funding of the SG (or any other) movement. In order to succeed in the language game surrounding the utilization of games, the values of the academic or professional community at large should be taken into account in order to gain support and be convincing. A publicly declared denouncement of “gamification” in favor of a new concept such as “gameful design” conveys a meta-message: “I do not belong to that group (anymore).” Slowly, the preferred terms and definitions start to float, then drift—not too radically—to the other shore. Ultimately, one may be able to get one’s preferred concepts onto the political agenda, where science and research priorities, that is, budget allocations, are established and project proposals are funded or rejected. The best way to gain access to funding is to get one’s preferred concepts (definitions, taxonomies, or frameworks) onto one of many research or policy roadmaps (see below).

However, while the essence of SG still proves hard to determine or sell through definitions, variety can also be managed by a proposed clarification of the relationships among the different concepts, and above all by clarifying the underlying structure through which we can see similarities, differences, and relationships, in other words by defining genres, styles, typologies, classifications, and taxonomies. Very few SG taxonomies have really clarified anything or contributed to deeper insight into what games, serious or otherwise, really are. Moreover, since there is no taxonomy of taxonomies (that would lead to an infinite regression) the utility of the SG taxonomy—what it is for and whether it does it—cannot be defined. More importantly, taxonomies reify creativity; they kill innovation because new combinations, Schumpeter’s neue Kombinationen, cannot be boxed (Schumpeter 1961, 255). Taxonomies frame games as things, as artifacts, and hardly bring forward a critical discourse about the underlying world-views or assumptions.

So, is there a better way to manage variety than by definitions and taxonomies?

22.5 Framing Theory

In our view, framing theory (Fisher 1997; Giddens 1988; Goffman 1974, 586; Scheufele and Iyengar 2002) and frame-reflective discourse analysis (Rein and Schön 1996; Schön and Rein 1994) can provide some necessary foundations for the emerging scientific discipline of SG research. Framing is the act of attributing meaning to events and phenomena; a way of creating order out of chaos by providing a critical analysis of the multiple, often conflicting, ways in which we perceive and discuss the utility of games for society, business, and politics. Rather than definitions or taxonomies, it is important to have a better understanding of the frames that people construct and use when they address and answer some of the following questions:

• Does the frequent playing of digital games affect leadership styles, preferences for team collaboration, motor skills, etc.?
• Are games effective as designed interventions for change or learning, for example at school, in therapy, in health care, in the military or at work?
• How does the game industry innovate and what can other businesses learn from it?
• Can games promote and sell products and services, or influence ideas and beliefs?
• Can societal and political communities and institutions better self-organize by using game principles or game technology?

22.6 Frame-reflective Discourse Analysis

A frame is “an instrument for defining reality” as opposed to “an instrument for describing reality”’ (Donati 1992, in Fisher 1997, 5.4). Frames are neither mutually exclusive nor an easy fit for any one individual. They exist in parallel, and many researchers (including the authors) implicitly or explicitly switch frames or adopt more than one simultaneously. Other constructs that come close to frames are “lenses” or “belief systems.”

In sociology, frame analysis originates in Goffman's (1974) sociological theory and studies on the organization of experience. Frame analysis has since been used and developed throughout the social sciences and humanities, though not without criticism and confusion (Benford and Snow 2000; Chong and Druckman 2007; Dufwenberg, Gächter, and Hennig-Schmidt 2011; Fisher 1997; Giddens 1988; Rettie 2004; Scheufele and Iyengar 2002).

I assume that definitions of a situation are built up in accordance with principles of organization which govern events—at least social ones—and our subjective involvement in them […] that is my definition of a frame. […] frame analysis is a slogan to refer to the examination of the organization of experience.

(Goffman 1974, 11)

According to Goffman, framing is the application of primary frameworks about the natural and social worlds, that is, “schemata of interpretation […] rendering what would otherwise be a meaningless aspect of the scene into something that is meaningful” (Goffman 1974, 21). Primary frameworks, however, are followed by a certain form of keying, which appropriately transforms what already became meaningful through the application of a primary framework.

The example of play fighting is enlightening. The literal act of fighting, that is, a primary framework, can be interpreted as “make believe,” “play fighting,” “practicing,” or what Goffman calls “simulation” (see Goffman 1974, 59). This also explains why frame analysis has been used in game research, albeit very modestly (Consalvo 2009; Glas et al. 2011; Pargman and Jakobsson 2008). Goffman’s work is full of references to “serious play” and “strategic games” but is surprisingly underused.

Fabrications, that is, forms of deceit, are another way of transforming primary frameworks. Here the negative political connotation of framing—spin—becomes manifest. The harmonious cooperation between two politicians could actually be deceit, or an apparent clash between them easily staged to sell their imminent compromise. In other words, framing takes place through intricate layered structures of primary frameworks, keys, and fabrications. Moreover, during one activity “one is likely to find another flow of other activities that is systematically disattended and treated as ‘out of the frame,’ something not be given any concern or attention” (Goffman 1974, 210). In other words, framing needs the marking of the beginning and ending of an activity, an interpretation of the roles and responsibilities of actors and of what is “outside” and “inside” the frame.

Now the structure becomes so complex and ambiguous that people involved in the activity—the many spectators, actors, etc.—can doubt precisely what is going on: is the fight real or playacted? They may err or dispute the correct interpretation of the activity. As a result of errors, doubts, incongruencies, etc., frames can break—certain series of activities do not fit into the frame. People, therefore, engage in the activity of clearing frames, reconstructing frames until each participant has a workable correct view of what is going on, but also, usually, a tolerably correct view of the others’ views, which includes their own view of this view (Goffman 1974, 338).

Whereas Goffman only addresses the individual level (not organizations), frame analysis has found its way into the critical analysis of organizational and political discourses through the work of Schön and Rein (Rein and Schön 1996; Schön and Rein 1994) amongst others. Hence, we consider frame analysis to be useful for the science of SG in two ways: first, to understand how “serious play” and “simulation” are used in the organization of daily or professional experience, what Goffman calls the keying or fabrication of experience, and second, as frame-reflective discourse analysis about the role of video games and serious games in society at large. This relates to an important distinction in frame analysis: the distinction between the organization of individual experiences, that is, the interpretation of what is going on while playing a serious game, and the interpretation of the phenomena behind these experiences, that is, the meaning of serious games in society. It is primarily the second use of framing that we are interested in.

We now touch upon three important mechanisms behind the interpretation of SG: reification, generalization, and ideologization. The inherent reification of experiences easily turns daily and professional experiences into “things.” Consider, for example, the way the experience of serious gaming—as purposeful play—has turned SG into products, commodities or tools that can be sold, boxed, commercialized, and distributed. Breaking down SG into functionalities allows us to test their effectiveness and value.

Generalization of the experience takes place through classifications and definitions of the product, that is, in terms of SG genres, to facilitate commercialization and distribution. We are then able to make claims about the effectiveness of certain genres or of SG in general. It is not a matter of “when we/they played this game, we started to understand the meaning of this or that,” but that “serious games are effective learning tools!”

In a similar fashion, does the ideologization of SG define what is acceptable or unacceptable? Consider, for example, how game designers implicitly or explicitly package their moral and societal values (about management, capitalism, health or democracy, etc.) into a game. Or, how video games, or the game Second Life for that matter, have been discussed as good, bad, or even immoral.

Finally, if and when frames are analyzed and reconstructed, a question can be raised about their narrative fidelity and/or empirical validity. A lack of narrative fidelity would make a frame less convincing and attractive to others, and would render the lifespan of an existing frame rather short. A questionable empirical validity would lead us to test the underlying truth claims of a frame. Narrative fidelity and empirical validity influence the persuasiveness and motivational power of a frame, which in turn draws our attention to the behavioral effects (positive, negative) of frames, for example, in the context of economics, politics, and management. In other words, frames about SG will have a persuasive or motivational research policy.

Based upon the above principles of frame analysis we intend to construct a number of frames that color the discourse on the utility of games in society, business, and politics, and will consider their consequences for research and policy.

22.7 Methodological Approach

A few methodological notes on and justifications of how we constructed the frames first need to be made. First, and in line with framing theory, we do not claim that these frames are, or should be, prevalent in all possible discourses on SG, in all domains, disciplines, countries, and at all times. They are simply meaningful to us to explain how experiences with SG, but above all experiences around SG, are organized.

Second, because the methodology is a frame analysis of SG, it focuses on the utility or purposefulness of play and games. Other forms of non-purposeful play are omitted, making the frames vulnerable to the criticism that they overlook the possible purposefulness of entertainment game play in everyday life. In short, some claim that all games are serious. Furthermore, we only consider games, but are aware that we can seriously play with any object or idea around us, without the artifact of “a game.” That is why we use the phrase, “to play a game,” which is distinct from “to play (with) something else” (e.g., wooden blocks, a thought, a computer model). We will put these interesting considerations aside for now.

Third, in order to test, support, and illustrate our arguments we searched through and analyzed documents such as business reports, policy and project documents, strategy and vision documents, and international academic and professional literature on SG from databases such as Scopus. We searched for concepts (see Table 22.2), examples of games that would prove the validity of our frames, and statements about SG that could be used in the discourse analysis. By no means did we aim to study the examples of games and projects empirically or make any judgment about their quality and value. It was not so important to determine what the game or project really was or did, but rather how they were presented and communicated, often by the makers themselves, in videos and on websites. Many more examples could have been included, but it would not have added to the arguments. We encourage readers to find examples that fit, or do not fit, our frames, and then to come up with new, complementary or competing frames, because that is how frame analysis should work.

22.8 Frame Analysis of Serious Games

Any science of SG and any methodology of SG research should reflect upon the assumptions underlying its ontology (being) and epistemology (knowing). A detailed discussion of the philosophy of science would obviously exceed the scope of this publication. For our purposes, we need only define two drivers with which to construct four frames on the utility of games (see Table 22.2).

• Whether the world as we know it is more likely to be real (ontological realism) or constructed (ontological idealism): If the world is real, we are more likely to be able to observe it, measure it, and come as close as possible to understanding it as it really is. If it is grounded in our ideas (mind), we can only explore and try to understand our relationship to the world as we think it is, expanding our understanding through interaction with others who may think differently (phenomenology).
• How we consider change in the world (and in “ourselves” within it): If we assume that the subject (“I”/“we”) can exercise some degree of control in changing its environment, we acknowledge interventionism. We then assume that we can decide to act on (build, construct, repair, steer) parts of the world in which we live as we see fit. If we assume that actual change is less the creation of one or several individuals than it is the emergent result of various intentional and unintentional forces within a system, we accept a type of evolutionism or determinism. The system is assumed to influence subjects to a much greater extent than subjects can influence the system.

We can thus construct a two-dimensional space in which we place four frames on the utility of games or SG (see Table 22.2). We discuss these frames in the sections below.

When reviewing how researchers reflect on the impact or the potential impact of gaming and play on organizations, at least four frames seem to arise. Each frame has its own ontological assumptions, specifically concerning gaming itself and concerning gaming’s objectives.

• SG as tool, therapy, drug: This frame reflects the majority and most frequently cited examples of SG used for a wide range of purposes (e.g., therapy, education, health, decision-making, training). Through this frame we see a “thing” that can be measured, indexed, and taxonomized. In other words, we see a tool that might or might not work (Hofstede, de Caluwe, and Peters 2010). The language in this frame is pervaded by words such as “effectiveness,” “efficacy,” “randomized controlled trials” (RCTs) and “evidence-based.” The tool itself is measured in terms of metrics and its effects in terms of analytics. Especially within the context of health, it is treated as a new type of therapy, the effectiveness of which must be assessed in clinical trials (Fernández-Aranda et al. 2012). Research revolves around the question of whether the game offers a more effective tool for learning, education, health, and training. Proponents do their best to prove and understand how it works, mostly by experiments and pre-post game measuring. Opponents might argue that this serious game-play does not work, that there is inconclusive evidence or even that it has countervailing effects, such as addiction (see Table 22.1). Watching the Healseeker game (Bul and Maras 2012) and reading the accompanying documentation, it is interesting to note how the words used by the designers, researchers, and sponsors reflect a medical frame (Kato et al. 2008), searching for scientific proof that patients (in this case, young children with ADHD) might achieve greater self-reliance and self-esteem by playing the Healseeker game (Exhibit 22.1).
• SG as creative innovation: In this frame we see SG as a part of evolutionary change, and as an especially significant factor in the competitive race among nations, regions, companies, and even individuals. The argument in this frame is that the phenomenon of digital games is built upon highly competitive business models that might be more suitable for the Society 2.0 initiative and that the games are surrounded by technological innovation, creativity, and other processes that could generate a competitive advantage in design, production, and organization (Nieborg 2011; Schrage 1999). Failure to use game technology, game principles, or related resources comes close to stepping out of the race. The arguments of a great many policymakers and business leaders are derived from within this frame, promoting SG as “a way to build the future” or “a chance for innovation.” Observing and reading about the case of the Ford virtual reality factory (Exhibit 22.2; Ford Europe 2012), it is interesting to note that it is presented as an almost unavoidable and self-evident innovation. If the company does not go virtual, others will, and the company will lose its competitive advantage. Other examples here are the use of game technology in forensics (CSI The Hague 2012) or surgical operations (Santos 2013).

  Whereas games such as Healseeker are aimed at curing and repairing that which is broken, games within this frame aim to build a new future. Many examples from national or EU policy documents (e.g., on the creative industries or innovation policy) illustrate how this frame colors the ways in which policymakers interpret SG. Obvious criticisms concern the relative novelty, validity, and uniqueness of this view of games as creative innovation or competitive advantage. Research issues revolve around understanding the principles of creativity and innovation in and around games (and the game industry), and finding ways to utilize them. Counterarguments might assert that the political-economic support for the creative game industry promotes incumbent winners, while eliminating true innovators and entrepreneurs.

• SG as persuasion: In this frame, we see the world as engaged in a power struggle between beliefs and ideas. Games are seen as a powerful new means of communication, and an even more powerful means of persuasion and rhetoric (Bogost 2007, 450). This new means can be used to sell products or services (e.g., advergames, many forms of gamification, games for branding), as well as to effect change in social behavior (e.g., bullying prevention) or political ideas. Examples of such SG are numerous. Some, such as September 12 (Frasca 2007), are well known and have made a mark on the debate about SG. Many others (e.g., Play As Julian Assange In WikiLeaks: The Video Game; Exhibit 22.3; Taimur 2010) are known only within small communities. The vast majority offer simple, non-engaging game-play, although their procedural rhetoric remains very clear and strong (Bogost 2007). The development of relatively complicated games such as America’s Army (US Army 2015; Nieborg 2004) and €conomia ((Exhibit 22.4; European Central Bank 2011) has been driven by a few large institutions and companies. In our view, the case of Poverty Is Not A Game (PING n.d.) falls somewhere between Frame I and Frame III (Exhibit 22.5). In its presentation, however, it contains much of the rhetoric of intervention for social change (i.e., making children aware of poverty). Although researchers have investigated the types of ideas that are expressed through games, most studies focus primarily on how discourses in society respond to such games and ideas, on whether and how they influence the discourse in society or certain communities, and on how this works.

• SG as self-organization: Through this frame, we see games as part of an evolution in society and cultures at large. Adherents argue that we are witnessing the ludification (Raessens 2006, 2009) of cultures due to the growing pervasiveness of digital games, especially amongst the younger generation. Ludification (or gamification) affects the ways in which people organize and interact in everyday life (e.g., in social, political, and cultural life, or at work). For many, this cultural change might be subtle, slow, and unnoticed. It might also become submerged in self-organizing communities on the web or in our efforts to gamify science as in the examples of Quantum Moves (ScienceatHome n.d.), Eyewire (MIT n.d.) and Floracaching (Vorster 2013). A marked difference with persuasive games is that in games for self-organization players are already persuaded to spend a significant amount of their time to give something back, to science, safety, nature, public space, or otherwise. The sum of all individual players’ actions has emergent effects at the system level. We see examples where games are used to mobilize collective intelligence (wisdom of the crowd) such as in the European Space Agency Astro Drone game. People who possess a Parrot AR drone can play the game, in which they are challenged to perform different space missions in an augmented reality environment. However, players can choose to contribute to a scientific crowd-sourcing experiment that aims to improve autonomous capabilities of space probes, such as landing, obstacle avoidance, and docking (ESA 2014). It can also be used to encourage public participation (Paraschiv 2011; CosmiCube 2011), or self-organization at the work-floor (RANJ n.d.). One of the best examples of SG as self-organization is Foldit ((Exhibit 22.6; Cooper et al. 2010a,b). Although some researchers attempt to explain ludification within this frame, most attempt to find and exploit game principles for self-organization as part of gamification (McGonigal 2012). Critics might argue that ludification and gamification could potentially create a new divide based upon access or lack of access to, and literacy in, digital games. Furthermore, a wide range of ethical questions arise with regard to the use of games for self-organization (e.g., in the work place).

22.9 Frame-reflective Discourse Analysis: Research

Frames can be tested for their narrative fidelity (how believable, convincing they are) and for their empirical validity (how valid the truth claims are). Moreover, and following Goffman, frames can be challenged, they can break, or we can form bridges between two opposing frames. In debates and controversies, frames can be used to clarify or challenge discourses. It is very likely that the frames presented above are not detailed enough for such scrutiny, which falls outside the scope of this paper. However, it should not fall outside the scope of an emerging science of SG. Above all, the frames have consequences for keying the research questions. Table 22.3 presents the underlying values, the criteria, and the truth claims for each of the four frames.

The discourse about “the utility of serious games for …” can take place within one frame and between different frames. First, opponents may challenge the validity or truth claims of the proponents in the same frame. In other words, there is agreement among them about the questions, but they answer them differently. Confusion arises when proponents and opponents are not aware of the frame they are employing, with even the underlying questions becoming diffuse. It becomes even more confusing when opponents argue from different frames. In this case, there is no understanding of each other’s values and beliefs. This frequently happens when the experimental learning efficacy criterion consistent with Frame 1 is transposed to one of the other frames. This, we fear, is precisely the case in some of the ongoing social, political, and scientific discourses about SG at the national, EU, and global levels. Things have simply become confused.

22.10 Frame-reflective Discourse Analysis: Policy

The four frames above (and possibly others) color the various discourses on SG in national and EU policies, thereby defining demand and research prioritization. In the United States, the Netherlands, the UK, Germany and other countries, SG have appeared on the political agenda—in various wordings, as in Table 22.1—for different reasons, but at the same time. Until recently, the primary driver for SG was 21st century, technology-enhanced learning, but arguments from the creative industries, empowerment, and resilient (infrastructure) systems are increasingly being used. We discuss four policy discourses briefly below with illustrations from EU Seventh Framework Programme documents and projects, and its successor, Horizon 2020. We recommend readers who are less familiar with EU research policies to watch a key note speech by Constance Steinkuehler at the Games and Learning Society Conference 2013 (Steinkuehler 2013). Her stories about the White House’s take on “games for impact” are good illustrations of the prevalent frames and discourses in the United States. They also highlight cultural differences, especially when it comes to the role of public versus private sector, and strategic objectives. Compare, for instance, games for healthy kids (USDA n.d.) in the United States versus empowerment and inclusion in the EU.

• Discourse on 21st century learning: In this policy discourse SG are seen as a possible means for 21st century learning, such as lifelong learning, authentic, and technology-enhanced learning (TEL) (Exhibits 22.7 and 22.8; Giorgini, Stegioulas, and Kamtsiou 2011; Tel-MAP 2013). Opponents may challenge the underlying 21st century learning paradigms, may challenge the effectiveness of SG as compared to other 21st century learning methods, or may find there is lack of clear evidence for the learning effectiveness and efficiency of GBL. Similar views are expressed in policy documents in the United States (Federation of American Scientists 2006).

• Discourse on creative industries and innovation: In this policy discourse games, including digital, are viewed as belonging to the creative industries (Exhibit 22.9; Howkins 2002, 2010, 161), alongside industrial and product design, fashion, performing arts, and architecture. The crossover between technology (ICT, social software, visualization) and the creative arts conceives innovative products and services as having high economic value. At a micro level, games = art, and art + utility = innovation. At a meso level, the clustering of the creative industries, for example, in creative incubators, leads to creative urban spaces that give vitality to neighborhoods and cities. At a macro level, a flourishing creative industry is taken as an indication of an entrepreneurial spirit among younger generations. Opponents may counter that SG are hardly part of the creative industries or that innovation policies do not foster, but in fact bureaucratize creative industries.
• Discourse on social cohesion and empowerment: In this policy frame the utility of games is viewed through a sociocultural lens, with values such as social cohesion and empowerment or similar notions, such as public awareness or public participation or even e-democracy. This is made explicit in the Digital Games for Empowerment and Inclusion (DGEI) project (Exhibit 22.10; European Commission Joint Research Centre n.d.). Critics may argue that games are being used here as a subtle way to coerce or manipulate, often from a cost-efficiency perspective, without paying too much attention to the structural causes of and remedies for poverty, immigration, unemployment, etc. For further information on the Sixth Framework Programme and examples from the Seventh Framework Programme on how SGs are being used for inclusion, see CORDIS (2014).
• Discourse on complex systems: In this discourse the main question is: How we can still design, control, and manage (infrastructure) systems that are increasingly complex? This discourse is closely nested in the complex systems paradigm, although not all discourse participants may be aware of or familiar with it. In short, complex systems have emergent properties that make their behavior unpredictable, even counterintuitive and surprising. The internet or the financial market are good examples of complex systems. Due to the fact that society increasingly depends upon the well functioning of complex systems, it is crucial that we find new strategies to understand, design, manage, and operate such systems. If we do not, society may grind to a halt, such as in the case of power black-outs or economic crises. Certain types of models and simulations, such as system dynamics, agent-based modeling, social simulations, etc., specifically address complex system behavior and play a role in policymaking and operations. Serious games are another way of addressing system complexity because they combine technical complexity with sociopolitical complexity. This explains why policy discourses that have little concern for SG as a creative design artifact or didactic means will show interest in SG. There are plenty of examples of SG in EU and national policies on energy (Knol and De Vries 2011), urban planning (smart cities), air traffic control, water management, and safety and security (Exhibit 22.11). Self-organization is one strategy to make complex systems work, and this might explain the recent interest in the gamification of organizations and social communities. The search for a link between technical and sociopolitical complexity is apparent in the Crossover – Policy Making 2.0 project, where analytical approaches (data-mining, visualization, agent-based modeling) can be found alongside participatory approaches (e-democracy, e-participation) (Exhibit 22.12).

22.11 Practical Implications

The practical implications of framing and discourse analysis are significant. We will mention three. First, games for learning projects are multi-stakeholder projects that can easily run into trouble when people are using the same words with different meanings. Personally we have felt the clash of frames more than once, in projects where funders were primarily interested in promoting innovation and economic growth, administrators, instructional designers, and evaluators wanted to achieve pre-determined learning goals efficiently, game-designers focused upon changing the mind-set of as many as people as possible, and lecturers aimed for the experiential demonstration of some complex phenomenon. This cannot be solved simply by imposing functional definitions. Then it is better to examine where everybody stands and to see where the frame differences come from, and if and how they can be bridged.

Second, games are not only artefacts; they are also “meaningful experiences.” They are not only economic products; they are also high-end services. Outside the realm of Frame 1, it is inconsistent to try to establish the learning efficacy of games. Learning efficacy implies that the game is an artefact, to be used for pre-determined, measurable learning goals. This is only the case in individual learning of an instructional kind. In Frame 2, the utility of games should be established in terms of added value to or innovation of a process. Has the use of gaming contributed to better or quicker problem solving? Has it contributed to growth or a competitive edge? In the public sector, has the playing of games for crisis management contributed to more readiness, better response time, more lives saved, and so on. In Frame 3, one would need to establish whether a game has impacted the way we think or talk about a certain issue. Do we perceive a lot of discussion about the issue or message of the game? Do the players talk differently about the issue? Did they change their attitudes or behaviours? In Frame 4, one would need to establish whether the game creates or influences self-organization, for instance by looking at the density, scale, closeness of personal, or institutional interactions. In games for citizen science, for instance, one would need to establish the amount of data as compared to the number of contributors, the quality of that data, the insights generated from the data, etc. Research methodologies to establish the different utilities of games for society, business, and politics need to be improved.

Third, whereas Frames 1 and 3 seem better established than Frames 2 and 4, we believe that the significance of the latter frames is strong and increasing. Smaller digital games, pre-packaged and ready to use, are common in Frames 1 and 3. They are a much easier target for evaluation research and publications than games that are tailored for specific and high-end use, with outcomes not to be shared or published. The impact of the latter games might be more significant than the first. Frames 2 and 4 are deeply secured inside companies, the public sector, professional communities, consultancies, and science. It is necessary to work more closely with professional organizations in sectors like safety, public utilities, transport, industry, and health care, and try to persuade them to share their games, interactive simulations, and playful experiences with academia.

22.12 Conclusion

In this chapter we have constructed four frames concerning the utilization of games for society, business, and politics, commonly referred to as serious games. We also analyzed how these frames influence research and four policy discourses revolving around the utility of games and provided examples.

We did not present a practical guidebook on how to design or evaluate games in education. There are many other publications that fill this need and we have provided a substantive list of references for further consultation. Frame-reflective discourse analysis is important to enlighten the discussion on how to proceed with game-based learning, in and beyond education. Innovation is about learning, complex systems are about learning, social change is about learning, and so on. Gaming has an important role in all such issues. This is the key point of this article. Games as tools in education or therapy in healthcare is one important frame. Other frames are just as important, but easily overlooked. This leads to confusion, contradiction, and polarization, at project level and at societal level. We did not set out to undertake an empirical analysis of the impact of SG or to develop and validate a method of frame analysis. We simply wished to offer some inspiration to any discipline or individual interested, to reflect upon the frames they apply or (dis)like, and to attempt to better understand the frames and discourses that feel “alien.”

References

1. Abt, Clark C. 1987. Serious games. New York: University Press of America. ISBN-10: 0819161489
2. Adams, Samantha A. 2010. “Use of ‘serious health games' in health care: a review.” Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 157: 160–66.
3. Anderson, Lorin. W., David R. Krathwohl, Peter W. Airasian, Kathleen A. Cruikshank, Richard E. Mayer, Paul R. Pintrich, James Raths, and Merlin C. Wittrock 2000. A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman. ISBN-10: 080131903X.
4. Argyris, Chris. 1977. “Double loop learning in organizations.” Harvard Business Review 55 5: 115–25. Accessed 17 March 2015: https://hbr.org/1977/09/double-loop-learning-in-organizations.
5. Axelrod, Robert. 1997. Advancing the Art of Simulation in the Social Sciences. Complexity 3 2: 21–40. Accessed 27 February 2015: http://www.agsm.edu.au/bobm/teaching/SimSS/AdvancingArtSim2003.pdf.
6. Bantick, Mike. 2012. “Ford Expands Uses of Virtual Reality.” Accessed 11 April 2013: http://www.telepresenceoptions.com/2012/09/ford_expands_uses_of_virtual_r/.
7. Barlett, Christopher P., Craig A. Anderson and Edward L. Swing. 2008. “Video Game Effects—Confirmed, Suspected, and Speculative: A Review of the Evidence.” Simulation and Gaming 40 3: 377–403. doi:10.1177/1046878108327539.
8. Bedwell, Wendy L., Davin Pavlas, Kyle Heyne, Elizabeth H. Lazzara, and Eduardo Salas. 2012. “Toward a Taxonomy Linking Game Attributes to Learning: An Empirical Study.” Simulation and Gaming. doi:10.1177/1046878112439444.
9. Benford, Robert. D. and David A. Snow. 2000. “Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment.” Annual Review of Sociology 26 1: 611–39. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611.
10. Berger, Peter L. and Thomas Luckmann. 1967. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Penguin. ISBN-10: 0140135480.
11. Beyer, Jacqueline L. and Robert P. Larkin. 1978. “Simulation Review: A Review of Instructional Simulations for Human Geography.” Simulation Gaming 9 3: 339–52. doi:10.1177/104687817800900306.
12. Bleumers, Lizza, Anissa All, Itsa Mariën, Dana Schurmans, Jan Van Looy, An Jacobs, Koen Willaert, and Federick de Grove. 2012. “State of Play of Digital Games for Empowerment and Inclusion: A Review of the Literature and Empirical Cases.” Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. doi:10.2791/36295.
13. Bogost, Ian. 2007. Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN-10: 9780262514880.
14. Bogost, Ian. 2011. “Gamification is bullshit.” The Atlantic. Accessed 4 March 2015: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/08/gamification-is-bullshit/243338/.
15. Botte, Brunella, Claudia Matera, and Marta Sponsiello. 2009. “Serious Games between simulation and game. A proposal of taxonomy.” Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society 5 2: 11–21. Accessed 4 March 2015: http://services.economia.unitn.it/ojs/index.php/Je-LKS_EN/article/view/315.
16. Boyle, Elizabeth A., Thomas M. Connolly, Thomas Hainey, and James M. Boyle. 2012. “Engagement in digital entertainment games: A systematic review.” Computers in Human Behaviour 28 3: 771–80. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.020.
17. Brewer, Garry. 1986. “Methods for Synthesis: Policy Exercises.” In Sustainable development of the Biosphere, edited by William Clark and R. Edward Munn: pp. 455–75. Laxenburg: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. Accessed 4 March 2015: http://webarchive.iiasa.ac.at/Admin/PUB/Documents/XB-86-703.pdf.
18. Bul, Kim and Athanasios Maras. 2012. “A prototype of a serious game for children with ADHD: Healseeker.” ADHD News 9 5.
19. Chong, Dennis and James N. Druckman. 2007. “Framing Theory.” Annual Review of Political Science 10 1 103–26. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054.
20. Colman, Andrew M. 1982. Game theory and experimental games: the study of strategic interaction. Oxford: Pergamon Press. ISBN-10: 0080260691.
21. Connolly, Thomas M., Elizabeth A. Boyle, Ewan MacArthur, Thomas Hainey, and James M. Boyle. 2012. “A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games.” Computers and Education 59 2: 661–86. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.004.
22. Consalvo, Mia. 2009 “There Is No Magic Circle.” Games and Culture 4 4: 408–17. doi:10.1177/1555412009343575.
23. Cooper, Seth, Adreien Treuille, Janus Barbero, Andrew Leaver-Fay, Kathleen Tuite, Firas Khatib, Alex Cho Snyder, Michael Beenen, David Salesin, David Baker, and Zoran Popović. 2010a. “The challenge of designing scientific discovery games.” Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games – FDG ’10: pp. 40–47). New York: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1822348.1822354.
24. Cooper, Seth, Firas Khatib, Adrien Treuille, Janos Barbero, Jeehyung Lee, Michael Beenen, Andrew Leaver-Fay, David Baker, Zoran Popović, and Folldit Players. 2010b. “Predicting protein structures with a multiplayer online game.” Nature 466: 756–60. doi:10.1038/nature09304.
25. CORDIS. 2014. “Overview of running EU-funded projects in the area of e-inclusion.” Accessed 4 March 2015: http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/programme/challenge8_en.html.
26. CosmiCube. 2011. “CosmiCube Launches SF Heroes with San Francisco Department of Emergency Management.” Accessed 17 March 2015: http://cosmicube.com/sf-heroes-press-release/.
27. Coulthard, Glen J. 2009. “A Review of the Educational Use and Learning Effectiveness of Simulations and Games.” PurdueUniversity, West Lafayette. Accessed 17 March 2015: http://www.coulthard.com/library/paper - simulation.html.
28. Crossover. 2013a. Research roadmap on Policy-Making. Accessed 4 March 2015: http://www.crossover-project.eu/ResearchRoadmap.aspx.
29. Crossover. 2013b. Objectives. Accessed 4 March 2015: http://www.crossover-project.eu/Project/Objectives.aspx.
30. CSI The Hague. 2012. About CSI The Hague. Accessed 17 March 2015: http://www.csithehague.com/en/07/about_csi_the_hague.html.
31. Czauderna, André. n.d. From Serious Games to Games for Impact. Accessed 6 March 2015: http://www.g4ceurope.eu/from-serious-games-to-games-for-impact/.
32. De Gloria, Alessandro, Francesco Bellotti, and Riccardo Berta. 2012. “Building a Comprehensive RandD Community on Serious Games.” Procedia Computer Science 15: 1–3. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2012.10.051.
33. De Leon, Peter. 1981. “The Analytic Requirements for Free-Form Gaming.” Simulation and Gaming 12 2: 201–31. doi:10.1177/104687818101200207.
34. Deterding, Sebastian. 2011. “Gamification : Toward a Definition. Design.” CHI 2011 May 7–12, 2011, Vancouver, BC. Accessed 18 March 2015: http://gamification-research.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/02-Deterding-Khaled-Nacke-Dixon.pdf.
35. Deterding, Sebastian, Dan Dixon, Rilla Khaled, and Lennart E. Nacke. 2011a. “Gamification : Toward a Definition.” In Proceedings of CHI 2011, edited by Desney Tan. New York: Association for Computing Machinery. Accessed 4 March 2015: http://gamification-research.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/02-Deterding-Khaled-Nacke-Dixon.pdf.
36. Deterding, Sebastian, Miguel Sicart, Lennart Nacke, Kenton O’Hara, and Daniel Dixon. 2011b. “Gamification. using game-design elements in non-gaming contexts.” In Proceedings of CHI 2011, edited by Desney Tan. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
37. DiGRA. 2015. About Us. Digital Games Research Association. Accessed 4 March 2015: http://www.digra.org/the-association/about-us/.
38. Dufwenberg, Martin, Simon Gächter, and Heike Hennig-Schmidt. 2011. “The framing of games and the psychology of play.” Games and Economic Behavior 73 2: 459–78. doi:10.1016/j.geb.2011.02.003.
39. Duke, Richard D. 1975. Gaming: The future’s language. Malden, MA: Wiley. ISBN-10: 0470224053.
40. Duke, Richard D. and Jac Geurts. 2004. Policy Games for Strategic Management: Pathways into the Unknown. Amsterdam: Dutch University Press. ISBN-10: 9036193419.
41. Dvijak, Blaženka and Tomić Damir, 2011. “The Impact of Game-Based Learning on the Achievement of Learning Goals and Motivation for Learning Mathematics – Literature Review.” Journal of Information and Organizational Sciences 35 1: 15–30.
42. Egenfeldt-Nielsen, Simon. 2006. Overview of research on the educational use of video games. Digital Kompetanse 1: 184–213. Accessed 17 March 2015: http://www.idunn.no/ts/dk/2006/03/overview_of_research_on_the_educationaluseof_video_games?languageId=2.
43. Elverdam, Christian and Espen Aarseth. 2007. “Game Classification and Game Design: Construction Through Critical Analysis.” Games and Culture 2 1: 3–22. doi:10.1177/1555412006286892.
44. ESA. 2014. Astro Drone – A Crowd Sourcing Game to Improve Vision Algorithms.” Accessed 18 March 2015: http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/ai/projects/astrodrone.html.
45. European Central Bank. 2011. €CONOMIA – The Monetary Policy Game. Accessed 11 April 2013: http://www.ecb.europa.eu/ecb/educational/economia/html/index.en.html.
46. European Commission Joint Research Centre. n.d. Digital Games for Empowerment and Inclusion. Accessed 4 March 2015: http://is.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pages/EAP/eInclusion/games.html.
47. Federation of American Scientists. 2006. Summit on Educational Games: Harnessing the Power of Video Games for Learning. Accessed 17 March 2015: fas.org/programs/ltp/…/Summit%20on%20Educational%20Games.pdf.
48. Feldt, Allan. G. 1966. “Operational Gaming in Planning Education.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 32 1: 17–23. doi:10.1080/01944366608978485.
49. Fernández-Aranda, Fernando, Susana Jiménez-Murcia, Juan J. Santamaría, Katerina Gunnard, Antonio Soto, Elias Kalapanidas, Richard Bults, Costas Davarakis, Todor Ganchev, Roser Granero, Dimitri Konstantas, Theodoros Kostoulas, Tony Larn, Mikkel Lucas, Cristina Masuet- Aumatell, Maher Moussa, Jeppe Nielsen, and Eva Penelo. 2012. “Video games as a complementary therapy tool in mental disorders: PlayMancer, a European multicentre study.” Journal of Mental Health 21 4: 364–74. doi:10.3109/09638237.2012.664302.
50. Fisher, Kim. 1997. “Locating Frames in the Discursive Universe.” Sociological Research Online 2 3: 1–41. Accessed 5 March 2015: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/2/3/4.html.
51. Ford Europe. 2012. Virtual Reality at Ford Motor Company. Accessed 5 March 2015: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmeR-u-DioE.
52. Frasca, Gonzalo. 2007. 12th September. Accessed 5 March 2015: http://www.ludology.org/my_games.html.
53. FuturICT. 2012a. Introduction FuturICT: Global Computing for Our Complex World. Accessed 5 March 2015: http://www.futurict.eu/the-project/proposal.
54. FuturICT. 2012b. Project overview. Accessed 5 March 2015: http://www.futurict.eu/the-project/overview.
55. GALA. n.d. Games and Learning Alliance: Network of Excellence for Serious Games. Accessed 5 March 2015: http://www.galanoe.eu/.
56. Gallagher, Anthony G., E. Matt Ritter, Howard Champion, Gerald Higgins, Marvin P. Fried, Gerald Moses, C. Daniel Smith, and Richard M. Satava. 2005. “Virtual reality simulation for the operating room: proficiency-based training as a paradigm shift in surgical skills training.” Annals of Surgery 241 2: 364–72.
57. Garris, Rosemary, Robert Ahlers, and James E. Driskell. 2002. “Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model.” Simulation Gaming 33 4: 441. doi:10.1177/1046878102238607.
58. Geurts, Jac L. A., Richard Duke, and Patrick Vermeulen. 2007. “Policy Gaming for Strategy and Change.” Long Range Planning 40 6: 535–58. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2007.07.004.
59. Giddens, Anthony. 1988. “Goffman as a systematic social theorist.” In Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order, edited by Paul Drew and Anthony Wootton: pp. 250–279. Cambridge: Polity Press.
60. Giorgini, Fabrizio, Lampros Stegioulas, and Vana Kamtsiou. 2011. “TEL-Map project: a bridge across the past, present and future TEL.” In Proceedings of the 21st eChallenges e-2011 Conference, edited by Paul Cunningham and Miriam Cunningham. Dublin: IIMC International Information Management Corporation. ISBN 978-1-905824-27-4. Accessed 5 March 2015: http://telmap.org/sites/default/files/Giorgini%20et%20al%20-%20TEL-MAP%20project.pdf.
61. Girard, C., J. Ecalle, and A. Magnan. 2012. “Serious games as new educational tools: how effective are they? A meta-analysis of recent studies.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 19 3: 207–19. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00489.x.
62. Glas, René, Kristine Jørgensen, Elvira Torill, and Luca Rossi. 2011. “Framing the Game.” In Online Gaming in Context: The social and cultural significance of online games, edited by Gary Crawford, Victoria Gosling, and Ben Light. London: Routledge Falmer. ISBN 978-0-415-71497-6.
63. Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper and Row. ISBN-10: 093035091X.
64. Gosen, Jerry, and John Washbush. 2004. “A Review of Scholarship on Assessing Experiential Learning Effectiveness.” Simulation and Gaming 35: 270–93. doi:10.1177/1046878104263544.
65. Graafland, M., Schraagen, J. M., and Schijven, M. P. 2012. “Systematic review of serious games for medical education and surgical skills training.” British Journal of Surgery 99 10: 1322–30. doi:10.1002/bjs.8819.
66. Greenblat, Cathy S. 1973. “Teaching with Simulation Games: a Review of Claims and Evidence.” Teaching Sociology 1 1: 62–83.
67. Hays, Robert T. 2005. The Effectiveness of Instructional Games: A Literature Review and Discussion. Orlando: Naval War Center, Training Systems Division. Accessed 17 March 2015: http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA441935.
68. Hofstede, Gert Jan, Léon de Caluwe, and Vincent Peters. 2010. “Why simulation games work – in Search of the Active Substance: A Synthesis.” Simulation and Gaming 41 6: 824–43. doi:10.1177/1046878110375596.
69. Horstman, Theresa and Mark Chen. 2012. “Gamers as Scientists? The Relationship Between Participating in Foldit and Doing Science.” Proceedings of the AERA Conference. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
70. Howest. n.d. Een lessenpakket als antwoord om pestgedrag in scholen tegen te gaan (A curriculum in response to combat bullying in schools). Accessed 17 March 2015: http://www.howest.be/Default.aspx?target=howestandlan=nlanditem=836andid=876.
71. Howkins, John. 2002. The Creative Economy: How People Make Money from Ideas. London: Penguin Books. ISBN-10: 0140287949.
72. Howkins, John. 2010. Creative Ecologies: Where Thinking is a Proper Job. Transaction Publishers. ISBN-10: 1412814286.
73. Huizinga, Johan. 1952. HOMO LUDENS: proeve eener bepaling van het spel-element der cultuur, 4th ed. Haarlem: Tjeenk Willink.
74. ISAGA. 2015. Welcome to ISAGA the Internartional Simulation and Gaming Association. Accessed 5 March 2015: http://www.isaga.com/.
75. Jenson, Jennifer and Suzanne de Castell. 2010. “Gender, Simulation, and Gaming: Research Review and Redirections.” Simulation and Gaming 41 1: 51–71. doi:10.1177/1046878109353473.
76. Jones, William. M. 1985. On free-form gaming. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Accessed 5 March 2015: http://192.5.14.43/content/dam/rand/pubs/notes/2007/N2322.pdf.
77. Juul, Jesper. 2003. “The Game, the Player, the World: Looking for a Heart of Gameness.” In Level Up: Digital Games Research Conference Proceedings, edited by Marinka Copier and Joost Raessens: pp. 30–45. Utrecht: Utrecht University. Accessed 18 March 2015: http://www.jesperjuul.net/text/gameplayerworld/.
78. Juul, Jesper. 2005. Half-Real – Video Games between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds. MIT Press. ISBN: 9780262516518.
79. Kato, Pamela M., Steve W. Cole, Andrew S. Bradlyn, and Brad H. Pollock. 2008. “A video game improves behavioral outcomes in adolescents and young adults with cancer: a randomized trial.” Pediatrics 122 2: e305–317. doi:10.1542/peds.2007-3134.
80. Ke, Fengfeng. 2009. “A Qualitative Meta-Analysis of Computer Games as Learning Tools.” In Handbook of Research on Effective Electronic Gaming in Education, edited by Richard Ferdig: pp. 1–33. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-808-6.ch001.
81. Knol, Erik and Peter W. De Vries. 2011. “EnerCities, a serious game to stimulate sustainability and energy conservation: preliminary results.” e-Learning Papers 25 13: 1–10. Accessed 5 March 2015: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1866206.
82. Kuhn, Thomas S. 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. ISBN-10: 0226458083.
83. Kurtz, Jay. 2003. “Business wargaming: simulations guide crucial strategy decisions." Strategy and Leadership 31 6: 12–21. doi:10.1108/10878570310505550.
84. Lee, June. 1999. “Effectiveness of computer-based instructional simulation: A meta analysis.” International Journal of Instructional Media 26 1: 71–85.
85. Leemkuil, Henny, Ton de Jong, and Susanne Ootes. 2000. Review of Educational Use of Games and Simulations. Twente: University of Twente/Knowledge Management Interactive Training System. Accessed 17 March 2015: doc.utwente.nl/28235/1/review_of_educational.pdf.
86. Mayer, Igor S. 2009. “The Gaming of Policy and the Politics of Gaming: A Review.” Simulation and Gaming 40 6: 825–62. doi:10.1177/1046878109346456.
87. Mayer, Igor S. 2012. “Towards a Comprehensive Methodology for the Research and Evaluation of Serious Games.” In 4th International Conference on Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications (VS-GAMES’12), Vol. 15, edited by Alessandro De Gloria and Sara de Freitas: pp. 1–15. Genoa: Procedia Computer Science. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2012.10.075.
88. Mayer, Igor. S., Geertje Bekebrede, Harald Warmelink, and Qiqi Zhou. 2013a. “A Brief Methodology for Researching and Evaluating Serious Games and Game-Based Learning.” In Psychology, Pedagogy and Assessment in Serious Games, edited by Thomas M. Connolly, Thomas Hainey, Elizabeth Boyle, Gavin Baxter, and Pablo Moreno-Ger: pp. 357–393. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
89. Mayer, Igor S. and Wijnand Veeneman, W. 2002. “Games in a world of infrastructures simulation-games for research, learning and intervention.” In Games in a World of Infrastructures: Simulation Games for Research, Learning and Intervention, edited by Igor Mayer and Wijnand Veeneman. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9789051669244.
90. Mayer, Igor S., Harald Warmelink, and Geertje Bekebrede. 2013. “Learning in a game-based virtual environment: a comparative evaluation in higher education.” European Journal of Engineering Education 38 1: 85–106. doi:10.1080/03043797.2012.742872.
91. Mayer, Igor S., Geertje Bekebrede, Casper Harteveld, Harald Warmelink, Qiqi Zhou, Theo van Ruijven, Julia Lo, Rens Kortmann, and Ivo Wenzler. 2014. “The Research and Evaluation of Serious Games: Towards a Comprehensive Methodology.” British Journal of Educational Technology 45 3: 502–27.
92. McClarty, Katy Larsen, AlineOrr, Eter M. Frey, Robert P. Dolan, Victoria Vassileva, and Aaron McVay. 2012. A Literature Review of Gaming in Education Research Report. Pearson. Accessed 17 March 2015: http://www.pearsonassessments.com/hai/Images/tmrs/Lit_Review_of_Gaming_in_Education.pdf.
93. McGonigal, Jane E. 2012. Reality Is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World. New York: Penguin Books. ISBN-10: 0099540282.
94. Meadows, Dennis L. 1999. “Learning to Be Simple: My Odyssey with Games.” Simulation and Gaming 30 3: 342–51. doi:10.1177/104687819903000310.
95. Meadows, Dennis, John Sterman, and Andrew King. n.d. Fishbanks: A Renewable Resource Management Simulation. Accessed 17 March 2015: https://mitsloan.mit.edu/LearningEdge/simulations/fishbanks/Pages/fish-banks.aspx.
96. MIT. n.d. EyeWire – A Game to Map the Brain. Accessed 17 March 2015: https://eyewire.org/.
97. Mueller, Florian Floyd., Martin R. Gibbs, and Frank Vetere. 2008. “Taxonomy of exertion games.” Proceedings of the 20th Australasian Conference on ComputerHuman Interaction Designing for Habitus and Habitat. New York: Association for Computing Machinery doi:10.1145/1517744.1517772.
98. Nieborg, David B. 2004. “America’s Army: More than a game.” In Transforming Knowledge into Action Through Gaming and Simulation, edited by Thomas Eberle and Willy Christian Kriz: pp. 883–91. Munich: SAGSAGA.
99. Nieborg, David B. 2011. Triple-A The Political Economy of the Blockbuster Video Game. Doctoral thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam. Accessed 5 March 2015: www.gamespace.nl/content/PhDthesis_Nieborg_FULLversion.pdf.
100. NSCC. 2010. 10 Ways to be an Upstander. Accessed 17 March 2015: http://www.bullybust.org/students/upstander.
101. Papastergiou, Marina. 2009. “Digital game-based learning in high school computer science education: Impact on educational effectiveness and student motivation.” Computers and Education 52 1: 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.004.
102. Paraschiv, Claudia. 2011. Public Space Trading Cards. Accessed 17 March 2015: http://engagingcities.com/article/public-space-trading-cards.
103. Pargman, Daniel and Peter Jakobsson. 2008. “Do You Believe in Magic: Computer Games in Everyday Life.” European Journal of Cultural Studies 11 2: 225–44. doi:10.1177/1367549407088335.
104. Perrotta, Carlo, Gill Featherstone, Helen Aston, and Emily Houghton. 2013. Game-based Learning: Latest Evidence and Future Directions. Slough: NFER. Accessed 17 March 2015: www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/GAME01/.
105. PING. n.d. Poverty Is Not A Game. Accessed 5 March 2015: http://www.povertyisnotagame.com/?lang=en.
106. Prensky, Marc. 2001. Digital Game-based Learning. St Paul, MN: Paragon House Publishers. ISBN-10: 1557788634.
107. Pruitt, Dean. G. and Melvin J. Kimmel. 1977. “Twenty Years of Experimental Gaming: Critique,Synthesis, and Suggestions for the Future.” Annual Review of Psychology 28 1: 363–92. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.28.020177.002051.
108. Raessens, Joost. 2006. “Playful Identities, or the Ludification of Culture.” Games and Culture 1 1: 52–57. doi:10.1177/1555412005281779.
109. Raessens, Joost. 2009. “Homo Ludens 2.0.” Metropolis M 5. Accessed 5 March 2015: http://metropolism.com/magazine/2009-no5/homo-ludens-2.0/english.
110. Randel, Josephine M., Barbara A. Morris, C. Douglas Wetzel, and Berry V. Whitehill. 1992. “The effectiveness of games for educational purposes: A review of the research.” Simulation and Gaming 23 3: 261–76. doi:10.1177/1046878192233001.
111. RANJ. n.d. Teaching and Training. Accessed 17 March 2015: http://ranj.nl.dev3.zicht.nl/training%20games.
112. Raser, John. R. 1969. “Simulations and society: Methodology in the Behavioral Sciences Series. An exploration of scientific gaming.” American Anthropologist 75 6: 1800–801. doi:10.1525/aa.1973.75.6.02a00190. Accessed 5 March 2015: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1973.75.6.02a00190/epdf.
113. Rebolledo-Mendez, Genaro, Katerina Avramides, and Sara de Freitas. 2009. “Societal impact of a Serious Game on raising public awareness : the case of FloodSim.” Methodology 148 2: 15–22. doi:10.1145/1581073.1581076.
114. Rein, Martin and Donald Schön. 1996. “Frame-critical policy analysis and frame-reflective policy practice.” Knowledge and Policy 9 1: 85–104. doi:10.1007/BF02832235.
115. Rettie, Ruth. 2004. “Using Goffman’s frameworks to explain presence and reality.” 7th Annual International Workshop on Presence. Accessed 5 March 2015: core.ac.uk/download/pdf/90164.pdf.
116. Rockwell, Geoffrey M. and Kevin Kee. 2011. “The Leisure of Serious Games: A Dialogue.” Game Studies 11 2. Accessed 5 March 2015: http://gamestudies.org/1102/articles/geoffrey_rockwell_kevin_kee.
117. Sanchez, Alicia, Jan Cannon-Bowers, and Clint Bowers. 2010. “Establishing a Science of Game Based Learning.” In Serious Game Design and Development: Technologies for Training and Learning, edited by Jan Cannon-Bowers and Clint Bowers: pp. 290–304. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. doi:10.4018/978-1-61520-739-8.ch016.
118. Santos, Alexis. 2013. “Sony unveils 3D head-mounted display for surgeons to peer inside you.” Engadget. Accessed 17 March 2015: http://www.engadget.com/2013/07/23/sony-surgical-3d-head-mounted-display/.
119. Sawyer, Ben. 2007. “Serious Games: Broadening Games Impact Beyond Entertainment.” Computer Graphics Forum 26 3: xviii–xviii. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8659.2007.01044.x.
120. Scheufele, Dietram A. and Shanto Iyengar. 2002. “The State of Framing Research: A Call for New Directions.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication Theories, edited by Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Kate Kenski: pp. 1–27. Accessed 5 March 2015: pcl.stanford.edu/research/2011/scheufele-framing.pdf.
121. Schön, Donald A. and Martin Rein. 1994. Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. New York: Basic Books. ISBN-10: 0465025129.
122. Schrage, Michael D. 1999. Serious Play: how the world’s best companies simulate to innovate. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. ISBN-10: 0875848141.
123. Schumpeter, Joseph Alois. 1961. The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry Into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle, 16th ed. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. ISBN-10: 0878556982.
124. ScienceatHome. n.d. Quantum Moves. Accessed 17 March 2015: http://scienceathome.org/play/.
125. Senge, Peter M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline; the Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday. ISBN-10: 1905211201.
126. SGS. n.d. SGS Academy. Serious Games Society. Accessed 5 March 2015: http://academy.seriousgamessociety.org/.
127. SGA. n.d. Serious Games Association. Genoa: Serious Games Association. Accessed 5 March 2015: http://www.seriousgamesassociation.com/.
128. Shubik, Martin. 2002. “Game Theory and Experimental Gaming.” In Handbook of Game Theory, edited by Robert Aumann and Sergiu Hart: pp. 2328–51. New Haven, CT: Elsevier Science. ISBN-10: 0444894284.
129. Shubik, Martin. 2009. “It Is Not Just a Game!” Simulation and Gaming 40 5: 587–601. doi:10.1177/1046878109333722.
130. Shubik, Martin and Garry Brewer. 1972. “Methodological Advances in Gaming: The One-Person, Computer Interactive, Quasi-Rigid Rule Game.” Simulation and Gaming 3 3: 329–48. doi:10.1177/104687817200300305.
131. SIREN. 2013. Social games for conflIct REsolution based on natural iNteraction. Accessed 5 March 2015: http://sirenproject.eu/.
132. Steinkuehler, Constance. 2013. “Interest Driven Learning (Big Thinkers Series).” Edutopia. Accessed 6 March 2015: http://www.edutopia.org/constance-steinkuehler-interest-driven-learning-video.
133. Stewart James, Lizzy Bleumers, Jan Van Looy, Ilse Mariën, Anissa All, Dana Schurmans, Koen Willaert, Frederik De Grove, An Jacobs, and Gianluca Misuraca. 2013. The Potential of Digital Games for Empowerment and Social Inclusion of Groups at Risk of Social and Economic Exclusion: Evidence and Opportunity for Policy. Seville: European Commission Joint Research Centre. Accessed 5 March 2015: http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC78777.pdf.
134. Suits, Bernard. 2005. The Grasshopper: Games, Life and Utopia. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press. ISBN-10: 155111772X.
135. Taimur, Asad. 2010. Play As Julian Assange In WikiLeaks The Video Game. Redmond Pie. Accessed 5 March 2015: http://www.redmondpie.com/play-as-julian-assange-in-wikileaks-the-video-game/.
136. Tel-MAP. 2013. “Possible Futures for Technology Enhanced Learning – Dynamic Roadmapping for Uncertain Times.” Accessed 5 March 2015: http://telmap.org/?q=content/tel-map-project.
137. Thomas, Clayton J. and Walter L. Deemer. 1957. “The Role of Operational Gaming in Operations Research.” Operations Research 5 1: 1–27. doi:10.1287/opre.5.1.1.
138. US Army. 2015. America's Army. Accessed 27 February 2015: http://www.americasarmy.com.
139. USDA. n.d. Apps for Healthy Kids. Accessed 17 March 2015: http://appsforhealthykids.challengepost.com/.
140. Vogel, Jennifer J., David S. Vogel, Jan Cannon-Bowers, Clint A. Bowers, Kathryn Muse, and Michelle Wright. 2006. “Computer Gaming and Interactive Simulations for Learning: a Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Educational Computing Research 34 3: 229–43. doi:10.2190/FLHV-K4WA-WPVQ-H0YM.
141. Vorster, Ian. 2013. “Gamifying Citizen Science with Floracaching.” SciStarter Blog. Accessed 17 March 2015: http://scistarter.com/blog/2013/10/gamifying-citizen-science-floracaching/#sthash.Q4MJSQLO.dpbs.
142. Wise, Kevin, Paul D. Bolls, Hyo Kim, Arun Venkataraman, and Ryan Meyer. 2008. “Enjoyment of advergames and brand attitudes: the impact of thematic relevance.”" Journal of Interactive Advertiising 9 1: 27–36. Accessed 5 March 2015: jiad.org/article107.html.
143. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical investigations. Malden: Blackwell. ISBN-10: 1405159294.
144. Wouters Peter, Erik Van der Spek, and Herre Van Oostendorp. 2011 “Current practices in serious game research: A review from a learning outcomes perspective.” In Games-based learning advancements for multisensory human computer interfaces: techniques and effective practices, edited by Thomas Connoly and Mark Stansfield: pp. 232–55.
145. Wouters, Peter and Herre Van Oostendorp. 2013. “A meta-analytic review of the role of instructional support in game-based learning.” Computers and Education 60 1: 412–25. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.07.018.
146. Yannakakis, Georgios N., Julian Togelius, Rilla Khaled, Arnav Jhala, Kostas Karpouzis, Ana Paiva, and Asimina Vasalou. 2010. “Siren: Towards Adaptive Serious Games for Teaching Conflict Resolution.” In 4th European Conference on Games Based Learning ECGBL10: p. 10. Accessed 5 March 2015: http://www.image.ntua.gr/papers/640.pdf.
147. Zyda, Michael. 2005. “From visual simulation to virtual reality to games.” Computer 38 9: 25–32. doi:10.1109/MC.2005.297.