实现研究中模拟、鲁迪克和历史学实践之间的调和

IF 1.5 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Vinicius Marino Carvalho
{"title":"实现研究中模拟、鲁迪克和历史学实践之间的调和","authors":"Vinicius Marino Carvalho","doi":"10.1177/10468781241248705","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BackgroundSimulations, ludic or otherwise, have so far struggled to gain a foothold in mainstream historiography. Some authors suggest there may be fundamental incompatibilities between history and the language of simulations and scholarly games. Others believe that designing, employing, and validating historical simulations may be simply too costly and/or labor-intensive to justify their widespread adoption.InterventionThis paper intends to identify points of friction between historiography and simulation-based research and suggest practical solutions to these issues.MethodsMy discussion is based on the description and analysis of a case study, the ThomondSim/ The Triumphs of Turlough research project. The initiative consisted of the development and application of an agent-based computational model (ABM) and a scholarly board game to investigate the possible associations between economic, environmental, and military hazards in 13th and 14th centuries Ireland.Results and DiscussionEnsuring the simulations matched historical evidence to a standard deemed acceptable by the historiographical community limited their phase space, compromising their capacity to explore emergent phenomena. The intricacy of the underlying conceptual model suited the ABM better than the board game, which struggled to reconcile complexity with good game design practices. The board game, however, proved to be an effective validating tool for the ABM.Limitations and Suggestions for Further ResearchThe project espoused an overt simulation- and game-centric approach, paying little attention to unguided play. Recent literature suggests that fostering, rather than hindering, playful exploration could address some of the pitfalls identified by this project.ConclusionPlay could be a means of reconciliation between simulational, ludic, and historiographical practices. However, to ensure that projects adhere to epistemic standards, it is recommended that a methodology is developed to integrate it into research in ways that can be tested and evaluated.","PeriodicalId":47521,"journal":{"name":"SIMULATION & GAMING","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Towards a Reconciliation Between Simulational, Ludic, and Historiographical Practices in Research\",\"authors\":\"Vinicius Marino Carvalho\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10468781241248705\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BackgroundSimulations, ludic or otherwise, have so far struggled to gain a foothold in mainstream historiography. Some authors suggest there may be fundamental incompatibilities between history and the language of simulations and scholarly games. Others believe that designing, employing, and validating historical simulations may be simply too costly and/or labor-intensive to justify their widespread adoption.InterventionThis paper intends to identify points of friction between historiography and simulation-based research and suggest practical solutions to these issues.MethodsMy discussion is based on the description and analysis of a case study, the ThomondSim/ The Triumphs of Turlough research project. The initiative consisted of the development and application of an agent-based computational model (ABM) and a scholarly board game to investigate the possible associations between economic, environmental, and military hazards in 13th and 14th centuries Ireland.Results and DiscussionEnsuring the simulations matched historical evidence to a standard deemed acceptable by the historiographical community limited their phase space, compromising their capacity to explore emergent phenomena. The intricacy of the underlying conceptual model suited the ABM better than the board game, which struggled to reconcile complexity with good game design practices. The board game, however, proved to be an effective validating tool for the ABM.Limitations and Suggestions for Further ResearchThe project espoused an overt simulation- and game-centric approach, paying little attention to unguided play. Recent literature suggests that fostering, rather than hindering, playful exploration could address some of the pitfalls identified by this project.ConclusionPlay could be a means of reconciliation between simulational, ludic, and historiographical practices. However, to ensure that projects adhere to epistemic standards, it is recommended that a methodology is developed to integrate it into research in ways that can be tested and evaluated.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47521,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"SIMULATION & GAMING\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"SIMULATION & GAMING\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10468781241248705\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SIMULATION & GAMING","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10468781241248705","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景模拟,无论是否荒诞不经,迄今都难以在主流史学中占据一席之地。一些作者认为,历史与模拟语言和学术游戏之间可能存在根本的不相容性。本文旨在找出历史学与基于模拟的研究之间的摩擦点,并针对这些问题提出切实可行的解决方案。该项目包括开发和应用基于代理的计算模型(ABM)和学术棋盘游戏,以研究 13 和 14 世纪爱尔兰的经济、环境和军事危害之间可能存在的关联。结果与讨论确保模拟与历史证据相匹配,以达到史学界认为可以接受的标准,这限制了模拟的阶段空间,影响了模拟探索突发现象的能力。基础概念模型的复杂性更适合人工智能模拟,而棋盘游戏则难以兼顾复杂性和良好的游戏设计实践。然而,棋盘游戏被证明是一个有效的验证人工智能模型的工具。该项目支持一种公开的以模拟和游戏为中心的方法,很少关注无指导的游戏。最近的文献表明,促进而不是阻碍游戏性探索可以解决本项目发现的一些问题。然而,为确保项目符合认识论标准,建议制定一种方法,以可检验和评估的方式将其纳入研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Towards a Reconciliation Between Simulational, Ludic, and Historiographical Practices in Research
BackgroundSimulations, ludic or otherwise, have so far struggled to gain a foothold in mainstream historiography. Some authors suggest there may be fundamental incompatibilities between history and the language of simulations and scholarly games. Others believe that designing, employing, and validating historical simulations may be simply too costly and/or labor-intensive to justify their widespread adoption.InterventionThis paper intends to identify points of friction between historiography and simulation-based research and suggest practical solutions to these issues.MethodsMy discussion is based on the description and analysis of a case study, the ThomondSim/ The Triumphs of Turlough research project. The initiative consisted of the development and application of an agent-based computational model (ABM) and a scholarly board game to investigate the possible associations between economic, environmental, and military hazards in 13th and 14th centuries Ireland.Results and DiscussionEnsuring the simulations matched historical evidence to a standard deemed acceptable by the historiographical community limited their phase space, compromising their capacity to explore emergent phenomena. The intricacy of the underlying conceptual model suited the ABM better than the board game, which struggled to reconcile complexity with good game design practices. The board game, however, proved to be an effective validating tool for the ABM.Limitations and Suggestions for Further ResearchThe project espoused an overt simulation- and game-centric approach, paying little attention to unguided play. Recent literature suggests that fostering, rather than hindering, playful exploration could address some of the pitfalls identified by this project.ConclusionPlay could be a means of reconciliation between simulational, ludic, and historiographical practices. However, to ensure that projects adhere to epistemic standards, it is recommended that a methodology is developed to integrate it into research in ways that can be tested and evaluated.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
SIMULATION & GAMING
SIMULATION & GAMING EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
5.00%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Simulation & Gaming: An International Journal of Theory, Practice and Research contains articles examining academic and applied issues in the expanding fields of simulation, computerized simulation, gaming, modeling, play, role-play, debriefing, game design, experiential learning, and related methodologies. The broad scope and interdisciplinary nature of Simulation & Gaming are demonstrated by the wide variety of interests and disciplines of its readers, contributors, and editorial board members. Areas include: sociology, decision making, psychology, language training, cognition, learning theory, management, educational technologies, negotiation, peace and conflict studies, economics, international studies, research methodology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信