modes of playa frame analytic account of video gamingSebastian DeterdingGraduate School of Media and Communication, Hamburg UniversityHamburg, August 14, 2013

cb

1

Researchproblem

3

Method

2

Theory

4

Empiricalresults

5

Outlook

2

3

Method

2

Theory

4

Empiricalresults

5

Outlook

3

1

Researchproblem

the trouble with formalist game studies

4

Game: an object with formal

features

5

what it sees

Gaming: a mode of

engagement

6

what it misses (or takes for granted)

why does this matter?

Convergence: one use, many objects

8

jumping cracks on walkways six degrees of wikipedia

9

informal games: one use, many objects

Convergence: one object, many uses

Gaming game

Reading book Sending

e-mail Movie watching

Music listening

10

Internet BrowsingVideo editingmultimedia displayVirtual world »Home«Text, audio, video chatOnline TV/DVD streamingMedia store (film, music, TV)CD, MP3, DVD, BluRay player...

Convergence: one object, many uses

debugging

playtesting/reviewing

making a machinima

testing screen resolution

a scientific study

learning (serious games)

sports (e-sports)

work (goldfarming)

instrumental play: game uses ...

12

Taylor 2006, Nardi 2009, Sicart 2011

that lack typical »game« features (negotiable consequence …)

13

And trouble the notion of a »magic circle«

14

Jesper Juul

»The magic circle is the boundary that players negotiate. (…)

Game scholarship should be about analyzing the conventions of this boundary, and how and when this boundary is created and negotiated.«

the magic circle and the puzzle piece (2008: 62)

15

frame analysis evoked as a solution

16

frame analysis: an answer to game convergence?

• Convergence & instrumental play destabilise games as objects, widen gap between objects and uses

• Formalist conceptions of games don’t account for fluid configurations & situated usage e.g. Salen & Zimmermann 2004, Juul 2005

• Researchers suggest micro-sociological accounts in response Malaby 2007, Nardi 2009, Juul 2008

• Most prominent suggestion by far has been frame analysis (FA) Juul 2008, Deterding 2009, Glas et al. 2011

17

Develop a systematic frame analytic account of video gaming(to determine whether it answers to the conceptual challengesof convergence and instrumental play)

research goal

18

state of research

1. FA is only pointed at, frequently misconstrued e.g. Fine 1983, Copier 2007, Pargman & Jakobsson 2008, Consalvo 2009, Stenros 2010, Waern 2012

2. FA is critiqued as structuralist, ignoring process and subjectivity e.g. Denzin & Keller 1981, Collins 1988, Warfield Rawls 2003, Stenros 2010

3. FA is critiqued as subjectivist, ignoring structure materiality (sic) e.g. Giddens 1988, Fine 1991, Copier 2007, Crawford 2012

4. Existing empirical research on processes of framing, but not the conventions e.g. Linderoth 2004, Aarsand 2007

5. Little empirical research on instrumental play

19

research objectives

1. Construct a systematic FA of video gaming

2. Explicate its processuality

3. Explicate the role of materiality

4. Describe frame conventions of video gaming

5. Describe specifics of instrumental gaming

theoreticalem

pirical

20

1

Researchproblem

3

Method

4

Empiricalresults

5

Outlook

21

Theory

2

»I assume that when individuals attend to any current situation, they face the question: ‘What is it that’s going on here?’«

Erving Goffmanframe analysis (1986: 8)

22

A frame is »the definition of a situation«: »principles of organization which govern events ... and our subjective involvement in them.«

Erving Goffmanframe analysis (1986: 8, 10-11)

23

RO1: Basic tenets of frame analysis

• Frames are socially shared and reproduced »organising principles« for types of situations

• They organise both covert experience and overt behaviour and matter

• They do so materially (how X is), epistemically (how people perceive, conceive, identify, expect X), and normatively (how people demand X ought to be)

24

RO1: aspects organised by frames

• Motivational relevancies

• Rules for action and communication

• Attentive access, focus, involvement

• Emotion (display)

• Objects, settings, events

• Actors and their footing

• Internal organisation of the situation

• Metacommunication and transformation rules

• Frame limits and gearing into the world25

ro1: definitions• Frame: The total mesh of actors (including their dispositions and attitudes),

objects, settings, actions, communications and events (and their features) that reproduces-and-changes their perceivably similar co-occurrence as types of situations across space and time

• Framing: The situational process of a set of actors, objects, settings, actions, communications, events self-organising as a recognisable type of situation

• Frame perception: An actor’s perception of the current framing of a situation

• Frame understanding: An actor’s reflexive apprehension of a frame perception

• Frame experience: An actor’s phenomenal experience of the former two

• Frame configurations: The features of situationally arranged objects and settings that align with a frame

• Frame dispositions: Embodied properties enabling an actor to perceive, identify, enact a specific frame

26

ro2: the processuality of frames

• Integrated ethnomethodology & practice theory to account for situational constitution Garfinkel 1967, 2002, Mondada 2011, Warfield Rawls 2003, Schatzki 2002

• Integrated structuration theory to account for long-term social institutionalisation & change Giddens 1984

• Integrated technical frames to account for role of technology in institutionalisation Bijker 1987

27

Frame perception/understanding A

Actor A

Object/setting C

Actor B

Frame perception/ understanding B

Event C

Metacomm. B, C

Communication B, C

Action B

informs ...

confirmschallenges

guid

es

informs attention, perception, understanding of

confirms/challenges

Metacomm. A

Communication A

Action A (re)configures

28

Ro2: framing process

Garfinkel 1967, 2002, Mondada 2011, Warfield Rawls 2003, Schatzki 2002, Aarsand 2007

produces

produces

Ro2: the processuality of gaming

• Enactment as »gaming« involves two constitutive orders: gaming a game and this game

• No »magic circle« necessary: just actors’ perception, understanding, enactment as »gaming« in open, sequential, indexical coordination Aarsand 2007

• Metacommunication does occur, but is neither frequent, nor necessary, nor sufficient to constitute »gaming« (metacommunication is also indexical)

29

frametotal mesh of actors, objects/settings, processes producing-changing the reoccurrence of similar situations

framingEnactment of a situation as being

of a certain type

prec

onfig

ures

reproduces/changes

obduracyFeatures of objects/settings

stabilise possible actions, events, communications vis-à-vis actors

socialisationDisposition of actors

stabilise possible understandings,perceptions, actions vis-à-vis objects

30

Ro2: frame and framing processes

Giddens 1984, Bijker 1987

game-related frames/framingspaidia ludus

Play frame Game frame

Designed objects/settingsDesigned objects/settings Toys and playgrounds Games and gaming grounds

FramingFraming Playing Gaming

Incidental objects/settingsIncidental objects/settings Playlike interactions Gamelike interactions

Designed objects/settingsDesigned objects/settings Playful interactions Gameful interactions

KeyingKeying Playful keying Gameful keying

31

tran

sfo

rmin

g k

eyin

gpr

imar

y fr

ame

fram

e

ro3: the materiality of frames

• Integrated affordance concept from ecological psychology Mead 1938, Gibson 1986, cf. Noble 1979, Heft 1989, Chemero 2003

• Affordance: current relation of actor dispositions and environment features that specifies possible future actions and events relevant to the actor

• Social: Stemming from and tied to social world, requiring social learning

• Situated: Indexical, framed, (re)configurable

• Extended: Encompasses action, motivation, emotion, meaning

32

ro3: the materiality of gaming

• Game objects/settings afford frame-aligning actions, communications relative to actor dispositions

• Game objects/settings co-constitute and indicate the framing »gaming«

• Frame dispositions disclose game objects/settings

• Framing specifies situationally intelligible and appropriate uses of game objects/settings

• Game objects/settings• articulate chanciness and cause-effect links

• mute consequentiality

• compress cause-effect links and focus attention into one scene33

research objectives

1. Construct a systematic FA of video gaming

2. Explicate the role of process

3. Explicate the role of materiality

4. Describe the frame conventions of video gaming

5. Establish the specifics of instrumental gaming

34

1

Researchproblem

2

Theory

4

Empiricalresults

5

Outlook

35

3

Method

research method

Describe frame conventions of leisurely & instrumental video gaming

descriptive,theory-generating

Qualitative research, grounded theory Corbin & Strauss 2008

theory-guided

Starting with conceptual frameworkMaxwell 2004

directed qualitative content analysis

Initial guiding framework,open for emergence/fading of concepts

Hsieh & Shannon 2005, Gläser & Laudel 2010

36

Data collection strategyresearch objective strategy

Frame conventions of leisurely and instrumental gaming (RO4,5) = Sample & compare data on both

Cognitive schemata that are … Episodic interviews Flick 2010

Intersubjective and ... Purposive sampling of subjects to maximise variation across relevant dimensions

Taken-for-grantedInvite recall of norm breaches Garfinkel 1967

Invite contrasting comparison of diverging forms Goffman 1986

37

research process

Conceptual framework

Interview guide

Sampling strategy

Interviewing

Transcription

Coding/Memoing

Integration

theory data collection & analysis writeupCf. Corbin & Strauss 2008, Gläser & Laudel 2010 38

initial conceptual frameworkaspects organised by frames possible variations of frames

Motivational relevancy Settings Goffman 1963, Deterding 2013

Rules for action and communication Devices Deterding 2013, Fritz et al. 2012

Objects, settings, events Genres Deterding 2013, Fritz et al. 2012

Attentive access, focus, involvement Contextures Goffman 1963, Simon 2007, Deterding 2013

Emotion (display) Age Fritz et al. 2012

Actors and footing Gender Fritz et al. 2012

Internal organisation Gaming intensity Fritz et al. 2012

Metacommunication

Frame limits

Gearing into the world Goffman 1986

39

purposive sampling for variationdimension participant #1 ... participant #n

Gender (male, female) female

Age (19-50+) 53

Gaming intensity (low-intense) low

Genre (Casual, sport, simulation, Jump & Run, Action/Shooter, …)

Casual, social games

Device (PC, Browser, Console, mobile console …) Tablet, Browser

Setting (Home, arcade, LAN party, ...) Home

Contexture (Singleplayer, F2F Multiplayer, synchronous online multiplayer…) Singleplayer

Form (Leisurely, instrumental) Leisurely

1Fritz et al. 2012 2Deterding 2013 3Simon 2007 40

research key points

• 19 interviewees gaming leisurely and instrumentally: game journalists, designers, researchers, e-sport athletes, »regular« gamers

• Semi-structured interviews, 90-120 min. length, plus accompanying participant observation

• Coding and analysis w/ MAXQDA

41

1

Researchproblem

3

Method

2

Theory

5

Outlook

42

4

Empiricalresults

instrumental keyingsleisurely modes

Exotelic instrumental goalProfessional norms

Highly consequentialMostly controlled

Autotelic enjoymentSportsmanship normsSlightly consequentialMostly autonomous

43

Review gamingAnalytic gamingE-sport training

E-sport tournament

Relaxing gamingSocialising gamingEngrossing gamingHardcore gaming

Competitive gaming

• Not one video game frame: multiple modes of gaming around motivational relevancy Strong 1979

• Participation norms emerged as cluster of conventions: Whether to play what when with whom, and cease play

• Settings shield from disapproving onlookers

• Devices fit socialisation and modes better or worse

• Genres fit modes and affect participation norms through closure points, participation dependency, initiation effort

• Contextures matter as social closeness: response presence and past/future interactions affect strength of participation and harmony norms

RO4: conventions of video gaming

44

RO4: conventions of video gamingMotivation • Autotelic enjoyment (of euphoric ease, engrossment)

Rules• Playing by the letter and the spirit of the rules; no circumvention of technically given scope of action (»cheating«)

• Strategic action is allowed and demanded (gameworthiness), but to be balanced with enjoyment of others (harmony)

Emotion• Display care about outcome (no »spoilsporting«), but remain cool enough to strategise

• Amplified arousal (display) in multiplayer gaming through up- & downtalking, emotion performance

Attention• Easy material access to game state, material covering of »hidden information«

• Focus on and engrossment in game state allowed and expected

Internal organisation, actors

• Gaming encounter (ratified participants: onlooker, player, …) encloses gameplay (player in rule focus, character in fiction focus) organised in rounds; further inner laminations possible (game in game, fiction in fiction)

Objects, settings, events

• Dedicated rooms shield from embarrassment through disapproving onlookers

• Devices offer joint focus of attention and action

Metacommunication • Players and devices need interaction sequences to mutually establish beginnings and endings

Gearing into the world, frame limits

• Gaming is »slightly consequential«: enough to be arousing, not too much to induce anxiety

• Actions, objects, settings are configured to minimise bodily harm (e.g. made symbolic)

• Actions, communications, events are framed »as if«, decoupled from surrounding interactions

• Detachment of self from outcome after gaming encounter is expected (»good winner/loser«)

• Depictions & enactments of sex, violence, nazism are controversial

45

r04: modes of leisurely gamingrelaxing socialising engrossing hardcore competitive

Motivational relevancy

Relaxation Relatedness Engrossment Competence Achievement

Telicity Very low Low Medium High Very high

Absorption Very low Low Very high High Very high

Arousal Very low Medium-high Medium High Very high

Gameworthiness Very low Low Medium High Very high

Harmony Very low/absent Very high Low/absent Very low/absent Very low

Typical contexture Mostly singleplayer F2F Multiplayer Mostly singleplayer Mostly singleplayer Multiplayer

Typical genres Social & casual games

Party & board games

RPG, adventure, TBS, simulation

Shooter, RTS, action, MMORPG

Combat, sports, shooters, RTS

Typical devices Mobile, tablet, PC Console, PC PC, console Console, PC PC, console

Typical settings Transit, recreation spots, home

Private or shared room at home

Private room at home

Private room at home

Private room at home

46Cf. Strong 1979

»I would call it a game – but I did not play it.«

Object

Framing

ro5: Instrumental gaming

ro5: instrumental gaming

• Again, multiple forms of instrumental gaming: reviewing, analysing, training, tournament

• Participants reported instrumental gaming to be »not playing«, used emic terms to distinguish them

• But behaviour and configurations highly similar to leisurely gaming

• And people reported »slipping« from instrumental into leisurely

‣ Instrumental play is a keying: a re-framing

48

Keyings are »conventions by which a given activity, ... meaningful in terms of some primary framework, is transformed into something patterned on this activity but seen by the participants to be something quite else.«

Erving Goffmanframe analysis (1986: 43-44)

49

e.g. A rehearsal

50

ro5: controlled motivation

• Instrumental keyings give rise to dysphoric tension = controlled motivation Goffman 1953, 1972, Deci & Ryan 2012

• When current needs mismatch situational givens and salient controlling motivations keep individual from changing or leaving

• Leisurely gaming typically allows freedom to change or leave the situation: Taken-for-granted absence of controlling motivation is part of game enjoyment

51

1

Researchproblem

3

Method

2

Theory

4

Empiricalresults

52

5

Outlook

summary• FA distinguishing »games« as objects/settings and

»gaming« as situational framing accounts for• Convergence: Situational actor-object relation affords gaming, but actors

constitute it with objects

• Instrumental play: A keying of gaming as instrumental task

• The is no one video gaming frame, but leisurely modes of gaming around types of enjoyment and instrumental keyings around types of instrumental goals

• Leisurely gaming is enjoyable partially because it provides the autonomy to reconfigure or leave the situation

53

limitations

• Small, homogeneous sample, qualitative study‣ Calls for quantitative validation, cross-cultural &

historical comparison for generalisability

• Mainly interview data‣ Calls for observational data for actual behaviour

• Relatively small number of (instrumental) contexts‣ Calls for broadening across more contexts

54

Ramifications & Future research

• »Gaming« as frames and framing suggests theoretical approach to »media« in age of convergence

• Situational autonomy support important for game enjoyment‣ Poses challenge for serious games, gamification

in low-autonomy situations

• Situational factors important for game enjoyment‣ Calls for ecological approach to/studies of game

enjoyment »in the wild«

55

sebastian@codingconduct.cc

@dingstweets

codingconduct.cc

Thank you.

ReferencesAarsand, P. A. (2007). Around the Screen: Computer activities in children’s everyday lives. Linköping University.

Bijker, W. E. (1987). The Social Construction of Bakelite: Toward a Theory of Inventiom. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Huges, & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), The Social Construction of

Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology (pp. 159–187). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chemero, A. (2003). An Outline of a Theory of Affordances. Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 181–195. doi:10.1207/S15326969ECO1502_5

Consalvo, M. (2009). There is No Magic Circle. Games and Culture, 4(4), 408–417. doi:10.1177/1555412009343575

Copier, M. (2007). Beyond the Magic Circle: A Network Perspective on Role-Play in Online Games. Utrecht University. Retrieved from http://igitur-

archive.library.uu.nl/dissertations/2007-0710-214621/index.htm

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, London, New

Delhi, Singapore: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Motivation, Personality, and Development Within Embedded Social Contexts: An Overview of Self-Determination Theory. In R. M.

Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation (pp. 85–107). New York: Oxford University Press.

Deterding, S. (2009). The Game Frame: Systemizing a Goffmanian Approach to Video Game Theory. In DiGRA 2009. DiGRA. Retrieved from http://www.digra.org/

dl/db/09287.43112.pdf

Deterding, S. (2013). Mediennutzungssituationen als Rahmungen: Ein Theorieangebot. In O. Jandura, A. Fahr, & H.-B. Brosius (Eds.), Theorieanpassungen in der

digitalen Medienwelt (pp. 47–70). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

Fine, G. A. (1983). Shared Fantasy: Role-Playing Games as Social Worlds. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.

Fine, G. A. (1991). On the Macrofoundations of Microsociology: Constraint and the Exterior Reality of Structure. The Sociological Quarterly, 32(2), 161–177.

Flick, U. (2010). Qualitative Sozialforschung: Eine Einführung (3rd ed.). Reinbek: Rowohlt.

Fritz, J., Lampert, C., Schmidt, J.-H., & Witting, T. (Eds.). (2012). Kompetenzen und exzessive Nutzung bei Computerspielern: Gefordert, gefördert, gefährdet? Berlin:

Vistas.

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge, Malden, Ma: Polity Press.

Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s Program: Working Out Durkheim's Aphorism. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Gibson, J. J. (1986). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Glas, R., Jorgensen, K., Mortensen, T., & Rossi, L. (2011). Framing the game: Four game-related approaches to Goffman’s frames. In G. Crawford, V. K. Gosling, & B.

Light (Eds.), Online Gaming in Context: The social and cultural significance of online games (pp. 142–158). London: Routledge.

Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2010). Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse als Instrumente rekonstruierender Untersuchungen (4th ed.). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag

für Sozialwissenschaften.

57

ReferencesGoffman, E. (1953). Communication Conduct in an Island Community. University of Chicago.

Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: The Free Press.

Goffman, E. (1972). Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Goffman, E. (1986). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Heft, H. (1989). Affordances and the Body: An Intentional Analysis of Gibson’s Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour,

19(1), 1–30.

Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative health research, 15(9), 1277–88. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687

Juul, J. (2005). Half-Real: Video Games between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Juul, J. (2008). The Magic Circle and the Puzzle Piece. In S. Günzel, M. Liebe, & D. Mersch (Eds.), Conference Proceedings of the Philosophy of Computer Games

2008 (pp. 56–67). Potsdam: Potsdam University Press.

Linderoth, J. (2004). The meaning of gaming: Beyond the idea of the interactive illusion. University of Göteborg.

Malaby, T. M. (2007). Beyond Play: A New Approach to Games. Games and Culture, 2(2), 95–113. doi:10.1177/1555412007299434

Maxwell, J. A. (2004). A Model for Qualitative Research Design. Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach (2nd ed., pp. 1–14). Thousand Oaks: Sage

Publications.

Mead, G. H. (1938). Philosophy of the Act. (C. W. Morris, J. M. Brewster, A. M. Dunham, & D. Miller, Eds.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mondada, L. (2011). Understanding as an embodied, situated and sequential achievement in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 542–552. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.

2010.08.019

Nardi, B. A. (2009). My Life as a Night Elf Priest: An Anthropological Account of World of Warcraft. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Noble, W. G. (1979). Gibsonian Theory and the Pragmatist Perspective. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 11(1), 65–85.

Pargman, D., & Jakobsson, P. (2008). Do you believe in magic? Computer games in everyday life. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 11(2), 225–244. doi:

10.1177/1367549407088335

Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Schatzki, T. R. (2002). The site of the social: A philosophical account of the constitution of social life and change. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University

Press.

Stenros, J. (2010). Playing the System: Using Frame Analysis to Understand Online Play. In FuturePlay 2010. New York: ACM.

Strong, P. M. (1979). The Ceremonial Order of the Clinic: Parents, Doctors and Medical Bureaucrats. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Waern, A. (2012). Framing Games. In DiGRA Nordic 2012. DiGRA.

Wardrip-Fruin, N. (2009). Expressive Processing: Digital Fictions, Computer Games, and Software Studies. Cambridge, London: MIT Press.

Warfield Rawls, A. (2003). Orders of Interaction and Intelligibility: Intersections between Goffman and Garfinkel by Way of Durkheim. In A. J. Trevino (Ed.), Goffman’s

Legacy (pp. 216–253). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

58