Game structure in knowledge co-creation

The importance of creating, refining and distributing knowledge has become a key topic in the 21st century as knowledge work is becoming more commonplace. In order to respond to increasing needs for managing knowledge and knowledge creation, a number of models and methods have been developed. Methods for supporting knowledge creation are especially needed at the boundaries of different organizations where the differences between backgrounds and practices act both as a barrier to and as a source of new knowledge. This thesis studies the use of game structure in knowledge co-creation. This thesis develops new theoretical understanding on how game structure affects knowledge co-creation and how objects of collaboration act as elements of knowledge co-creation games. This thesis also provides a set of guidelines for developing games to better support knowledge co-creation. In its theoretical framework, this thesis combines organizational and learning sciences to form a multidisciplinary approach to knowledge co-creation. The framework is complemented with the theories of mediating objects of collaboration and the use of serious games in learning and design. The empirical case study of this thesis examines a knowledge co-creation game for planning service co-development projects. Two instances of playing the game in inter-organizational and intra-organizational contexts are researched. The two instances of gameplay are video recorded and analyzed using interaction analysis to identify how game structure supports knowledge co-creation. The results of this thesis suggest that game structure supports knowledge co-creation by providing structure for the interaction between players and also by providing the players with shared objects of collaboration that mediate knowledge co-creation. Furthermore, this thesis provides a framework for analyzing multiplayer games as activity systems by identifying the game states that the players interact with as the objects of collaboration. The game states provide a novel framework for studying collaboration in game structure.

[1]  Kai Hakkarainen,et al.  A knowledge-practice perspective on technology-mediated learning , 2009, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[2]  E. Guba,et al.  Fourth Generation Evaluation , 1989 .

[3]  Katie Salen,et al.  Rules of play: game design fundamentals , 2003 .

[4]  Noel Enyedy,et al.  Activity centered design: towards a theoretical framework for CSCL , 1999, CSCL.

[5]  Emmanuelle Vaast,et al.  The Emergence of Boundary Spanning Competence in Practice: Implications for Implementation and Use of Information Systems , 2005, MIS Q..

[6]  Lennart E. Nacke,et al.  From game design elements to gamefulness: defining "gamification" , 2011, MindTrek.

[7]  J. Huizinga Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture , 1938 .

[8]  Miia Jaatinen,et al.  The roles of objects in collaborative workshops , 2013 .

[9]  Tony Manninen,et al.  Designing Puzzles for Collaborative Gaming Experience - CASE: eScape , 2005, DiGRA Conference.

[10]  K. Popper,et al.  The self and its brain , 1979 .

[11]  G. Kovács,et al.  Abductive reasoning in logistics research , 2005 .

[12]  Kenton O'Hara,et al.  Gamification. using game-design elements in non-gaming contexts , 2011, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[13]  K. Popper,et al.  The self and its brain , 1977 .

[14]  Markus Montola,et al.  On the Edge of the Magic Circle: Understanding Pervasive Games and Role-Playing , 2012 .

[15]  Hanni Muukkonen,et al.  Technology-Mediation and Tutoring: How Do They Shape Progressive Inquiry Discourse? , 2005 .

[16]  David L. DeVries,et al.  Learning Games and Student Teams: Their Effects on Classroom Process1 , 1973 .

[17]  I. Nonaka,et al.  SECI, Ba and Leadership: a Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation , 2000 .

[18]  Pieter Jan Stappers,et al.  Contextmapping: experiences from practice , 2005 .

[19]  Y. Engeström,et al.  Developmental studies of work as a testbench of activity theory: The case of primary care medical practice , 1993 .

[20]  Fabian Groh Gamification : State of the Art Definition and Utilization , 2012 .

[21]  P. Carlile How matter matters : objects, artifacts, and materiality in organization studies , 2013 .

[22]  R. Caillois,et al.  Man, Play and Games , 1958 .

[23]  Sami Paavola,et al.  Epistemological foundations for CSCL: a comparison of three models of innovative knowledge communities , 2002, CSCL.

[24]  J. Lallimo,et al.  Cultivating collective expertise within innovative knowledge- practice networks , 2010 .

[25]  K. Knorr-Cetina,et al.  Epistemic cultures : how the sciences make knowledge , 1999 .

[26]  I. Nonaka,et al.  How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation , 1995 .

[27]  H. Rheinberger Toward a History of Epistemic Things: Synthesizing Proteins in the Test Tube , 1997 .

[28]  Jochen Rick,et al.  Collaborative games: Lessons learned from board games , 2006 .

[29]  Kurt Squire,et al.  Cultural Framing of Computer/Video Games , 2002, Game Stud..

[30]  Clark C. Abt,et al.  Serious games , 2016, Springer International Publishing.

[31]  K. Eisenhardt Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[32]  Y. Engeström,et al.  Perspectives on activity theory: Play, learning, and instruction , 1999 .

[33]  J. McGonigal Reality Is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World , 2011 .

[34]  Saku Mantere,et al.  Two Strategies for Inductive Reasoning in Organizational Research , 2010 .

[35]  William V. Wright,et al.  A Theory of Fun for Game Design , 2004 .

[36]  W. Orlikowski Sociomaterial Practices: Exploring Technology at Work , 2007 .

[37]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing , 2002, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[38]  W. Powell,et al.  The Knowledge Economy , 2004 .

[39]  Jacky Swan,et al.  Understanding the Role of Objects in Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration , 2012, Organ. Sci..

[40]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39 , 1989 .

[41]  Jon Hindmarsh,et al.  Video in Qualitative Research: Analysing Social Interaction in Everyday Life , 2010 .

[42]  S. Ludvigsen,et al.  Learning Across Sites : New Tools, Infrastructures and Practices , 2010 .

[43]  Carl Bereiter,et al.  Education and Mind in the Knowledge Age , 2002 .

[44]  Tuuli Mattelmäki,et al.  Storytelling Group – a co-design method for service design , 2012, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[45]  Christine Nadel,et al.  Case Study Research Design And Methods , 2016 .

[46]  L. Dolezel Heterocosmica: Fiction and Possible Worlds , 1998 .

[47]  Austin Henderson,et al.  Interaction Analysis: Foundations and Practice , 1995 .

[48]  K. Hakkarainen,et al.  The Knowledge Creation Metaphor – An Emergent Epistemological Approach to Learning , 2005 .

[49]  Annika Waern,et al.  Pervasive Games: Theory and Design , 2009 .

[50]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  The Structure of Ill-Structured Solutions: Boundary Objects and Heterogeneous Distributed Problem Solving , 1989, Distributed Artificial Intelligence.

[51]  E. Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation in Communities of Practice , 1991 .

[52]  Kirsikka Vaajakallio,et al.  Design games as a tool, a mindset and a structure , 2012 .

[53]  Karin D. Knorr-Cetina Sociality with Objects : Social Relations in Postsocial Knowledge Societies , 1997 .

[54]  Staffan Björk,et al.  Patterns in Game Design (Game Development Series) , 2004 .

[55]  J. Brown,et al.  Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation , 1991 .

[56]  Paul R. Carlile,et al.  Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries , 2004, Organ. Sci..

[57]  Geertje Bekebrede,et al.  A brief methodology for researching and evaluating serious games and game- based learning , 2014 .

[58]  R. Miettinen,et al.  Epistemic Objects, Artefacts and Organizational Change , 2005 .

[59]  Fotini Paraskeva,et al.  Multiplayer online games as educational tools: Facing new challenges in learning , 2010, Comput. Educ..

[60]  Riitta-Liisa Kokko Tulevaisuuden muistelu : Ennakointidialogit asiakkaiden kokemina , 2006 .

[61]  Lev Vygotsky Mind in society , 1978 .

[62]  Karen Ruhleder,et al.  Steps Toward an Ecology of Infrastructure: Design and Access for Large Information Spaces , 1996, Inf. Syst. Res..

[63]  Lars-Erik Gadde,et al.  Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case research , 2002 .

[64]  L. Lipponen,et al.  Models of Innovative Knowledge Communities and Three Metaphors of Learning , 2004 .

[65]  J. Bruner Child's Talk: Learning to Use Language , 1985 .

[66]  野中 郁次郎,et al.  The Knowledge-Creating Company: How , 1995 .

[67]  Jörn Messeter,et al.  Facilitating collaboration through design games , 2004, PDC 04.

[68]  I. Nonaka A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation , 1994 .

[69]  K. Hakkarainen,et al.  Communities of Networked Expertise: Professional and Educational Perspectives , 2004 .

[70]  Pelle Ehn,et al.  From System Descriptions to Scripts for Action , 1992 .

[71]  Paul R. Carlile,et al.  Into the black box: the knowledge transformation cycle , 2003, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[72]  Y. Engeström,et al.  Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research , 2014 .

[73]  E. Guba,et al.  Lincoln, Yvonna, and Egon Guba, "Postpositivism and the Naturalist Paradigm," pp. 14-46 in Yvonna Lincoln and Egon Guba, Naturalistic Inquiry . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1985.* , 1985 .

[74]  A. Sfard On Two Metaphors for Learning and the Dangers of Choosing Just One , 1998 .

[75]  Gareth R. Jones,et al.  The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for cooperation and teamwork , 1998 .

[76]  K. Perreault,et al.  Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches , 2011 .

[77]  Beth A. Bechky Sharing Meaning Across Occupational Communities: The Transformation of Understanding on a Production Floor , 2003, Organ. Sci..

[78]  Paul R. Carlile,et al.  A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development , 2002, Organ. Sci..

[79]  Ralf Steinmetz,et al.  Multiplayer Adventures for Collaborative Learning Serious Games , 2012 .

[80]  Elizabeth B. N. Sanders,et al.  Scaffolds for Experiencing in the New Design Space , 2002 .

[81]  F. Blackler Knowledge, Knowledge Work and Organizations: An Overview and Interpretation , 1995 .

[82]  Kurt Squire,et al.  From users to designers: Building a self-organizing game-based learning environment , 2005 .

[83]  Eva Brandt,et al.  Designing exploratory design games: a framework for participation in Participatory Design? , 2006, PDC '06.

[84]  Gary Bente,et al.  Why so serious? On the relation of serious games and learning , 2010, Eludamos: Journal for Computer Game Culture.

[85]  Reijo Miettinen,et al.  Object of Activity and Individual Motivation , 2005 .

[86]  L. Vygotsky Thinking and Speech , 1987 .

[87]  Kai Hakkarainen,et al.  Toward a trialogical approach to learning: personal reflections , 2008 .