Kuhn, Paradigms & Game Studies
Another course material inspired post - we have been talking about Thomas S. Kuhn's work on The Structure of Scientific Revolution. A VERY simplified understanding (filtered through my brain that is) is that the transition to science is embodied in the concepts of paradigms. That is to say, that in pre-paradigmic science, the research was fragmented, as there was no unitary paradigm (in terms of method etc.) that all research followed. Essentially, scientific research occured in bubbles, that did not associate or interact with other bubbles of science doing potentially, the same research.
This got me to thinking about Game Studies. As mentioned earlier, the debate within the field surrounds the multi-disciplinatiry of the field. That at times, some of what is written is redundant or so wrapped up in the field of origin's language (Lit. Studies, Film Studies, Sociology etc. etc) that the overall goal of creating a mass body of knowledge under the umbrella of Game Studies is lost ... essentially - there is no paradigm - no 'methodological (and other elemental) structure to the field. No rules of research, no meta-question that the entire field is aiming to solve .. together as a unified field ...
My point
And i do have one ..
Is that from what I understand is the problem (if one finds the interdisciplinarity of Game Studies a problem) is that there is no "paradigm" that is Game Studies - it is a field (which i am still confused as to the difference - no fault of my professor's attempts of clarification). Game Studies is a field of study in terms of looking at a particular topic (video games) through any lens that works in order to explore the multiplicity of the topic....if this is to be the case, then the goal of creating a theoretical framework that speaks directly to and only of Game Studies (as some of my work on defining identity in mmog's does) is potentially a moot point ...
guess i need to think more about this ...
Another course material inspired post - we have been talking about Thomas S. Kuhn's work on The Structure of Scientific Revolution. A VERY simplified understanding (filtered through my brain that is) is that the transition to science is embodied in the concepts of paradigms. That is to say, that in pre-paradigmic science, the research was fragmented, as there was no unitary paradigm (in terms of method etc.) that all research followed. Essentially, scientific research occured in bubbles, that did not associate or interact with other bubbles of science doing potentially, the same research.
This got me to thinking about Game Studies. As mentioned earlier, the debate within the field surrounds the multi-disciplinatiry of the field. That at times, some of what is written is redundant or so wrapped up in the field of origin's language (Lit. Studies, Film Studies, Sociology etc. etc) that the overall goal of creating a mass body of knowledge under the umbrella of Game Studies is lost ... essentially - there is no paradigm - no 'methodological (and other elemental) structure to the field. No rules of research, no meta-question that the entire field is aiming to solve .. together as a unified field ...
My point
And i do have one ..
Is that from what I understand is the problem (if one finds the interdisciplinarity of Game Studies a problem) is that there is no "paradigm" that is Game Studies - it is a field (which i am still confused as to the difference - no fault of my professor's attempts of clarification). Game Studies is a field of study in terms of looking at a particular topic (video games) through any lens that works in order to explore the multiplicity of the topic....if this is to be the case, then the goal of creating a theoretical framework that speaks directly to and only of Game Studies (as some of my work on defining identity in mmog's does) is potentially a moot point ...
guess i need to think more about this ...
posted by Kelly at
13:28
2 Comments:
It's interesting that you'd bring this up, Kelly, because this was a large issue as well at the AoIR conference. In some ways, they were laying claim to the meta-discipline that is Internet Studies, within which they situated Game Studies as a subfield. Sort of like the distinction between the humanities meta field and the subfields of Sociology, Political Science, Philosophy, etc. Some people argued that there should be an actual discipline that coalesces around the identity of Internet studies, whereas others argued it would stifle the inter-disciplinarity that is important to the actual work being done.
By
Sashay, at 19/10/05 2:00 p.m.
and what is interesting, is that game studies does not necessarily belong in "internet" studies, as not all gaming is "connected" with consoles and gameboys, arcades and lan's. unless internet studies embodies all that is digital .. then it would be digital studies... but that exists as well.. and media studies = which touches (alot) both internet and digital studies, but is not exclusive to it (as you and i discussed the concept of content or method exclusivity in a field or discipline earlier)
again ..
more for me to think about = might actually help me reconcile my issues with the fragmented state of the field atm.
By
Kelly, at 19/10/05 2:09 p.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home