Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 33, 2006

NARRATOLOGY AND LUDOLOGY: COMPETING PARADIGMS OR

COMPLEMENTARY THEORIES IN SIMULATION
Amy McManus
William F. Harrah School of Hotel Administration
[email protected]

Andrew Hale Feinstein

William F. Harrah School of Hotel Administration
[email protected]

ABSTRACT Two philosophical positions have been examined in the

literature surrounding simulation and gaming: narratology
Technological innovations in simulation practice have and ludology. Narratologists are scholars who generally
increased the speed at which theories underpinning their claim simulation and gaming are closely related to narrative
study evolve. As researchers come forward to accept the – or “stories” – analyzing them through this lens to explain
task of developing these theories, differences between two both their inner workings (Frasca, 2003a), and the workings
philosophical positions – narratology and ludology – are of individual mind (e.g., Bruner, 1960; Schank, 1990).
sparking debate which may indicate a future paradigmatic Ludology, in a similarly broad regard, focuses on the
shift. The article to follow compares and contrasts interactivity, structure, and play in simulation and gaming
narratology and ludology within the range of simulation (Frasca, 2003a). Ludologists generally contend that the
and non-pedagogical gaming, respectively. Divergences fidelity, immersibility, and “realness” of the experience are
between the two holistic meanings are noted, overlap and more important than narrative elements.
synergies between the issues surrounding these meanings Games are typically defined as settings designed for
are discussed, and a fusion of the two is proposed for future participant interaction bounded by certain rules and
theoretical and/or paradigmatic progress. processes. Gaming, a related term, refers to the interactions
themselves among players in multiparticipant games (Hsu,
INTRODUCTION 1989). Pedagogical gaming centers on learning, whether this
learning serves industry, education, or the participants
Established ways of seeing the world are replaced, themselves. Management games, for example, typically
throughout history, by tremendous upheavals in serve the needs of industry (Greenlaw & Wyman, 1973).
thought. Those changes are so expansive that the They are pedagogical in nature, less interested in play, and
old ways of thinking are totally incompatible with more interested in learning as the end goal. Historically,
the new. To embrace the new is to undertake a pedagogical gaming was turn-based in nature; but changing
conversion experience. By no means are all technology is increasing the development of more dynamic
scientists in the field willing to contemplate this and continuous designs.
move from a comfortable stability. – Burrell, 1996, Non-pedagogical gaming centers on play more than
p. 646 learning. Videogames, for example, first try to attract
participants, then pull them into the medium and encourage
To many simulation designers, scientific philosophy them to engage and interact with it. While participants in
matters may seem perfunctory and boring when compared non-pedagogical gaming must learn the rules of the game
to the exciting state of current practice. Advances witnessed and the rewards for particular actions, the end goal is not
over the past decade have ushered in a wide range of primarily based on learning. Instead, affective states such as
industry innovations and explosive growth in research pleasure and enjoyment are targeted.
inquiry. These advances sharply contrast, however, with our Simulation and gaming researchers have yet to reach
“rudimentary, underdeveloped state of theory” (Klein & consensus on which set of theories – narratology or
Herskovitz, 2005, p. 303). Even worse, perhaps, is the ludology – is of most use and benefit to continued progress.
rootlessness of our theory. Few to no works attempt to These researchers fall mostly in one of the two camps, and
identify our paradigms in simulation research. Without clear never the twain shall meet. As a result of their either/or way
paradigms to guide us, our inquiries are limited in ways we of thinking, the controversy is heated instead of enlightened
may not be aware of. (Bernstein, 1983; Martin & Kleindorfer, 1991). This
parallels the difficulty that simulation and gaming designers

363
 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 33, 2006
themselves have fought for decades in combining high- cognitive prostheses, and interactivity. The specific paradox
quality, high-power stories and interactivity (Manovich, in between narrative and interactivity in pedagogical
Frasca, 2003b). Influential voices in the debate between simulation has been identified (e.g., Bizzocchi &
these schools of thought have attempted to silence it (e.g., Woodbury, 2003), and the technologies on which our
Frasca, 2003b), but the rift remains. Thus we reopen the practical innovations depend are shared. As we edge closer
debate below, showing how narratology and ludology are to game studies, we move closer to a collision with this
two equally valuable sides of the same coin, whether that debate.
coin is paradigm or theory.
The following discussion systematically explores the DEFINITIONS AND SEMANTICS
two camps of narratology and ludology within the context
of simulation and gaming. First, we present a brief rationale To prepare ourselves, it is our next task to define
for transferring the debate from non-pedagogical gaming simulation and gaming. For the purposes of our discussion
studies to pedagogical simulation – a process which has here, we are concerned with computer simulation as a
already begun (see Bizzocchi & Woodbury, 2003). Second, subcategory of experiential learning. There is rampant
the semantic confusion of simulation and gaming will be confusion in this task though, perhaps because simulation
addressed. Next, narratology and ludology will be defined and gaming are becoming more complex, dynamic, and
and followed through the literature, focusing on theoretical interactive; eroding the trademarks signs previously used to
and conceptual works relevant to the debate. Last, we distinguish one from the other.
examine paradigmatic issues, to determine if the debate is a As quoted by Denton (1994), "Simulation, as used in
paradigmatic shift from old or nonexistent to new. Finally, training, is a dynamic representation of a system, process or
we summarize the overall findings, concluding that the two task" (Rediffusion, 1986, section 1.3). By another definition,
elements are inseparable parts of a new paradigm for simulation is the set of "organizational devices for arranging
simulation and gaming. interactions" (Roebuck, 1978, p. 107). Here, we define
simulation as the behavior of a representational model
THE GREAT DEBATE which represents reality in some way (Van Horn, 1971).
Games also have a core model, but many gaming definitions
The narratology versus ludology debate has been going focus on the participants’ interactions, bounded by the
on for over two decades in the non-pedagogical game designer’s chosen setting, rules and procedures (Hsu, 1989).
community – mostly in reference to videogame, virtual In the past, researchers in experiential learning have
reality, and hypertext. The earliest published work made calls for continued philosophical clarification (Ruben,
specifically targeting this squabble surfaced in 1982 1999), as many have focused on the paradigms or
(Csikszentmihalyi), and it continues today. Many gamers theoretical foundations for instruction and learning practice
have become overwhelmed, even worn out, by the exchange (e.g., Kirkley & Kirkley, 2005; Ruben, 1999; The Design-
of ideas: Based Research Collective, 2003), but not those for
• Bottom-line, I see this debate as a pointless simulation and gaming themselves. Here, we focus on the
distraction that has pulled a lot of smart minds latter, excluding considerations of instruction and learning
into its depths. In effect, there is not conflict outside these areas.
between the two camps. The ludology camp is At the core of simulation is a model which represents
perfectly correct, and how this can be argued some part of reality. Other than this, however, its
is beyond comprehension (Miller, 2005, ¶ 1) characteristics are mutable at best. For instance, continuous
• We have already had more than one paper or event computer simulation now rivals gaming in it ability to
presentation that attempted to be the “Last simultaneously accommodate multiple players (e.g., Two
Word” on the debate, which of course signals Comma Titans, 2005). In the future, the two differences
that despite the best intentions, we haven’t between simulation and games – “the absence of an
reached the last word on narratology vs. interpersonal element in computer simulation,” and the
ludology yet (Young, 2005, ¶ 1) presence or absence of “process focus” (Feinstein, Mann &
• We’re pretty much all… sick to death of Corsun, 2002, p. 739) – may be soon eliminated by
hearing the tired old duality brought up (JP, in technological innovations such as virtual reality and
Juul, 2004, ¶ 5) multiparticipant interfaces (Ong & Mannen, 2004).
The pedagogical simulation literature is not too far The definitions' inherent volatility is why we do not
removed from this conflict, however. We learn from each here strongly adhere to rigid boundaries surrounding their
other’s progress, adopt each other’s tools, and build on each meanings. This is not unusual, because when paradigms
other’s research; thus dialogue between our respective shift, construct definitions can and do change. As a
groups may hasten the paradigmatic shift to come. Already, consequence, we admit that possible overlap between the
our articles reflect narratological or ludological perspectives concepts of simulation and game makes investigating
– i.e., foci on sensemaking, the core model, content, and narratology and ludology all that more difficult.
meaning as opposed to foci on fidelity, immersability,

364
 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 33, 2006
NARRATIVE AND NARRATOLOGY “material signs” of the narrative. This approach’s primary
directive is to achieve interactivity with narrative – for
Narratology, or the study of narrative, traces as far back example by letting an individual control a character.
as Aristotle; and has been an idea present in toys and games While many equate narrative with oral or written
since the beginning of their existence (Frasca, 2003a; storytelling – called the diegetic mode - there are several
2003b). It covers a wide range of disciplines (e.g., other modes of narrativity, which can exist in combination.
organizational theory, drama, and literature), methodologies Simulation and gaming are (1) participatory and (2)
(e.g., discourse analysis), and epistemologies (Robichaud, simulative in mode, meaning that they (1) allow a user to
Giroux, & Taylor, 2004). Its roots in the social sciences play a role, choose behavior, and create a story; and (2)
literature can be traced back to its application in this line of design an engine that uses internal rules and input from the
research centers on the models used to design computer user to create a sequence of events that tells a story (Ryan,
simulation and game. 2001).
Narrative is a model for how individuals act (Cooren, Clearly, then, narratologists in the experiential learning
2000; Czarniawska, 1997), construct reality (Weick, 1995), sphere focus on the core model, or narrative, of simulation
think and learn (Bruner, 1960; Schank, 1990). It creates and gaming; but they also hold fast to the idea that this
organization and meaning for everything that enters narrative does not become so until someone hears – or
individual’s brains through the acts of living, creating, or interacts – with it. The dynamic part of simulation comes
interpreting (Fisher, 1984, p. 2). Thus, narrative is the form from learners engaging with the narrative core model,
in which we “organize our experience and our memory of manipulating it, and constructing their own story. From this
human happenings” (Bruner, 1991, p. 4). evidence, it appears that simulation and gaming are fully
In short, narrative helps individuals construct within the narrative range.
knowledge through the process of recursivity (Robichaud,
Giroux, & Taylor, 2004). Recursivity is the iterative process INTERACTIVITY AND LUDOLOGY
of learning, combining the processes of reflecting on
information and socially constructing knowledge (Bowen, The rationale behind separating narratology and
1987; Denton, 1994; Hampden-Turner, 1971; Laveault & ludology is at odds with the aforementioned claim, as it
Corbil, 1990; Perry & Euler, 1988; Thatcher, 1986). In points out the overlap between the two, a possible “inter-
simulation, reflection is the proxy term often used to paradigm debate” (Giddens, 1976, p. 142). Unintentionally,
describe recursivity (Bowen, 1987; Gosen, 2004; Kolb, we have already described a great deal of the precepts of
1984; Thiaragajan, 1994). Learners engage with the model, ludology above. We have also previously defined ludology,
or narrative, which is its core (Gosen & Washbush, 2005), but the many varying definitions of ludology beg for further
constructing knowledge by engaging with the narratives of articulation. As stated rather frankly by Juul (2005):
others and creating their own (Schank, 1990). Thus, the As it happens with popular terms, there are
learner’s interaction and engagement with computer many competing interpretations of it. Here are
simulation and game are crucial (Jones, 1989; 1990). the five most popular interpretations of
There are two main schools of narratology in the ludology for the time being:
simulation and gaming world: expansionist and • The study of game
traditionalist. Expansionists have a hermeneutical • The study of game as rules, ignoring their
perspective on narrative, viewing it as “a mutable concept fictional content
that differs from culture to culture and evolves through • The study of game with a strong anti-narrative
history, crucially affected by technological innovations” stance (meaning: against blindly using
(Ryan, 2001, p. 2). They deconstruct narrative, challenging traditional narratology, but including the
plot, linearity and form in stories (Landow, 1997). While a fictional content of game).
hermeneutical approach has shown valuable in previous • A group of people around the Game Studies
simulation inquiries (e.g., Kleindorfer, O’Neill, & journal (decidedly wrong – read the articles,
Ganeshan, 1998), the main disadvantage of expansionist please).
approaches is that they can deconstruct to the point where • The people at the Game Research Center in
narrative ceases to mean anything at all (Ryan, 2001). Copenhagen (also wrong – read what is
The traditionalist school sees narrative as “an invariant actually being published). (¶ 14)
core of meaning, a core that distinguishes narrative from Some ludologists have argued that simulation and
other types of discourse, and gives it a transcultural, gaming are not narratives because their characteristics are
transhistorical, and transmedial identity” (Ryan, 2001, p. 3). incompatible according to current narratology definitions
According to Ryan (2001), a traditionalist, a narrative is (Frasca, 2003b) – e.g., that “game are game and stories are
“the use of signs, or of a medium, that evokes in the mind of stories and these types of cultural artifacts… present
the recipient the image of a concrete world that evolves in radically distinct essences” (Ryan, 2001, p. 6). Traditionalist
time” (p. 4). A story is “the mental construct constitutive of narratology’s foremost purpose is to achieve interactivity,
narrative” (p. 5). This differs from discourse, which are the though – a goal shared by ludologists; and expansionist

365
 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 33, 2006
narratologists deconstruct and challenge narrative’s
structure and plot – one of ludology’s most popular COMPETING PARADIGMS OR
methods. THEORIES?
By the same token, narratologists have shown overlap
in their work (for a sample of works using cognitive theories In the pedagogical realm of simulation and gaming,
of learning, see Appendix A). For example, ludology narratology and ludology are just now beginning to surface
embraces ideas falling squarely within the labeled category through anomalies in the related discourse. In the non-
of fidelity. Fidelity has been defined as: pedagogical realm of gaming, however, anomalies have
been evident for decades. Both indicate a paradigm shift
The degree of similarity between the training found in normal scientific development (Kuhn, 1962;
situation and the operational situation which is Lundberg & Young, 1995). Thus, within our pedagogical
simulated. It is a two dimensional measurement of simulation and gaming community, we must look deeper;
this similarity in terms of (1) the physical since it is possible that this is not a shift from old paradigm
characteristics, for example visual, spatial, to new, but a pre-paradigmatic shift. If this is the case,
kinesthetic, etc.; and (2) the functional narratology and ludology may merely be competing
characteristics, for example the informational, theories.
stimulus, and response options of the training Exploring the “frame of paradigm” (Lundberg &
situation (Hays & Singer, in Feinstein & Cannon, Young, 2005, p. 45) may further inform our discussion.
2001, p. 58). Friedrichs (1970) defined paradigm as “a fundamental
image a discipline has of its subject matter” (p. 55); and
Most ludologists dismiss narratology because they Ritzer (1975) expands further, stating:
believe that it cannot explain all of the phenomena
associated with game; that “because game are not merely A paradigm is a fundamental image of the subject
watched, they are played, they supplement this debate with matter within a science. It serves to define what
the phenomenon of action… the game theorist must talk should be studied, what questions should be asked,
about actions, and the physical or gameworlds in which they and what rules should be followed in interpreting
transpire” (Galloway, 2004, ¶ 3). An analogy for the the answers obtained. The paradigm is the broadest
rationale that game is not narrative has been described in unit of consensus within a science and serves to
many ways, for instance: “If I throw a ball at you I don’t differentiate one scientific community (or sub-
expect you to drop it and wait until it starts telling stories” community) from another. It subsumes, defines,
(Eskelinen, 2001, ¶ 1). and interrelates the exemplars, theories, and
These opinions are beginning to shift, however. A new methods and tools that exist within it (p. 189).
movement is calling for hybrid approaches (Mateas, 2002),
a “middle ground” stance (Jenkins, 2003), compromises, How can we prove that narratology and ludology are
and overlap between the two perspectives (Ryan, 2001). competing paradigms, rather than competing theories? The
Some of the most avid ludologists, such as Juul and Aarseth, fact is that we – at least here as two sole inquirers – cannot.
have stated that (1) game contain both narrative elements, As nebulous, holistic, and abstract forms, paradigms are
sequences, and structural traits (Juul, 2001) and (2) there is sometimes difficult to reveal. We can, despite this
significant overlap between games and narrative (Aarseth, deficiency, look at these groups’ community structures,
1997). Perhaps most striking, the expanded definitions of commitment networks, shared examples, tacit knowledge
narrative posed by Ryan (2001) include a phenomenological and intuition, and incommensurability (Kuhn, 1962; for a
category of narratives that explain how stories are summary, see Table 1).
constructed in simulation and games; making both Kuhn’s (1962) first advice, to examine community
paradigms viable options. This may lead one to conclude structures, is the simplest of the five. Ludology, in its
that our definitions of narrative need work – not that relative infancy, has remained firmly within non-
narratology itself is inferior. pedagogical game studies. Narratology, much older in
Ryan (2001) suggests that ludology should expand to nature, has been transferred from literary studies to
incorporate narratology; while Eskelinen (2003) hints at the numerous disciplines – most relevant here, that of
opposite, stating, “a mere story is not sufficient to make pedagogical simulation and games.
something a narrative, as there must also be a narrative His second advice is to explore group commitment
situation implying the presence of narrators and narrates” (¶ networks, or schools of thought. The assumptions related to
1). Integrating these two polar opposites is relatively simple, schools of thought ask the question, “What conceptual work
and could be expressed simply: a narrative does not become and its investigators deserve allegiance?” (Lundberg &
so until someone interacts with it (a hermeneutical Young, 2005, p. 48). In narratology, a wide range of
perspective). Thus, we propose the two are indivisible, investigators are shown allegiance in multiple disciplines,
equal, and necessary for the paradigmatic shift on our including drama and literary studies (e.g., Jahn, 2001),
scientific horizon. education (e.g., Bruner, 1960), cognition (e.g., Schank,

366
 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 33, 2006
Table 1: Summary of Kuhn's (1962) Characteristic Differences for Separate Paradigms

Paradigm Characteristics Narratology Ludology

Mostly pedagogy, limited
number of non-pedagogy Non-pedagogical game studies, although
Community structures researchers some thematic overlap with pedagogy
Narrow range of allegiances, limited to
Wide range of disciplines, non-pedagogy - one central research
including drama & literature, center, one peer-reviewed journal, and
Group commitment education, cognition, between one and two dozen primary
networks management investigators

Computer simulation, non-

computer simulation, role Videogame, virtual reality, hypertext,
play, experiential learning, television, and emergent forms of
Shared examples drama, literature, film computer play
Pedagogical side of
Tacit knowledge and experience - i.e., learning Non-pedagogical side of experience - i.e.,
intuition and cognition play
Inconclusive - depends on investigator's stance regarding reductionism and
Incommensurability holistic thinking

1990), and management (e.g., Weick, 1995). Ludologists soon to come, though. Heated debate between two theories
show allegiance to a much narrower range of investigators is a sign of anomalies just as much as that between two
almost exclusively within their community (e.g., Aarseth, paradigms. The only matter left to determine is if this is a
1997; Eskelinen, 2003; Juul, 2001), with Frasca (1999; shift from old paradigm to new, or of nonexistent paradigm
2003a; 2003b) being the oft cited forefather. to the first one identified.
Similarly, the respective subject matters and exemplars A pre-paradigmatic shift is “regularly marked by
of each community show little to no overlap, and where frequent and deep debates over legitimate methods,
overlap occurs, the matters are “approached from problems, and standards of solution, though these serve
incompatible perspectives” (p. 176). Ludological subject rather to define schools than to produce agreement” (Kuhn,
matter centers on videogame, virtual reality, hypertext, 1962, p. 48) – exactly the present state of narratology and
television, and emergent forms of computer play. ludology, at least in non-pedagogical game study. This does
Narratological subject matter reflects the variety of not automatically make it a pre-paradigmatic shift, however;
disciplines it inhabits, including but not limited to computer as the aforementioned characteristic is shared with shifts
simulation, non-computer simulation, role play, experiential from old to new paradigms.
learning, drama, literature, and film. One way we can find if this is a pre-paradigmatic or a
Subject matter and exemplars speak to the intuitions of regular paradigmatic shift is through the presence of
each community. Ludology embraces the non-pedagogical anomalies, because “anomaly appears only against the
side of experience – such as play – and narratology favors background provided by the paradigm” (Kuhn, 1962, p. 65).
the pedagogical side more focused on learning and Significant narratology-versus-ludology anomalies have
cognition. However, narratology has been overtly applied in surfaced in non-pedagogical gaming studies, and a few have
the ludologist community, and ludological subject matter appeared in our pedagogical community of simulation
has been touched upon by narratologists (e.g., Bizzochi & research. Gaming theorists debate these topics; while we
Woodbury, 2003). have, in the past, discussed narratological and ludological
precepts with little thought of one side versus the other (for
MORE DEBATE AND FUTURE RESEARCH an exception, see Bizzocchi & Woodbury, 2003). This could
signal that game studies will experience a pre-paradigmatic
From the above, we can surmise that the two camps are shift while we experience a paradigmatic shift or even none
not completely incommensurable, but this opens an at all. It could also signal nothing more than temporal
enormous philosophical dispute between reductionism and differences, where pedagogical studies lag behind non-
holistic thinking. At this point, the results on narratology pedagogical studies that are better-funded or moving at a
and ludology as paradigms or theories are inconclusive. This quicker pace. Again, the results are inconclusive.
is of no matter to the prediction that a shift in paradigms is

367
 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 33, 2006
CONCLUSION Cooren, F. (2000). The organizing property of
communication. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.
In our quest to establish sound theoretical foundations Czariawska, B. (1997). Narrating the organization: Dramas
for computer simulation research, we must examine the of institutional identity. Chicago: University of Chicago
paradigms or theories to which different camps within our Press.
related disciplines adhere. Currently, two main schools of Denton, H. G. (1994). Simulating Design in the World of
thought prevail: narratology and ludology. Narratology tells Industry and Commerce: Observations from a Series of
us that people learn through taking in, reconstructing, and Case Studies in the United Kingdom. Journal of
acting out or telling stories. Ludology tells us that people Technology Education, 6(1)
interact with reality or representational experience with or Eskelinen, M. (2003). The Gaming Situation. [On-line]
without a narrative structure. It is not yet clear whether these Available: http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/lsb/
two schools of thought center around two respective gaming_situation.htm.
paradigms or theories; but it is clear that anomalies continue Feinstein, A. H. & Cannon, H. M. (2003). A hermeneutical
to surface in both camps, and have remained unresolved. approach to external validation of simulation models.
Like the chicken-and-the-egg riddle, we are faced with Simulation & Gaming, 34(2), 186-197.
the same question of which comes first: the story or the Feinstein, A. H. & Cannon, H. M. (2001). Fidelity,
person who will hear and tell it? Can there be a story Verifiability, and Validity of Simulation: Constructs for
without a prerequisite individual? If the individual comes Evaluation. Developments in Business Simulation and
first, can he or she create knowledge or learn without a story Experiential Learning, 28, 57-67.
to be told? Whether the debate involves theories, paradigms, Feinstein, A. H., Mann, S., & Corsun, D. L. (2002).
or altogether different holistic constructs, narratology and Charting the experiential territory. Journal of
ludology are practically and philosophically inseparable. Management Development, 21(10), 732-744.
Thus, fusing the two may prove to be the ideal paradigm for Frasca, G. (2003a). Simulation versus Narrative:
future computer simulation research. Introduction to Ludology. In M. J. P. Wolf and B.
We are now aware of our own evolution as a scientific Perron (Eds.), Video/Game/Theory. New York:
community, and have the choice – the responsibility – of Routledge.
actively, consciously, and rigorously pursuing scientific Frasca, G. (2003b). Ludologists love stories, too: notes from
progress. Even though the narratology versus ludology a debate that never took place. Digital Game Research
debate has nearly exhausted the non-pedagogical game Conference 2003 Proceedings. [On-line] available:
community, we are just now realizing this stream of http://www.gameconference.org/ 2003.
discourse exists. Learning from their past by transferring the Frasca, G. (1999). Ludology Meets Narratology: Similitude
debate to our pedagogical computer simulation community and differences between (video)games and narrative.
may prove to be a vital boost to our inquiries. Ignoring this Parnasso #3. Helsinki, Finland: Yhtyneet Kuvalehdet
rich discourse may prove to have just as much impact, and Oy. [On-line] Available: http://www.kuvalehdet.fi
delaying our progress by another twenty five years would /index.jsp.
likely guarantee that we will never catch up. Friedrichs, R. (1970). A sociology of sociology. New York:
Free Press.
REFERENCES Galloway, A. R. (2004). Social Realism in Gaming. Game
Studies, 4(1). [On-line] Available: http://www.game
Aarseth, E. J. (1997). Cybertext: Perspectives on Ergodic studies.org/0401/galloway/
Literature. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Giddens, A. (1976). New rules of sociological method.
Press. London: Hutchinson.
Bernstein, R. J. (1983). Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Gosen, J. (2004). The Influence of Variables Easily
Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis. Philadelphia, PA: Controlled by the Instructor/Administrator on
University of Pennsylvania Press. Simulation Outcomes: In Particular, the Variable,
Bizzocchi, J. & Woodbury, R. F. (2003). Case study in the Reflection. Developments in Business Simulation and
design of interactive narrative: The subversion of the Experiential Learning, 31, 318-324.
interface. Simulation & Gaming, 34(4), 550-568. Gosen, J. & Washbush, J. (2005). Analyzing and Thinking
Bowen, D. D. (1987). Developing a personal theory of While Playing a Simulation. Developments in Business
experiential learning. Simulation & Gaming, 18, 192- Simulations and Experiential Learning, 32, 141-143.
206. Hampden-Turner, C. (1971). Radical man. London:
Bruner, J. (1960). The Process of Education. Boston, MA: Duckworth.
Harvard University Press. Hsu, E. (1989). Role-Event Gaming-Simulation in
Burrell, G. (1996). Normal science, paradigms, metaphors, Management Education: A Conceptual Framework and
discourses and genealogies of analysis. In S. R. Clegg, Review. Simulation and Game, 20(4), 409-438.
C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.) Handbook of
organizational studies, pp. 642-658. London: Sage.

368
 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 33, 2006
Jahn, M. (2001). Narrative Voice and Agency in Drama: Perry, C., & Euler, T. (1988). Simulation as action learning
Aspects of a Narratology of Drama. New Literary exercises: Implications for conducting and evaluating
History, 32(3), 659-678. business and economic simulation. Simulation/Game
Jenkins, H. (2003). Game Design as Narrative Architecture. for Learning, 18(3), 177-187.
In P. Harrigan and N. Wardrip-Fruin (Eds.) First Rediffusion Simulation Ltd. (1986). Simulation in training.
Person, New Media as Story, Performance, and Game. A guide for trainers and managers. Sheffield, England:
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Manpower Services Commission (MSC) Training
Jones, K. (1989). Running, or stumbling through, Technology Section.
simulation. Simulation/Game for Learning, 19(4), 160- Ritzer, G. (1975). Sociology: A multiple paradigm science.
167. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Jones, K. (1990). General activity for management Robichaud, D., Giroux, H., & Taylor, J. R. (2004). The
education - a deliberate ambivalent. Simulation/Game Metaconversation: The Recursive Property of Language
for Learning, 20(2), 142-151. as a Key to Organizing. Academy of Management
Juul, J. (2001). Game telling stories? A brief note on game Review, 29(4), 617-634.
and narratives. Game Studies, 1(1). [On-line] Available: Roebuck, M. (1978). Simulation game and the teacher as an
http://gametudies.org/0101. adaptive interventionist. In R. McAleese (Ed.),
Kirkley, S. E., & Kirkley, J. R. (2005).Creating Next Perspectives on Academic Gaming and Simulation, 3,
Generation Blended Learning Environments Using 102-108. London: Kogan Page.
Mixed Reality, Video Game and Simulation. Ruben, B. D. (1999). Simulation, game, and experience-
TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve based learning: The quest for a new paradigm for
Learning, 49(3), 42-53, 89. teaching and learning. Simulation & Gaming, 30(4),
Klein, E. E., & Herskovitz, P. J. (2005). Philosophical 498-505.
foundations of computer simulation validation. Ryan, M. L. (2001). Beyond Myth and Metaphor: The Case
Simulation & Gaming, 36(3), 303-329 of Narrative in Digital Media. Game Studies 1(1). [On-
Kleindorfer, G. B., O’Neill, L., & Ganeshan, R. (1998). line] Available: http://www.gametudies.org/0101/.
Validation in simulation: Various positions in the Schank, R. C. (1990). Tell Me a Story. Evanston, IL:
philosophy of science. Management Science, 44(8), Northwestern University Press.
1087-1099. Thatcher, D. (1986). Promoting learning through game and
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. simulation. Simulation/Game for Learning, 16(4), 144-
Chicago: Chicago University Press. 154.
Landow, G. (1997). Hypertext 2.0: The Convergence of The Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-
Contemporary Critical Theory and Technology, based research: An emerging paradigm for educational
London, UK: The John Hopkins University Press. inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.
Laveault, D., & Corbeil, P. (1990). Assessing the impact of Van Horn, R. L. (1971). Validation of Simulation Results.
simulation game on learning: A step by step approach. Management Science, 17(5), 247-258.
Simulation/Game for Learning, 20(1), 41-53. Walther, B. K. (2003). Playing and Gaming: Reflections and
Lundberg, C. C,. & Young, C. A. (2005). Foundations for Classifications. Game Studies, 3(1). [On-line]
Inquiry: Choices and Trade-Offs in the Organizational Available: http://www.gamestudies.org/0301/Walther/.
Sciences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations.
Martin, J. E. & Kleindorfer, G. B. (1991). The Argumentum Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ad Hominem and Two Theses About Evolutionary Young, B. M. (2005). The Last Word on the Last Word on
Epistemology: 'Godelian' Reflections. Metaphilosophy, the Ludology/Narratology Debate Debate. [Online]
22, 63-88. Available:
Mateas, M. (2002). Interactive Drama, Art and Artificial http://popularculturegaming.com/archives/000130.html.
Intelligence. Technical Report CMU-CS-02-206,
School of Computer Science. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie
Mellon University.
Miller, S. (2005). The story with ludology. [On-line]
Available:
http://dukenukem.typepad.com/game_matters/2005/06/t
he_story_with_html.
Ong, S.K., & Mannan, M.A. (2004). Virtual reality
simulation and animations in a web-based interactive
manufacturing engineering module. Computers &
Education, 43(4), 361-382.

369
 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 33, 2006
Appendix A: Sample of Works in Simulation with Associated Philosophical Position

Philosophical
Subtopic General themes Citations Position
Learner
Orientation Inability to deal with cognitive demands Jonassen, 1989 n/a
Hawk, McLeod &
Designer neglect of learner support Jonassen, 1985 n/a
Hannafin & Hughes,
Roles of explicit behavioral objectives 1986 Narratology
Ho, Savenye & Haas,
Specificity of activities and attention 1986 Narratology
Specificity of activities and learner ability to Krahn & Blanchaer,
generalize information 1986 Narratology
Edwards & Hardman,
Learner disorientation 1989 n/a
Lesson Gavora & Hannafin,
Presentation Cognitive resource allocation 1995 n/a
Multimodal presentation and multiple Hsia, 1971; Severin,
coding 1967 Ludology
Multimodal presentation and redundancy of Van Mondfrans &
information Travers, 1964 Ludology
Mutimodal presentation and learner
performance Yang, 1993 Ludology
Information coding and recall Paivio, 1979 Narratology
Visual representations / illustrations Perkins & Unger, 1994 Ludology
Illustrations and content recall Dunston, 1992 n/a
Illustrations and content integration Kenny, 1993 n/a
Animation Park & Gittleman, 1992 n/a
Animation and support or replacement to Mayer & Anderson,
oral presentation 1992 n/a
Animation providing coding support and
feedback Rieber, 1992 n/a
Interaction with and manipulation of
animated content Rieber, 1990 Ludology
Fidelity and learner performance Alessi, 1988 Ludology
Aspillaga, 1991;
Text placement and display Grabinger, 1993 n/a
Benshoof & Hooper,
Metering information with windows 1993; Billingsly, 1988 n/a
Dwyer & Lamberski,
Effectiveness of color 1982-1983 Ludology
Hannafin & Peck, 1988;
Distraction potential of color Rieber, 1994 Ludology
Encoding
Support Stages of reaching learning meaningfulness Mayer, 1993 Narratology
Stimulation of deeper information
processing Wittrock, 1990 n/a
Effectiveness of encoding support Bliss, 1994 n/a
Personalized instruction and memory Miller & Kulhavy, 1991 n/a
Personalized instruction, self-referencing,
and cognitive demands Lopez & Sullivan, 1991 n/a
Interaction, overt responses, and
differentiated lesson branching Floyd, 1982 Ludology

370
 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 33, 2006

Interaction and response frequency Bork, 1985 Ludology

Conceptual model for human-computer Gavora & Hannafin,
interaction 1995 Ludology
Error Allen, Lipson, & Fisher,
Correction Embedding errors in simulations 1989 n/a
Error isolation through graphic overlay Clancy, 1986 n/a
Woodward & Howard,
Diagnostic systems for errors 1994 n/a
Bangert-Drowns, Kulik,
Feedback on errors and performance Kulik, & Morgan, 1991 n/a
Kulhavy & Stock, 1989;
Verification and elaboration in feedback on Priedemore & Klein,
errors 1991 n/a
Response certainty and feedback on errors Litchfield, 1993 n/a
Lesson
Sequencing Learner control of sequencing Schwier, 1992 Ludology
Benefits and liabilities of learner control Steinberg, 1977; 1989 Ludology
Kinzie, 1990; Kinzie &
Berdel, 1990; Lepper,
Learner control , achievement, attitudes, & 1985; Pollock &
motivation Sullivan, 1990 Ludology
Learner control, self-attribution,
achievement & behavior Kohn, 1993 Ludology
Complete control, explicit requirements, and
learner characteristics Chun & Reigeluth, 1992 Ludology
Adaptive control, user needs and traits Boyd & Mitchell, 1992 Ludology
Adaptive control and ongoing performance Tennyson, 1984 Ludology
Adaptive control using mathematical
equations Ross & Morrison, 1988 Ludology
Tennyson & Christensen,
Adaptive control using computer judgment 1988 Ludology
Salomon, Perkins &
Adaptive control using learner judgment Globerson, 1991 Ludology
Learner passivity and hypermedia freedom Santiago & Okey, 1992 Ludology
Hannfin, Hall, Land &
Advisement and lesson execution Hill, 1994 n/a
Advisement and passive learners Lee & Lehman, 1993 n/a
Bliss & Ogborn, 1989;
Horwitz & Fuerzeig,
Hypermedia linking and learner access to 1994; Reader &
information Hammond, 1994 Ludology
Intrinsic and continuing motivation and
Motivation participation Kinzie, 1990 n/a
Continuing motivation and external Seymour, Sullivan, Story
motivators & Mosley, 1987 n/a
Inherent motivation of computer-based Malone, 1981; Rieber,
learning 1992 n/a
Conceptual model for computer-based
learning motivation Keller & Suzuki, 1988 Narratology
Taxonomy of intrinsic learner motivation
and control Malone & Lepper, 1987 n/a

371
 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 33, 2006

Knowledge
Application Teaching approaches for problem-solving Lambrecht, 1993 n/a
Delclos & Harrington,
Monitoring of problem-solving 1991 n/a
Embedding strategic questions and problem-
solving King, 1991 n/a
Generalizability and effectiveness of Perkins & Salomon,
strategies 1989 n/a
Computer-based cognitive tools and
teaching problem-solving strategies Kozma, 1987 n/a
Pea & Kurland, 1987;
Domain-specific background and Perkins & Salomon,
proficiency 1989 n/a
Concept utility and context diversity Prawat, 1991 Narratology
Computer augmentation of problem-solving Pea, 1992 n/a
Computer-aided mental transformation Kozma, 1991 n/a
Motion sensor feedback and learner
association Brasell, 1987 Ludology
Motion sensor feedback and learner
association Brasell, 1987 Ludology
Interactive video and problem-solving Atkkins & Blisset, 1992 Ludology
"Near" and "far" transfer continuums Clark & Voogel, 1985 n/a
Salomon & Perkins,
Instructional strategy's impact on transfer 1989 n/a
Computer microworlds as representing Kozma, 1991; White,
abstract, physical phenomena 1992 Narratology
Salomon & Perkins,
Mindful abstraction and "high-road" transfer 1989 n/a
Meaningful context, knowledge and skill Choi & Hannafin, 1995 Narratology

372