While serious games have been used within the field of international development since 2005, their adoption as tools for social and behavior change has remained fairly limited. Using Bourdieu’s theory of practice as an analytical framework, this study examines the tensions created when the fields of international development and serious games are brought together. In-depth interviews with development practitioners and game experts responsible for creating the nonprofit Half the Sky Movement’s mobile phone and Facebook games are used to examine how logistical considerations and ideological conflicts between agents from differing fields shape the limitations and possibilities of bringing games into the development space. Further, this study analyzes the new forms of Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus and capital created through this overlap in fields, filling an existing gap in the extant literature on the production and use of games for international development.
BourideuP (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2.
BourdieuP (1993) The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature, New York: Columbia University Press.
3.
BourdieuP (2005) The political field, the social science field, and journalistic field. In: BensonRNeveuE (eds) Bourdieu and the Journalistic Field, Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 29–47.
4.
BrymanA (2012) Social Research Methods, 4th ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
5.
BurakAParkerL (2017) Power Play: How Video Games Can Save the World, New York: St. Martin’s Press.
6.
CastranovaE (2005) Synthetic Worlds: The Business and Culture of Online Games, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
7.
ChavezC (2012) Hispanic agencies and profits of distinction: An examination of the advertising industry as a field of cultural production. Consumption Markets and Culture15(3): 307–325.
8.
CornwallA (2003) Whose voices? Whose choices? Reflections on gender and participatory development. World Development31(8): 1325–1342.
9.
CraigDPorterD (1997) Framing participation: Projects, professionals, and organisations. Development in Practice7(3): 229–236.
10.
Dyer-WithefordNde PetuerG (2009) Games of Empire: Global Capitalism and Video Games, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
11.
EscobarA (1995) Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
12.
EscobarA (1997) The making and unmaking of the Third World through development. In: RahnemaMBawtreeV (eds) The Post Development Reader, London: Zed Books, pp. 85–93.
13.
FairJE (1989) 29 years of theory and research on media and development: The dominant paradigm impact. Gazette44: 129–150.
14.
FairJEShahH (1997) Continuities and discontinuities in communication and development research since 1958. The Journal of International Communication4(2): 3–23.
15.
FergusonJ (1994) The Anti-Politics Machine, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
16.
GeeJP (2005) Good video games and good learning. Phi Kappa Forum85(2): 33–37.
17.
GeeJP (2007) What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy, New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
18.
Hays RT (2005) The effectiveness of instruction games: A literature review and discussion. Naval Air Warfar Center Training Systems Division (No 2005-004).
19.
JamesJ (2005) Technological blending in the age of the internet: A developing country perspective. Telecommunications Policy29: 285–296.
20.
Kam M, Kumar A, Jain S, et al (2009) Improving literacy in rural India: Cellphone games in an after-school program. In: Published as part of the information and communication technologies and development (ICTD) 2009 international conference, Doha, Qatar.
21.
KlabbersVKruiderinkN (2007) Users and tools: The art of matchmaking. Challenges in choosing appropriate online collaboration tools for development professionals and practitioners. Knowledge Management for Development Journal3(1): 5–25.
22.
KlimmtC (2009) Serious games and social change: Why they (should) work. In: RitterfeldUCodyMVordererP (eds) Serious Games: Mechanisms and Effects, New York: Routledge, pp. 248–270.
23.
LernerD (1958) The Passing of Traditional Society: Modernizing the Middle East, New York: Free Press.
LeyeV (2009) Information and communication technologies for development: A critical perspective. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations15(1): 29–35.
28.
OganCBashirMCamajL, et al.2009) Development communication: The state of research in an era of ICTs and globalization. International Communication Gazzette71(8): 655–670.
29.
ParpartJ (1995) Deconstructing the development “expert.”. In: MarchandMParpartJ (eds) Feminism, Postmodernism and Development, London: Routledge, pp. 221–243.
30.
Rao L (1963) Communication and development: A study of two Indian villages. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Minnesota, St. Paul.
31.
RogersEM (1976a) Communication and development: The passing of the dominant paradigm. Communication Research3(2): 213–240.
32.
SchrammW (1964) Mass Media and National Development, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
33.
SchultzI (2007) The journalistic gut feeling. Journalism Practice1(2): 190–207.
34.
SinghalARogersEM (1999) Entertainment-Education: A Communication Strategy for Social Change, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Swain C (2007) Designing games to effect social change. In: Proceedings of the 2007 DiGRA International Conference: Situated Play. Tokyo, Japan, pp. 805–809.
WalshamG (2017) ICT4D research: Reflections on history and future agenda. Information Technology for Development23(1): 18–41.
39.
WhiteNKanterBSarkerP, et al.2007) Editorial. Stewarding technologies for collaboration, community building and knowledge sharing in development. KM4D Journal1(2): 2–4.
40.
Willig I (2008) Craft and conservation: Features of Danish journalism culture: Using field theory as a framework for a sociology of journalism culture. In: Paper presented at international communication association conference, San Francisco, USA.
