Constructing delta realities; Joint Fact Finding challenges in Serious Game Design

markdownabstract__Abstract__ This paper addresses the challenges of Joint Fact Finding (JFF) in spatial planning and design. JFF is an important component of a deliberative planning practice: The construction of (problematic) realities is fundamental for the formulation of challenges and solutions. Information is often contested in complex planning processes due to different interests, values and perspectives. Carefully designed interaction procedures are needed to negotiate the relevance and validity of information sources. Particularly promising procedures for this are Serious Games: Facilitating joint reality construction through immersive simulations, they are appealing ways to engage not only knowledge-oriented researchers, but also practice-oriented stakeholders and professionals. Their concreteness speaks to spatial planning and design as crafts. Still, the development of such games is not without its challenges and trade-offs. As procedures for reality construction, they cannot escape the power-laden nature of knowledge. We present a case study on developing a spatial design-oriented game, and analyze it in the tradition of the sociology of translations, aided by literature on serious game development. As indicated, Serious Games could function as JFF procedures in spatial planning and design. Moreover, their architecture can be considered a ‘boundary object’ providing actors an environment that accommodates information sharing, learning and joint reality construction. In this way the game facilitates the building of capacity to generate and integrate knowledge for spatial planning and design. In our project on integrative planning in delta areas, the game architecture accommodated researchers and practitioners in governance, spatial design and geo-information. Striving for interdisciplinary synergies, the game architecture was to be accordingly polyvalent. Its main innovative features would be its generative and integrative capacity, i.e. its capacity to both co-produce and integrate a diversity of information sources and to co-develop/generate spatial designs on this basis. How can joint fact finding in spatial planning and design be organized through a serious game in such a way that it develops integrative and generative capacity, and which challenges and trade-offs are faced in realizing this goal? In this paper we describe and discuss the practical shaping of these two capacities, and the attendant trade-offs. Tracking the ontogenesis of a game design, we describe a struggle over appropriate JFF procedures. As proposed procedures for interactive reality construction, the successive prototypes and game elements reflect meta-visions on the area under study – as a physical formation to shape, a system to represent and display, or an actor constellation to engage. This analysis allows us to distinguish alternative game architectures, with different appropriateness to JFF and other planning-related purposes. Beyond these procedural-methodological insights on JFF in game development, the observed variety of delta realities is also telling for the complexity of these areas: They are not only intersections of marine and fluvial dynamics, but also of multiple reality constructions.

[1]  John Forester,et al.  Learning in practice: Public policy mediation , 2007 .

[2]  Michel Callon,et al.  On Interests and their Transformation: Enrolment and Counter-Enrolment , 1982 .

[3]  Francis Harvey,et al.  Boundary Objects and the Social Construction of GIS Technology , 1998 .

[4]  Han Meyer,et al.  A Rationalized Delta , 2012 .

[5]  S. L. Star,et al.  This is Not a Boundary Object: Reflections on the Origin of a Concept , 2010 .

[6]  D. Greenwood,et al.  Introduction to Action Research , 2007 .

[7]  Wiebe E. Bijker,et al.  Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change ed. by Wiebe E. Bijker, John Law (review) , 1994, Technology and Culture.

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

[9]  R. Hoppe,et al.  Institutional constraints and practical problems in deliberative and participatory policy making , 2011 .

[10]  H. Nowotny Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge , 2003 .

[11]  Herman A. Karl,et al.  A Dialogue, Not a Diatribe: Effective Integration of Science and Policy through Joint Fact Finding , 2007 .

[12]  L. H. Immers,et al.  Gaming Approach Route 26: a combination of computer simulation, design tools and social interaction , 2002, J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul..

[13]  Raoul Beunen,et al.  Delineating Locals: Transformations of Knowledge/Power and the Governance of the Danube Delta , 2011 .

[14]  Jurian Edelenbos,et al.  Why is joint knowledge production such a problem , 2004 .

[15]  Jurian Edelenbos,et al.  Towards a perspective of system synchronization in water governance: a synthesis of empirical lessons and complexity theories , 2011 .

[16]  Bonno Pel,et al.  Confronting Momentum: Mapping the Social Appraisals of an ‘Inevitable’ Motorway Capacity Expansion , 2014 .

[17]  B. Latour Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory , 2005 .

[18]  Jurian Edelenbos,et al.  CO-VALUATION: EXPLORING METHODS FOR EXPERT AND STAKEHOLDER VALUATION , 2011 .

[19]  Casper Harteveld,et al.  Hoe écht is een virtuele crisis , 2009 .

[20]  Igor S. Mayer,et al.  The Gaming of Policy and the Politics of Gaming: A Review , 2009 .

[21]  M. Lykes,et al.  Participatory/Action Research , 2013 .

[22]  Donald A. Schön,et al.  Frame Reflection: Toward The Resolution Of Intractable Policy Controversies , 1994 .

[23]  Frank Fischer,et al.  The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning , 1993 .

[24]  John Mingers,et al.  Critical Heuristics of Social Planning: A New Approach to Practical Philosophy , 1983 .

[25]  Päivi Elisabet Haapasaari,et al.  Growing into Interdisciplinarity: How to Converge Biology, Economics, and Social Science in Fisheries Research? , 2012 .

[26]  M. Callon Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay , 1984 .

[27]  Jurian Edelenbos,et al.  Co-producing knowledge: joint knowledge production between experts, bureaucrats and stakeholders in Dutch water management projects , 2011 .

[28]  A. Stirling “Opening Up” and “Closing Down” , 2008 .

[29]  Jurian Edelenbos,et al.  Water Governance as Connective Capacity , 2013 .

[30]  Jurian Edelenbos,et al.  Water Managers’ Boundary Judgments and Adaptive Water Governance. An Analysis of the Dutch Haringvliet Sluices Case , 2013, Water Resources Management.

[31]  B. Latour Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern , 2004, Critical Inquiry.

[32]  S. Carpenter,et al.  Resilience: Accounting for the Noncomputable , 2009 .

[33]  David Crookall,et al.  Simulation and gaming across disciplines and cultures : ISAGA at a watershed , 1995 .

[34]  Richard D. Duke,et al.  Principles and practices of gaming-simulation , 1981 .

[35]  Casper Harteveld,et al.  Hoe écht is een virtuele crisis? De rol van serious gaming in crisis- en rampenbestrijding , 2009 .

[36]  Jurian Edelenbos,et al.  Intersections in delta development; analyzing actors for complexity-sensitive spatial concepts , 2014 .

[37]  Adrian Smith,et al.  The politics of social-ecological resilience and sustainable socio-technical transitions , 2010 .

[38]  M. te Brömmelstroet,et al.  Making Planning Support Systems Matter. Improving the use of Planning Support Systems for Integrated land use and transport strategy-making , 2010 .

[39]  F. Scharpf Games Real Actors Play: Actor-centered Institutionalism In Policy Research , 1997 .

[40]  te Brommelstroet,et al.  UvA-DARE ( Digital Academic Repository ) Making planning support systems matter : improving the use of planning support systems for integrated land use and transport strategy-making , 2010 .

[41]  John Law,et al.  Shaping technology building society: studies in socio-technical change , 1993 .

[42]  Geertje Bekebrede,et al.  Understanding complex adaptive systems by playing games , 2010, Informatics Educ..

[43]  Erik-Hans Klijn,et al.  Managing knowledge in policy networks. Organising joint fact-finding in the Scheldt Estuary. , 2007 .

[44]  M. V. Eeten,et al.  Dialogues of the Deaf: Defining New Agendas for Environmental Deadlocks , 1999 .

[45]  Richard N. Van Eck Digital Game-Based Learning: It's Not Just the Digital Natives Who Are Restless. , 2006 .

[46]  Paul Cilliers,et al.  Complexity, Deconstruction and Relativism , 2005 .

[47]  Jürgen Habermas,et al.  Critique and power : recasting the Foucault/Habermas debate , 1994 .

[48]  Jurian Edelenbos,et al.  Symposium on water governance. Prologue: water governance as a government’s actions between the reality of fragmentation and the need for integration , 2011 .

[49]  Han Meyer,et al.  Reinventing the Dutch Delta: Complexity and Conflicts , 2009 .

[50]  Casper Harteveld,et al.  Triadic Game Design - Balancing Reality, Meaning and Play , 2011 .

[51]  J. Voss,et al.  Reflexive governance for sustainable development , 2006 .

[52]  David R. Michael,et al.  Serious Games: Games That Educate, Train, and Inform , 2005 .

[53]  Arwin van Buuren,et al.  Connecting time Spans in regional water governance: Managing projects as stepping-stones to a climate proof delta region , 2013 .

[54]  H. Nowotny The Increase of Complexity and its Reduction , 2005 .