Background. This article reports on pedagogical experiences of designing and teaching an active learning international relations (IR) course utilizing the classical board game DIPLOMACY, with added game elements and modified game rules to make the game better suited for educational purposes.
Aim. Game adaptations include team play, a dedicated peace mediator team, altered win rules and a post-game debriefing discussion on different cultures of anarchy. These elements were designed to overcome a shortcoming that the game approximates a worldview akin to offensive realism, which is not practical in contemporary international relations, and also normatively objectionable to many IR scholars.
Method. Teacher experiences designing and modifying the course, coupled with student feedback on the course concept from three consecutive years.
Results. Student feedback has been exceedingly positive, with a 4.61 average grade (n = 210 grades) on a five-point Likert-type scale, where 1 signifies poor and 5 excellent.
Conclusions. Through game modifications, students turned a game infamous for its backstabbing and breaking of promises into a game that resolves in a mediated and negotiated outcome. The findings suggest that DIPLOMACY can be useful beyond teaching the realist worldview, and adapted to create a more accurate microworld approximation of international relations.
AllisonG. (1971). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Boston, MA: Little Brown.
2.
AsalV. (2005). Playing games with international relations. International Studies Perspectives, 6, 359-373. doi:10.1111/j.1528-3577.2005.00213.x
3.
BrownS. W.KingF. B. (2000). Constructivist pedagogy and how we learn: Educational psychology meets international studies. International Studies Perspectives, 1(3), 245-254. doi:10.1111/1528-3577.00025
4.
BullH. (1995). The anarchical society: A study of order in world politics (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. (Original work published 1977)
5.
CalhamerA. B. (1999). Calhamer on DIPLOMACY. The boardgame “DIPLOMACY” and diplomatic history (2nd ed.). Bloomington, IN: Authorhouse.
6.
CariniR. M.KuhG. D.KleinS. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1-32. doi:10.1007/s11162-005-8150-9
7.
CoghlanC. L.HugginsD. W. (2004). That’s not fair! A simulation exercise in social stratification and structural inequality. Teaching Sociology, 32, 177-187. doi:10.1177/0092055X0403200203
8.
CooperR. (2000). The post-modern state and the world order. London: Demos.
9.
CrookallD. (2010). Serious games, debriefing, and simulation/gaming as a discipline. Simulation & Gaming, 41(6), 898-920. doi:10.1177/1046878110390784
10.
DrakeP.SungK. (2011). Teaching introductory programming with popular board games. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 619-624). doi:10.1145/1953163.1953338
11.
EskinB. (2004, November14). World domination: The game. Washington Post.
12.
FrankA. (2012). Gaming the game: A study of the gamer mode in educational wargaming. Simulation & Gaming, 43(1), 118-132. doi:10.1177/1046878111408796
13.
GattieG. (2004). Investigating dynamic environments using the game of DIPLOMACY. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th Annual Meeting (pp. 571-575).
14.
HessF. M. (1999). Bringing the social sciences alive. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
15.
HoyB. (2018). Teaching history with custom-built board games. Simulation & Gaming, 49(2), 115-133. doi:10.1177/1046878118763624
16.
HuangA.LevinsonD. (2012). To game or not to game. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2307, 141-149. doi:10.3141/2307-15
17.
HudsonV. M. (2014). Foreign policy analysis: Classic and contemporary theory (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
18.
JohnstonA. I. (1995). Cultural realism: Strategic culture and grand strategy in Chinese history. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
19.
KauneckisD. L.AuerM. R. (2013). A simulation of international climate regime formation. Simulation & Gaming, 44(2-3), 302-327. doi:10.1177/1046878112470542
20.
KissingerH. (1994). Diplomacy. London, England: Simon & Schuster.
21.
KupermanR. D. (2010). Analyzing conflict dynamics with the aid of an interactive microworld simulator of a fishing dispute. Simulation & Gaming, 41(3), 293-315. doi:10.1177/1046878109341397
22.
LogginsJ. (2009). Simulating the foreign-policy decision-making process in the undergraduate classroom. PS: Political Science & Politics, 42(2), 401-407. doi:10.1017/S1049096509090544
23.
MännarmaaI. (2015). FOUNTAINS: Table-top simulation game on acculturation strategies. Simulation & Gaming, 46(1), 113-126. doi:10.1177/1046878115591248
MayerI. S. (2009). The gaming of policy and the politics of gaming. Simulation & Gaming, 40(6), 825-862. doi:10.1177/1046878109346456
26.
MearsheimerJ. J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
27.
MoizerJ.LeanJ.TowlerM.AbbeyC. (2009). Simulations and games: Overcoming the barriers to their use in higher education. Active Learning in Higher Education, 10(3), 207-224. doi:10.1177/1469787409343188
28.
Niv-SolomonA.JanikL. L.BoyerM. A.HudsonN. F.UrlacherB.BrownS. W.ManeggiaD. (2009). Evolving beyond self-interest? Some experimental findings from simulated international negotiations. Simulation & Gaming, 42(6), 711-732. doi:10.1177/1046878109341764
29.
PainoM.ChinJ. (2011). MONOPOLY and critical theory: Gaming in a class on the sociology of deviance. Simulation & Gaming, 42(5), 571-588. doi:10.1177/1046878110391022
30.
PutnamR. D. (1988). Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games. International Organization, 42(3), 427-460. doi:10.1017/S0020818300027697
31.
RieberL. P. (1996). Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational Technology Research & Development, 44(2), 43-58. doi:10.1007/BF02300540
32.
RieberL. P.NoahD. (2008). Games, simulations, and visual metaphors in education: Antagonism between enjoyment and learning. Educational Media International, 45, 77-92. doi:10.1080/09523980802107096
33.
RommeA. G. L. (2004). Perceptions of the value of microworld simulation: Research note. Simulation & Gaming, 35(3), 427-436. doi:10.1177/1046878103261916
34.
RourkeJ. T. (1999). International politics on the world stage (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Dushkin/McGraw-Hill.
35.
TamaiM.KondoA.MiyawakiN. (2016). Understanding the history of international politics: Retrospective and repeated type of gaming and simulation in the classroom. In KanedaT.KanagaeH.ToyodaY.RizziP. (Eds.), Simulation and gaming in the network society conference proceedings (pp. 133-145). Singapore: Springer.
36.
TicknerJ. A. (2005). What is your research program? Some feminist answers to international relations methodological questions. International Studies Quarterly, 49, 1-21. doi:10.1111/j.0020-8833.2005.00332.x
37.
TragerR. F. (2017). Diplomacy: Communication and the origins of international order. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
38.
VermuntJ. D. (2007). The power of teaching-learning environments to influence student learning. In BJEP Monograph Series II: Nr 4. Student learning and university teaching (pp. 73-90). doi:10.1348/000709906X162406
39.
WeirK.BaranowskiM. (2011). Simulating history to understand international politics. Simulation & Gaming, 42(4), 441-461. doi:10.1177/1046878108325442
40.
WendtA. (2010). Social theory of international politics (13th ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1999)
41.
WightM. (1991). The three traditions of international theory. In WightG.PorterN. (Eds.), International theory: The three traditions (pp. 7-24). Leicester, UK: Leicester University Press.
