Guest Editorial: Artifact assessment versus theory testing

Following the special issues “State of the Art and Science of Simulation/Gaming,” Volume 32, Number 4, December 2001, and “Simulation and Gaming: The Art and Science of Design,” Volume 34, Number 4, December 2003, this S&G symposium pays attention to assessment, evaluation, and theory testing. The general idea emerging from the December 2001 issue points to gaming/ simulation as a viable approach both for capturing social issues and for enhancing processes of change. García-Carbonell, Rising, Montero, and Watts (2001) aim at declassrooming the classroom, Thorelli (2001) envisions business management laboratories to scientifically underpin and improve management practice, Cecchini and Rizzi (2001) address a variety of games to enhance urban management, Meadows (2001) reflects on improving global environmental policies, and Starkey and Blake (2001) focus on international relations and the real world of diplomacy. The authors provide a retrospect on the field, covering a period of more than four decades of research and practice in gaming/simulation. My core conclusion from editing that issue was that, apparently, what is driving these and many other authors is, first, a desire to design simulation/games to capture the complexity of social systems in a coherent artifact, and second, to use these artifacts as interventions in ongoing societal affairs to improve current conditions. That drive was in addition to the main theme of the ISAGA 2003 conference in Japan (Shiratori, Arai, & Kato, 2005). This major lesson triggered the theme for the second symposium issue, paying special attention to linkages of gaming/simulation with the design sciences. I considered it worthwhile to make a distinction between design-in-the-small, addressing simulation/game design as such, and design-in-the-large, aiming at improving existing situations into preferred ones through the use of those games (Klabbers, 2003b). The interplay between both levels of design affects the prevailing methodologies for evaluating success. Kriz (2003), Ruohomäki (2003), and Romme and Putzel (2003) illustrated these questions, while designing effective learning environments, linked to organizational development in education. Bizzochi and Woodbury (2003) referred to the design of interactive narrative and the interplay between two communities: those involved in designing interfaces for computer games, and those who develop narratives. To better understand the theoretical and methodological questions, related