{"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}
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.
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.