IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/simgam/v47y2016i3p368-388.html

Debriefing Research Games

Author

Listed:
  • Jop van den Hoogen
  • Julia Lo
  • Sebastiaan Meijer

Abstract

Background . Debriefing is an intrinsic part of games for learning and proper debriefing can also be beneficial to research games . However, the literature on how to debrief research games is sparse and only provides the professional with an abstract topic guide . Aim . The purpose of this study was to design a framework for the debriefing of research games that are used in ongoing innovation processes. Method . We used the literature on debriefing and experimental research and our experience as game designers to build a framework that tackles the context , substance and method of debriefing research games. Results . Our framework provides three contributions. First, it shows how the context in which a research game is applied sometimes impacts the functionality of the game in negative ways. This can be helped by designing both the game and the debriefing together. Second, we operationalize validity to a greater extent, as this is the core of a good research game . Third, we provide a methodology for debriefing professionals that opens up the black box of the gaming simulation session. Conclusion . The debriefing framework provides a method to collectively assess the validity, reliability and robustness of the causal claims associated with the research conducted.

Suggested Citation

  • Jop van den Hoogen & Julia Lo & Sebastiaan Meijer, 2016. "Debriefing Research Games," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 47(3), pages 368-388, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:simgam:v:47:y:2016:i:3:p:368-388
    DOI: 10.1177/1046878116651023
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1046878116651023
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1046878116651023?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Willy Christian Kriz & Jan Ulrich Hense, 2006. "Theory-oriented evaluation for the design of and research in gaming and simulation," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 37(2), pages 268-283, June.
    2. Hassan Qudrat-Ullah, 2007. "Debriefing can reduce misperceptions of feedback: The case of renewable resource management," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 38(3), pages 382-397, September.
    3. Willy C. Kriz, 2003. "Creating Effective Learning Environments and Learning Organizations through Gaming Simulation Design," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 34(4), pages 495-511, December.
    4. Willy Christian Kriz, 2010. "A Systemic-Constructivist Approach to the Facilitation and Debriefing of Simulations and Games," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 41(5), pages 663-680, October.
    5. Yu-Ting Cheng & Andrew H. Van de Ven, 1996. "Learning the Innovation Journey: Order out of Chaos?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(6), pages 593-614, December.
    6. David Crookall, 2010. "Serious Games, Debriefing, and Simulation/Gaming as a Discipline," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 41(6), pages 898-920, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Peter Korfiatis & Robert Cloutier & Teresa Zigh, 2015. "Model-Based Concept of Operations Development Using Gaming Simulation," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 46(5), pages 471-488, October.
    2. Gilbert Ahamer, 2013. "Game, Not Fight," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 44(2-3), pages 272-301, April.
    3. Marcin Wardaszko, 2016. "Building Simulation Game-Based Teaching Program for Secondary School Students," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 47(3), pages 287-303, June.
    4. Jop van den Hoogen & Sebastiaan Meijer, 2015. "Gaming and Simulation for Railway Innovation," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 46(5), pages 489-511, October.
    5. Marcin Wardaszko & Błażej Podgórski, 2017. "Mobile Learning Game Effectiveness in Cognitive Learning by Adults: A Comparative Study," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 48(4), pages 435-454, August.
    6. Kristina Hermann, 2015. "Field Theory and Working With Group Dynamics in Debriefing," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 46(2), pages 209-220, April.
    7. Jan H. G. Klabbers, 2006. "Guest Editorial: Artifact assessment versus theory testing," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 37(2), pages 148-154, June.
    8. Christian K. Karl, 2016. "Investigating the Winner’s Curse Based on Decision Making in an Auction Environment," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 47(3), pages 324-345, June.
    9. Oleg V. Pavlov & Khalid Saeed & Lawrence W. Robinson, 2015. "Improving Instructional Simulation With Structural Debriefing," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 46(3-4), pages 383-403, June.
    10. Hans J. E. Korteling & Anne S. Helsdingen & Ralf R. Sluimer, 2017. "An Empirical Evaluation of Transfer-of-Training of Two Flight Simulation Games," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 48(1), pages 8-35, February.
    11. Marieke de Wijse-van Heeswijk & Jan H. G. Klabbers & Sebastiaan Meijer, 2026. "Advancing the Role of the Facilitator in Game Science: A Systems Theory Approach to Learning and Adaptation in Rule-Based and Open Games," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 57(2), pages 276-298, April.
    12. Willy C. Kriz & Eberhard Auchter, 2016. "10 Years of Evaluation Research Into Gaming Simulation for German Entrepreneurship and a New Study on Its Long-Term Effects," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 47(2), pages 179-205, April.
    13. Cindy L. Kovalik & Chia-Ling Kuo, 2012. "Innovation Diffusion," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 43(6), pages 803-824, December.
    14. Timothy C. Clapper, 2014. "Situational Interest and Instructional Design," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 45(2), pages 167-182, April.
    15. Silke Geithner & Daniela Menzel, 2016. "Effectiveness of Learning Through Experience and Reflection in a Project Management Simulation," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 47(2), pages 228-256, April.
    16. Ly, Kim Cuong & Liu, Hong & Opong, Kwaku, 2017. "Who acquires whom among stand-alone commercial banks and bank holding company affiliates?," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 144-158.
    17. Jonna Koponen & Saara Julkunen, 2015. "Theoretical Principles of Simulation-Based Sales Communication Training," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 46(2), pages 137-147, April.
    18. G. David Garson, 2009. "Computerized Simulation in the Social Sciences," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 40(2), pages 267-279, April.
    19. Aad Slootmaker & Hans Hummel & Rob Koper, 2017. "Evaluating the Usability of Authoring Environments for Serious Games," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 48(4), pages 553-578, August.
    20. Fabien Jean & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2014. "Convince me or commit me? Avoid the cognitive trap induced by Non-Human Actors in early stages of NPD," Post-Print hal-00976059, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:simgam:v:47:y:2016:i:3:p:368-388. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.