Those who are involved in research in gaming and simulation find themselves in a dual position. One reason for this duality relates to the fact that researchers in gaming and simulation represent two distinct branches of science: the design and analytical sciences. The basic idea of the design sciences is to build and assess artifacts. The scientific method of the analytical sciences aims at developing and testing theories. Both pay attention to different notions of causality and apply different criteria of success. This article presents a framework both for artifact assessment and theory testing, which helps to better understand the distinct scientific and professional issues involved and to offer directions for cross-fertilization.
Blasi, L., & Alfonso, B. (2006). Increasing the transfer of simulation technology from R&D into school settings: An approach to evaluation from overarching vision to individual artifact in education. Simulation & Gaming, 37(2), 245-267.
2.
Boxer, P. J., & Cohen, B. (2000). Doing time: The emergence of irreversibility. In J. R. Chandler & G. van de Vijver (Eds.), Closure: Emergent organizations and their dynamics (Vol. 901, pp. 13-25). New York: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.
3.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
4.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
5.
Chatterji, M. (2005). Evidence on “what works”: An argument for Extended-Term Mixed-Method (ETMM) evaluation designs. Educational Researcher, 34(5), 14-24.
6.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.
7.
Finan, J. L. (1966). The system concept as a principle of methodological decision. In R. M. Gagné (Ed.), Psychological principles in system development (pp. 517-546). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
8.
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25, 739-755.
9.
Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what?Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
10.
Hacking, I. (2002). Inaugural lecture: Chair of Philosophy and History of Scientific Concepts at the Collège de France 16 January 2001. Economy and Society, 31(1), 1-14.
11.
Kelly, K. (1999). New rules for the New Economy. New York: Penguin Books.
12.
Klabbers, J. (1986). Improvement of (self-)steering through support systems. In F. Geyer & J. van der Zouwen (Eds.), Sociocybernetic paradoxes (pp. 64-88). London: Sage.
13.
Klabbers, J. H. G. (1996). Problem framing through gaming: Learning to manage complexity, uncertainty and value adjustment. Simulation & Gaming, 27(1), 74-92.
14.
Klabbers, J. H. G. (2001). The emerging field of simulation & gaming: Meanings of a retrospect. Simulation & Gaming, 32(4), 471-480.
15.
Klabbers, J. H. G. (2003a). Gaming & simulation: Principles of a design science. Simulation & Gaming, 34(4), 569-591.
16.
Klabbers, J. H. G. (2003b). Simulation & gaming: Introduction to the art and design science. Simulation & Gaming, 34(4), 488-494.
17.
Klabbers, J. H. G. (2004a). Enhancing policy development through actor-based simulation. In R. Shiratori, K. Arai, & K. Fumitoshi (Eds.), Gaming, simulation and society: Research scope and perspective(pp. 249-259). Tokyo: Springer-Verlag.
18.
Klabbers, J. H. G. (2004b). Saga about ISAGA: A retrospect and a prospect. Keynote lecture at the 35th ISAGA Conference, Munich, Germany.
19.
Kriz, W. C., & Hense, J. U. (2006). Theory-oriented evaluation for the design of and research in gaming and simulation. Simulation & Gaming, 37(2), 268-283.
20.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. London: Phoenix Books.
21.
Longo, G. (2001). Homo technologicus. Roma: Meltemi.
22.
Luhmann, N. (1986). The autopoiesis of social systems. In F. Geyer & J. van der Zouwen (Eds.), Sociocybernetic paradoxes(pp. 172-192). London: Sage.
23.
March, S. T., & Smith, G. F. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems, 15, 251-266.
24.
Maxwell, J. A. (2004). Causal explanation, qualitative research and scientific inquiry in education. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 3-11.
25.
Mohr, L. B. (1982). Explaining organizational behavior. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
26.
Rizzi, P. (2004). The use of software focused on the analysis and simulation of complex systems to plan and create gaming simulations. In W. C. Kriz & T. Eberle (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Transforming knowledge into action through gaming and simulation (pp. 61-71). Munich, Germany: SAGSAGA.
27.
Rossie, P. H., Freeman, H. E., & Lipsey, M. (1999). Evaluation: A systematic approach (6th ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
Schön, D. (1982). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
29.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
30.
Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. London: MIT Press.
31.
Spector, P. E. (1981). Research designs. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
32.
van Aken, J. E. (2004). Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: The quest for field-tested and grounded technological rules. Journal of Management Studies, 41(2), 219-246.
33.
von Foerster, H. (1984). Principles of self-organization in a socio-managerial context. In H. Ulrich & G.J.B. Probst (Eds.), Self-organization and management of social systems (pp. 2-24). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
