Information infrastructures for migration management significantly affect border-crossers’ life, yet they are not considered users of those infrastructures. Drawing on material publics and design justice, we hypothesize that border-crossers should be engaged in the (re)design of the classificatory infrastructures usually deployed in migration control. To further this hypothesis we developed a collaborative, role playing, serious game which was conceived as a “design site” to explore alternative classifications and to co-produce knowledge. During the game, players are invited to design an application form containing the personal information of fictional characters. The game was tested with different actors (asylum seekers, activists, lawyers, students) with unexpected results. Participants struggled to “think with” categories and they tended to reproduce the categories commonly deployed in migration infrastructures. Still, the game succeeded in working as “knowledge exposure”, as it revealed and increased players’ familiarity with the dynamics of migration control. Border-crossers perceived the game as a meaning-making and learning activity, whereas other actors mobilized their own professional skills. We argue that games might be sites where marginalized communities could develop knowledge, skills and resources for reflecting about and changing the technologies affecting their lives.
CollinsP. H. (2002). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Routledge.
4.
CollinsS. G.DumitJ.DuringtonM.González-TennantE.HarperK.MizerN.SalterA. (2017a). Gaming anthropology: A sourcebook from #anthropologycon. Retrieved from. https://anthropologycon.org/
5.
CollinsS. G.DuringtonM.GillH. (2017b). Multimodality: An invitation. American Anthropologist, 119(1), 142–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.12826
6.
Costanza-ChockS. (2018). Design Justice: towards an intersectional feminist framework for design theory and practice. In StorniC.LeahyK.McMahonM.LloydP.BohemiaE. (Eds.), Design as a catalyst for change - DRS International Conference 2018, 25-28 June. Limerick, Ireland. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2018.679
7.
Costanza-ChockS. (2020). Design justice: Community-led practices to build the worlds we need. The MIT Press.
8.
CrenshawK. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1, 139–167.
9.
CriadoT.FaríasI.SchröderJ. (2022). Multimodal values: The challenge of institutionalizing and evaluating more-than-textual ethnography. Entanglements, 5(1/2), 94–107.
DattatreyanE. G.Marrero‐GuillamónI. (2019). Introduction: Multimodal anthropology and the politics of invention. American Anthropologist, 121(1), 220–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.13183
12.
DeweyJ. (1927). The public and its problems. Athens: Swallow Press and Ohio University Press.
13.
DijstelbloemH.BroedersD. (2015). Border surveillance, mobility management and the shaping of non-publics in Europe. European Journal of Social Theory, 18(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431014534353
14.
DourishP. (2017). The stuff of bits. An essay on the materialities of information. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
FaríasI.CriadoT. S. (2022). How to game ethnography. In CriadoT. S.EstalellaA. (Eds.), An ethnographic inventory: Field devices for anthropological inquiries. London: Routledge.
17.
FathiM.NasimiR. (2023). Art practice with migrant women: Three challenges to rediscovering home. Action Research, 21(4), 438–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/14767503221086531
18.
GibbsL.KornbluhM.MarinkovicK.BellS.OzerE. J. (2020). Using technology to scale up youth-led participatory action research: A systematic review. Journal of Adolescent Health, 67(2), S14–S23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.10.019
19.
GoedhartN. S.LemsE.Zuiderent-JerakT.PittensC. A.BroerseJ. E.DeddingC. (2022). Fun, engaging and easily shareable? Exploring the value of co-creating vlogs with citizens from disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Action Research, 20(1), 56–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/14767503211044011
20.
GriffithsM. (2014). Out of time: The temporal uncertainties of refused asylum seekers and immigration detainees. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 40(12), 1991–2009. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183x.2014.907737
21.
HunickeR.LeBlancM.ZubekR. (2004). MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research. Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI, 4(1), 1722.
22.
JovchelovitchS.BauerM. (2000). Narrative interviewing. London: LSE Research Online.
23.
KaurinD. (2019). Data protection and digital agency for refugees. World Refugee Council Research Paper No. 12.
24.
KoningsteinM.AzadeganS. (2021). Participatory video for two-way communication in research for development. Action Research, 19(2), 218–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750318762032
25.
KudžmaitėG.PauwelsL. (2020). Researching visual manifestations of border spaces and experiences: Conceptual and methodological perspectives. Geopolitics, 27(1), 260–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2020.1749838
26.
LenetteC. (2019). Arts-based methods in refugee research - Creating sanctuary. Singapore: Springer.
27.
MarresN. (2012). Material participation: Technology, the environment and everyday publics. Springer.
28.
MarresN.GuggenheimM.WilkieA. (2018). Inventing the social. Manchester: Mattering Press.
29.
MitchellH. A.WaightsV.HartT. (2024). Digital storytelling within a community-based mental health improvement programme (ARCLIGHT) in Guyana. Action Research, 23(4), 387–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/14767503241296717
Nikielska-SekulaK.DesilleA. (2021). Visual methodology in migration studies. New possibilities, theoretical implications, and ethical questions. Springer.
32.
OlivieriL. (2023). Temporalities of migration. Padova University Press.
33.
OlivieriL.PelizzaA.ColettaC. (2023). Temporalities of non-knowledge production: The quest for acceleration in the asylum system. Rassegna Italiana di Sociologia, 64(4), 733–762. https://doi.org/10.1423/112403
34.
PelizzaA. (2020). Processing alterity, enacting Europe. Migrant registration and identification as co-construction of individuals and polities. Science, Technology and Human Values, 45(2), 262–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243919827927
35.
PelizzaA. (2021). Identification as translation: The art of choosing the right spokespersons at the securitized border. Social Studies of Science, 51(4), 487–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312720983932
36.
PelizzaA.Van RossemW. (2023). Scripts of alterity: Mapping assumptions and limitations of the border security apparatus through classification schemas. Science, Technology and Human Values, 49(4), 794–826. https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439231195955
37.
PerrottonA.de Garine-WichatitskyM.Valls-FoxH.Le PageC. (2017). My cattle and your park codesigning a role-playing game with rural communities topromote multistakeholder dialogue at the edge of protected areas. Ecology and Society, 22(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08962-220135
38.
RenemanM.StronksM. (2021). What are they waiting for? The use of acceleration and deceleration in asylum procedures by the Dutch government. Time and Society, 30(3), 302–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X211006053
39.
RiessmanC. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Sage Publication, Inc.
ShaidrovaM.Pagliuca PelacaniM.Mena MontesN. (2022). Using collaborative exhibition-making to engage with the representation of Nigerian women in Palermo: Iloi as a case study in the application of a participatory ‘collage methodology. Comunicazioni Sociali, 1, 75–87.
43.
SuchmanL. (1993). Do categories have politics? The language/action perspective reconsidered. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2(3), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00749015
44.
SuchmanL.FollisK.WeberJ. (2017). Tracking and targeting: Sociotechnologies of (in)security. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 42(6), 983–1002. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243917731524
45.
TurnbullS. (2015). Stuck in the middle: Waiting and uncertainty in immigration detention. Time & Society, 25(1), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X15604518
46.
WalkW.GörlichD.BarrettM. (2017). Design, dynamics, experience (DDE): an advancement of the MDA framework for game design. In KornO.LeeN. (Eds.), Game dynamics. Game dynamics: Best practices in procedural and dynamic game content generation (pp. 27–45). Springer International Publishing.
47.
WendelV.KonertJ. (2016). Multiplayer serious games. In RalfD.GöbelS.EffelsbergW.WiemersJ. (Eds.), Serious games: Foundations, concepts and practice (pp. 211–241). Springer International Publishing.
48.
WinnB. (2009). The design, play, and experience framework. Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education, 1010–1024.
49.
ZagalJ. P.DeterdingS. (2018). Definitions of “role-playing games”. In DeterdingS.ZagalJ. (Eds.), Role-playing game studies: Transmedia foundations (pp. 19–51). Routledge.
50.
ZubekR. (2020). Elements of game design. MIT Press.
51.
Zuiderent-JerakT. (2016). If intervention is method, what are we learning?Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 2, 73–82. https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2016.90
52.
Zuiderent-JerakT.DowneyG. L. (2017). Making and doing: Expanding knowledge production, expression, and travel in STS. In MillerC.Smith-DoerrL.FeltU.FouchéR. (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (4th ed, pp. 223–252). MIT Press.
