Although game studies are widely viewed as an interdisciplinary field, it is unclear how interdisciplinary they actually are. In response, this article reads scientometric data and game studies editorials, handbooks, and introductions through the lens of interdisciplinarity studies to assess game studies’ status as an interdiscipline. It argues that game studies show drivers and hurdles typical for interdisciplines. Yet instead of establishing themselves as the broad umbrella interdiscipline of digital game research, they are becoming one narrow cultural studies multidiscipline within the growing and diversifying field of game research and education. Researchers from fields like human–computer interaction or communication are abandoning game studies venues in favor of disciplinary ones—ironically thanks to game studies legitimizing game research. This article suggests that a design orientation and cross-disciplinary boundary objects such as middle range theories could help to broaden, deepen, and secure future interdisciplinary game research.
AarsethE. (2007). I fought the law: Transgressive play and the implied player. In Situated play, proceedings of DiGRA 2007 conference (pp. 130–133). Tokyo, Japan: DiGRA. Retrieved fromhttp://www.digra.org/dl/db/07313.03489.pdf
BernhauptR. (Ed.). (2010). Evaluating user experience in games: Concepts and methods. London, England: Springer.
8.
BernhauptR.IsbisterK. (2013). A new perspective for the games and entertainment community. In CHI EA’13 (pp. 2489–2492). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/2468356.2468812
9.
BjörkS.DeterdingS.DormansJ.RogersonM.ZagalJ. P. (2015, 5). Tabletop game studies. Paper presented at DiGRA 2015: Diversity of Play, Lüneburg. Lüneburg: DiGRA.
BogostI. (2012). Alien phenomenology, or, what it’s like to be a thing. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
12.
BoradkarP. (2010). Design as problem solving. In FrodemanR.KleinJ. T.MitchamC. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp. 273–287). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
13.
BoutetM.CoavouxS.ZabbanV. (2014). Beyond WoW studies: A scientometric approach to game studies through video game genres. Paper presented at 10th Annual Tampere Game Studies Spring Seminar: Critical Evaluation of Game Studies, Tampere, Finland. Tampere, Finland: University of Tampere.
14.
CarterM.DownsJ.NansenB.HarropM.GibbsM. (2014). Paradigms of games research in HCI: A review of 10 years of research at CHI. Paper presented at the first ACM SIGCHI Annual Symposium on Computer–Human Interaction in Play, CHI PLay’14, Toronto, Canada (pp. 27–36). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/2658537.2658708
15.
ChapmanO.SawchukK. (2012). Research-creation: Intervention, analysis and “family resemblances.”Canadian Journal of Communication, 37, 5–26.
16.
CollinsA.JosephD.BielaczycK. (2009). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 15–42.
17.
ConsalvoM.PaulC. (2013). Welcome to the discourse of the real: Constituting the boundaries of games and players. Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games, FDG’13, Chania, Greece (pp. 55–62). Santa Cruz, CA: Society for the Advancement of the Science of Digital Games.
18.
CrookallD. (2012). The founding of modern simulation/gaming: S&G and ISAGA for decades on. Simulation & Gaming, 43, 5–14.
19.
DeterdingS. (2015). The ambiguity of games: Histories and discourses of a gameful world. In WalzS. P.DeterdingS. (Eds.), The gameful world: Approaches, issues, applications (pp. 23–64). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20.
De VreeseC. H. (2005). News framing: Theory and typology. Information Design Journal + Document Design, 13, 51–62.
Egenfeldt-NielsenS.Heide SmithJ.ToscaS. P. (2012). Understanding video games: The essential introduction (2nd ed.). London, England: Routledge.
23.
EngelsT. C. E.OssenblokT. L. B.SpruytE. H. J. (2012). Changing publication patterns in the Social Sciences and Humanities, 2000–2009. Scientometrics, 93, 373–390. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0680-2
24.
DeZureD. (2010). Interdisciplinary pedagogies in higher education. In FrodemanR.KleinJ. T.MitchamC. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp. 372–386). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
25.
Dyer-WithefordN.de PeuterG. (2009). Games of empire: Global capitalism and video games. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
26.
FergusonC. J. (2011). Violent video games and the Supreme Court: Lessons for the scientific community in the wake of Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association. The American Psychologist, 68, 57–74. doi:10.1037/a0030597
27.
FrodemanR. (2010). Introduction. In FrodemanR.KleinJ. T.MitchamC. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp. xxix–xxxix). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
28.
GeeJ.-P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
29.
GierynT. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48, 781–795. doi:10.2307/2095325
30.
GolinskiJ. (2005). Making natural knowledge: Constructivism and the history of science (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
HartsonR.PylaP. (2012). The UX book: Process and guidelines for ensuring a quality user experience. Waltham, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.
33.
HeadlandT. N. (1990). Introduction: A dialogue between Kenneth Pike and Marvin Harris on emics and etics. In HeadlandT. N.PikeK. L.HarrisM. (Eds.), Emics and etics: The insider/outsider debate (pp. 13–27). London, England: Sage.
34.
HesseH. (1975). The glass bead game. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin. (Original work published 1943)
35.
HillsM. (2002). Fan cultures. London, England: Routledge.
36.
HolbrookJ. B. (2010). Peer review. In FrodemanR.KleinJ. T.MitchamC. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp. 321–332). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
37.
HuutoniemiK. (2010). Evaluating interdisciplinary research. In FrodemanR.KleinJ. T.MitchamC. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp. 309–320). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
38.
HuutoniemiK.KleinJ. T.BruunH.HukkinenJ. (2010). Analyzing interdisciplinarity: Typology and indicators. Research Policy, 39, 79–88. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2009.09.011
39.
IsbisterK.SchafferN. (2008). Game usability: Advice from the experts for advancing the player experience. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Morgan Kaufman.
40.
JacobsJ. A.FrickelS. (2009). Interdisciplinarity: A critical assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 43–65. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115954
41.
JasanoffS. (2010). A field of its own: The emergence of science and technology studies. In FrodemanR.KleinJ. T.MitchamC. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp. 191–205). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
JenkinsH. (2006). Fans, bloggers, and gamers: Exploring participatory culture. New York: New York University Press.
44.
KarlsenF. (2015). Analyzing game controversies: A historical approach to moral panics and digital games. In MortensenT. E.LinderothJ.BrownA. M. L. (Eds.), The dark side of game play: Controversial issues in playful environments (pp. 15–32). London, England: Routledge.
45.
KleinJ. T. (2010). A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In FrodemanR.KleinJ. T.MitchamC. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp. 15–30). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
46.
KonzackL. (2007). Rhetorics of computer and video game research. In WilliamsJ. P.Heide SmithJ. (Eds.), The player’s realm: Studies on the culture of video games and gaming (pp. 110–130). Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
KultimaA. (2015, 9). Game design research. Paper presented at the 19th International Academic Mindtrek Conference, Academic Mindtrek’15, Tampere, Finland (pp. 18–25). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/2818187.2818300
49.
LatourB. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
50.
LatourB. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
51.
LinderothJ.BjörkS.OlssonC. (2014). Should I stay or should I go? A Study of Pickup Groups. Left 4 Dead 2. ToDiGRA, 1, 117–145.
52.
LiséeC.LarivièreV.ArchambaultE. (2008). Conference proceedings as a source of scientific information: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, 1776–1784. doi:10.1002/asi.20888
53.
MäyräF. (2008). An introduction to game studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
54.
MäyräF. (2009). Getting into the game: Doing multidisciplinary game studies. In PerronB.WolfM. J. P. (Eds.), The video game theory reader2 (pp. 313–329). New York, NY: Routledge.
55.
MäyräF.DeterdingS.ConsalvoM.RaessensJ.GiddingsS.MortensenT. E.JørgensenK. (2015, 5). From game studies to studies of play in society. Paper presented at DiGRA 2015: Diversity of Play, Lüneburg, Germany. Lüneburg: DiGRA.
56.
MäyräF.van LooyJ.QuandtT. (2013, 8). Disciplinary identity of game scholars: An outline. Paper presented at DiGRA 2013: DeFragging game studies, Atlanta, GA. Atlanta, GA: DiGRA.
57.
MelcerE.NguyenT. D.ChenZ.CanossaA.El-NasrM. S.IsbisterK. (2015, 6). Games research today: Analyzing the academic landscape 2000-2014. Paper presented at Foundations of Digital Games 2015, Pacific Grove, CA. Santa Cruz, CA: Society for the Advancement of the Study of Digital Games.
58.
MertonR. K. (2007). On sociological theories of the middle. In CalhounC. (Ed.), Classical sociological theory (pp. 448–459). Waltham, MA: Blackwell.
59.
MontfortN.BogostI. (2009). Racing the beam: The Atari Video computer system. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
60.
PfirmanS.MartinP. J. S. (2010). Facilitating interdisciplinary scholars. In FrodemanR.KleinJ. T.MitchamC. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp. 387–403). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
61.
PrenskyM. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
62.
QuandtT.Van LooyJ.VogelgesangJ.ElsonM.IvoryJ. D.ConsalvoM.MäyräF. (2015). Digital games research: A survey study on an emerging field and its prevalent debates. Journal of Communication, 65, 975–996. doi:10.1111/jcom.12182
63.
RaaschC.LeeV.SpaethS.HerstattC. (2013). The rise and fall of interdisciplinary research: The case of open source innovation. Research Policy, 42, 1138–1151. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.01.010
64.
RaessensJ.GoldsteinJ. (2005). Introduction. In RaessensJ.GoldsteinJ. (Eds.), Handbook of computer game studies(pp. xi–xvii). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
RattoM. (2011). Critical making: Conceptual and material studies in technology and social life. The Information Society, 27, 252–260. doi:10.1080/01972243.2011.583819
67.
ReidH. (2012). Introduction to the philosophy of sport. Plymouth, England: Rowman & Littlefield.
68.
ReineckeL.TrepteS. (Eds.). (2012). Unterhaltung in neuen Medien: Perspektiven zur Rezeption und Wirkung von Online-Medien und interaktiven Unterhaltungsformaten. Köln, Germany: Herbert von Halem.
69.
RepkoA. F. (2011). Interdisciplinary research: Process and theory (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
RojekC.ShawS.VealT. (Eds.). (2006). A handbook of leisure studies. Houndmills, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
72.
SalenK.ZimmermanE. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
73.
SawyerB. (2002). Serious games: Improving public policy through game-based learning and simulation (No. 2002-1). Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
74.
SeabornK.FelsD. I. (2015). Gamification in theory and action: A survey. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 74, 14–31. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.09.006
StarS. L. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology & Human Values, 35, 601–617. doi:10.1177/0162243910377624
Sutton-SmithB. (1997). The ambiguity of play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
79.
ThagardP. (2010). Cognitive science. In FrodemanR.KleinJ. T.MitchamC. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp. 234–245). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
80.
TreanorM.SchweizerB.BogostI.MateasM. (2012, 5). The micro-rhetorics of game-O-matic. Paper presented at Foundations of Digital Games 2012, Raleigh, NC (pp. 18–25). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/2282338.2282347
81.
Van RijnsoeverF. J.HesselsL. K. (2011). Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration. Research Policy, 40, 463–472.
82.
VordererP.BryantJ. (Eds.). (2006). Playing video games: Motives, responses, and consequences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
WalzS. P.DeterdingS. (Eds.). (2015). The gameful world: Approaches, issues, applications. Cambridge, MA, London: MIT Press.
85.
Wardrip-FruinN.MontfortN. (Eds.). (2003). The new media reader. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
86.
WeingartP. (2010). A short history of knowledge formations. In FrodemanR.KleinJ. T.MitchamC. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp. 3–14). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
