What are the Factors that Support the Development of Empathy within Gamers? – A Possible Framework for Studies

Contents

1. Introduction

1.1 Short Description of the Project

1.2 The Context of the Study – Why Research Games in this Way?

2. Empathy and Gaming

2.1 Defining Empathy

2.1.1 Philosophical Perspectives of Empathy

2.1.2 Psychological Perspectives of Empathy

2.2 Games Study and Empathy

3. Proposed Methodology

3.1 Research Questions

3.2 Initial Research Design

3.2.1 Overview

3.2.2 Pilot Study and Subsequent Findings for Future Study

3.3 Possible Research Process

3.3.1 Outline

3.3.2 Choosing the Texts To Investigate

3.4 Research Site and Participants / Ethical Considerations (Health and Safety, Site Access and Informed Consent & Data Protection, Confidentiality, and Anonymity)

Appendix

Bibliography

1. Introduction

1.1 Short Description of the Project

My research aims to determine how videogames can elicit empathy within gamers. It will attempt to identify the most salient factors in a game’s use of spaces, objects, and narratives in the augmentation of a gamer’s overall behaviour toward the game. It will attempt this in order to further develop the discipline of videogame study via consideration of how this empathetic engagement occurs. Should this be successful, I would hope that the research may be used as a foundation for highlighting the potential of using games within education for problem-based learning scenarios.

1.2 The Context of the Study – Why Research Games in this Way?

I first began to consider the idea of studying the potential of games as empathy generating scenarios for learners when I was teaching in schools between 2005 and 2014. Although I had extensive experience of encountering both happiness and frustration whilst playing games, it became increasingly obvious to me that these feelings were determinate on the level of emotional engagement I had with the text’s ludo-narrative (i.e. the balance between gameplay and story) properties. This was not unlike how my learners were more able to take positive understanding of a learning context were they emotionally engaged with the task.

This realisation led me to investigate further the connection between gaming and learning. Studying Gee and the notion of “on demand and just in time” (2003, 2013) made me wonder how I could make failure be seen simply as a placeholder term for the learners to try again in the same sense as ‘you died’, or ‘game over’. It was interesting to discover that deploying tasks in the form of client briefs (a learner-centred, constructivist approach) meant that learners did not require fun to demonstrate engaged understanding but rather relied on their ability to appreciate the assumed emotions of the fictional client as well as the significance of the overall goal in relation to their education. Should the learner be unsuccessful in a pitch to me (the teacher in the guise of the client), they were able to qualify failure as a prompt to try again rather than give up; they empathised with my feelings toward the pitch within the fiction as well as the importance of a successful pitch to their own grades in reality.

This engagement fascinated me in that it was seemingly dual-layered in terms of how it required simultaneous use of different types of empathetic understanding. Ultimately this led me back to the consideration of games once more. As with this teaching methodology, I knew that to fully ascertain whether games are able to increase engagement more as a result of the style of the game itself, the investment in the fictional roleplay, or a combination of both would need further analysis. And to begin to determine this, I would need to highlight the chief empathetic factors deployed by games.

2. Empathy and Gaming

By their nature, videogames are designed to elicit a range of emotions from players and are a financially successful medium in no small part due to that ability. In games then, fun, and all convergent emotions, arise from the initial mastery, comprehension, and solving of puzzles (Koster, 2004). Consequently, games have an inbuilt mechanism to access and engage an individual’s psychological responses, depending on how these skill-testing setups are structured (mental, dexterous, or a combination). To simply view games as detrimental in spite of this, be it academically along the lines of Susan Greenfield’s work linking videogames to autism (2014) or via an intrinsically problematic media approach of articles such as “Are videogames harming our kids?” (Manger, 2015), seems reductive at best or tacitly biased at worst.

Although there have been a number of studies investigating the positives of videogame engagement such as Weis & Cerankosky (2010) or Posso (2016), identifying the triggers for this phenomena lay relatively under-explored. Away from the potential neurological rewards of flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990), anecdotally, I have attributed my engagements to a connection with the game character’s situation – either in that I am gratified in my ability to help something or a notional someone with whom I empathise, or that I am so immersed with the journey of my projected digital self that I take on the concerns of an other. Empathy then, sits central to my perception of games as emotion-modifying texts. This is similar to how films are able to appeal to audiences with characters whom they know do not actually exist via the “paradox of fiction” (Carroll & Choi, 2006: 213). It may follow that a critical close reading of game texts would highlight whether specific factors of a game’s narrative prompts, stylistic features, and the player’s demonstrable engagement and understanding of them can be appreciated in the same manner. Before this can be done, however, a more rounded determination of empathy needs to be presented.

2.1 Defining Empathy

Empathy as a concept is sufficiently broad as to have featured in the disciplines of both philosophy and psychology and through sentimentalist tradition, aesthetics, and neuroscience (Coplan & Goldie, 2014). As such, defining a working term of empathy for a study of gaming that chronologically accounts for all its various uses over the years would be problematic. Instead, reflecting in turn on how empathy has been deployed either philosophically or psychologically before attributing the findings of both to a contemporary understanding would be more productive. It may also allow for a discussion of any aesthetic aspects through the lens of more modern scientific discovery; something earlier academics did not have the privilege to utilise.

2.1.1 Philosophical Perspectives of Empathy

Of all the contributions to the study of empathy, David Hume’s A Treatise on Human Nature (1739) and Adam Smith’s The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) are often credited with defining the core tenets. In these works, both written at the time of the Scottish Enlightenment, Hume and Smith talk of how one’s own opinions can become alike another’s based on a certain emotional acceptance.

“When any affection is infus’d by sympathy, it is at first known only by its effects, and by those external signs in the countenance and conversation, which convey an idea of it. This idea is

presently converted into an impression, and acquires such a degree of force and vivacity, as to become the very passion itself, and produce an equal emotion, as any original affection.”

(Hume, 1739/2007: 167)

“By the imagination we place ourselves in his situation, we conceive ourselves enduring all the

same torments, we enter as it were into his body, and become in some measure the same

person with him, and thence form some idea of his sensations, and even feel something which, though weaker in degree, is not altogether unlike them.” (Smith, 1759/2006: 4-5)

Both of these accounts could still be viewed as emphasising empathy’s consideration of another’s state of mind but they also could equally be describing what we would now call sympathy. This is because both Hume and Smith referred heavily to morality as defining these actions; a greater intellect appreciating the emotions of another rather than perhaps understanding or acquiescing to them. So whilst both accounts are able to take on “multiple duty [in that they might] explain how we come to experience others’ emotions [or] imaginative perspective taking” (Coplan & Goldie, 2014: XI), as a basis for ethical imperative and action rather than comprehension, it is difficult to presume these definitions can carry to contemporary use.

As suggested, in these early considerations of empathy, the key features, whilst not categorical, can be considered the foundation of investigating the “affective reactivity to others” (Davis, 1996: 9) that empathy engenders. In a philosophical manner, the argument would be that living in the same moral and cultural sphere as a specific other will give two people a similar perspective on life. Goldie talks of “base cases […] in which there are no relevant differences in the psychological dispositions of A, the person attempting to empathize and B, the target of the attempt” (Goldie, 2014: 307). Such a relationship might therefore lead to pro-social behaviour, sympathetic identification, or both within that sphere. Whether this could form a rationale as to why Japanese produced games are more readily consumed in Japan than Western games (and the opposite scenario also being the case)[footnoteRef:1] may be a point of interest. [1: Note how certain areas of Western audiences will involve themselves with Japanese culture at conventions such as Hyper Japan - http://hyperjapan.co.uk/whats-on/hyper-game-anime-park/]

Were such a theory proved to be true, it would mean that Smith’s empathy of moral sentimentalism and ‘knowing ourselves’ in relation to the societal group or classification we might choose to occupy is the most important factor in definition. However, this is problematic given that this tradition of empathy seems to concern itself primarily with the ways in which we connect with other minds and there will always be very clear exceptions to any such rule[footnoteRef:2]. Our individuality will always mean that a one size fits all approach to knowing someone based on seemingly apparent similarities or differences. [2: See Byford, 2014, Fares 2014, and Kohler 2010 for references]

A more accurate use of such a form of empathetic understanding might be more to do with predictive reasoning. Initially, this folk psychology (arguably an approach based on a causal explanation of a theory of mind, [see Preemack & Woodruff, 1978; Stueber, 2006] and/or a theory of charity [see Quine, 1960; Davidson, 1980]) evolved from Hume’s and Smith’s accounts via Theodor Lipps’ Einfühlung and Edmund Husserl’s development of the term Verstahen. These terms, meaning ‘feeling into’ and ‘understanding’ respectively, offered phenomenological and hermeneutical approaches to empathy that effectively argued whether it involved analogical reasoning of a target’s emotions or a way to qualify another’s entire mental state via a knowledge of their experience. Einfühlung, to some extent, represents this predictive understanding of another’s behaviour or state of mind should the empathiser have enough prior knowledge of (or information about) the target. In games, this could be exemplified by how a player of Uncharted 4 might predict the actions of protagonist Nathan Drake as a result of the character’s demeanour, attire, and equipment. These paradigms may allow the player the opportunity to ‘feel into’ Drake sufficiently as to replicate the emotions of the character (insofar as this character displays emotions) depending on the game situation. Similarly, knowledge of the character’s development over the previous three games and the circumstances in which he has been placed may give surety as to the player’s feeling of understanding what it is to be Nathan Drake and all the emotional baggage that would bring.

As with moral sentimentalism before, Einfuhlung can often be seen as a restrictive definition in which an empathiser and target coalesce via a presupposed reasoning of intent from the former. In real-life this would be domineering and presumptuous but in games, this actually might be a good thing. Given that the character has no actual thought processes or emotions, unlike people, it, in of itself, cannot display outward signifiers in opposition to what it actually feels. As a designated cypher for the gamer and the gamer’s interaction with the create world, on top of the agency of controlling the character, the emotional overlaying of sentiment from player to character may then actually increase the player’s identification with the character and/or the world it inhabits. Similarly, whereas Verstahen is questionable given that the term implicitly supposes finality of comprehension, difficult when considering another person’s mind, interpretation of a subjective emotional state can continue indefinitely and to whatever degree the empathiser desires.

Philosophy of empathy then is always problematic in that differing versions purposefully allow for further consideration and interpretation. In order to clarify a working definition for research, a more specific approach is necessary.

2.1.2 Psychological Perspectives of Empathy

As opposed to how philosophy studies the cognitive imagination processes, it is the relatively recent discoveries in psychological neuroscience that have allowed researchers to see that empathetic responses owe far more to the activities of mirror neurons than moral standing. Providing a “plausible neurophysiological explanation for complex forms of social cognition and interaction…[that] philosophers have mulled over for centuries, with very little progress” (Iacoboni, 2008: 5-6), mirror neurons offer a seductive way to both quantify and qualify investigations. Iacoboni’s prose, though bombastic, is therefore quite apt.

Mirror neurons help determine how an observer can be engaged in a resonant action yet ‘feel’ the same as the instigator. Studies by Rizzolatti et al (1996) and Gallese et al (1996) show that a monkey who witnesses the goal-orientated motor function actions of another experiences the same premotor cortex ‘firing’ function as the one actually performing the task. As such, any hand action is primed in the observer on the account of witnessing it. This phenomenon has since been demonstrated in humans (Rizzolatti & Sinigaglia, 2008) and may, in part, help explain how certain actions may seem infectious (yawning, laughing) and certain perspectives predictable based on subtle prompts relayed from target to observer. This is interesting in that such an approach may limit the problem of how a game character’s simulacra status can still allow for a player’s real experience of empathy for them.

The link between these recent psychological findings and the previously philosophical evolution of defining empathy would be that mirroring could be seen as “other-orientated perspective taking” (Coplan, 2004: 10). This notion takes into account that one can never truly know the intricacies of another’s mind but one can, through imaginative consideration and through the more involuntary premotor cortex emulation, share the ‘affect’ – a similar state of emotions based on performing similar tasks. By being pragmatic, and by maintaining a distinct self-other divide, one person may be able to adopt a “re-enactive empathy” (Stueber, 2006: 147) that relies not on direct realisation of the trigger itself but of the inter-relationship between the target, ourselves, and the event. In gaming terms, it would be akin to partly understanding what the game designers had intended the gamer to feel via the actions displayed by the game’s protagonist.[footnoteRef:3] [3: It is worthwhile to note that Coplan made this point in the article “Empathetic Engagement with Narrative Fictions”. For the purpose of this research, defining a method through which one can be said to be empathising with a target that has no mind, such as a game character, is salient. This will be discussed more in 2.1.3 via the notion of what Coplan calls “Affective Matching” (Coplan, 2014: 6) and I later call ‘Engagement Empathy’ in 2.4.]

Literature acknowledges that a conscious approach to perspective taking, the ‘high-level’ definition of empathy, is the most valid expression of the term in that it is probably the most widely propagated and expanded upon[footnoteRef:4]. However, as suggested with mirror neurons, not all triggers are appreciated consciously, nor can a conscious interpretation necessarily lead to a valid understanding. Whilst it is perhaps more solid a concept as a cognitive process, it will always be in part an affective one as well. Peter Goldie’s work on “Anti-Empathy” (2014) can help explain this. [4: As well as Steuber’s work from 2006 and onwards, see Preston & de Waal, 2002; Goldman, 2006; Matravers, 2014; Decety & Meltzoff, 2014.]

Referring to the difference between “empathetic perspective shifting” and “in-his-shoes perspective shifting” (Goldie, 2014: 302), Goldie posits that to presume high level empathy as mind-reading is to misinterpret the role of empathy. His scenario is thus:

“I am thinking about my wife, who is at a business meeting with someone I know to

be particularly difficult. In thinking about her at that meeting, I am imagining how it is

for her: I imagine how stressed she must be, and how she will be trying to keep her

sense of humour in spite of having to face up to her difficult opponent. In doing this, in

imagining how it is for her, I need in no way to be imagining from the inside what it is like

for her.” (2014: 306)

For Goldie then, empathy does not require the projection of oneself into another. He instead relies on rationalisation. His separation of higher-level empathy from any form of emotional connection between empathiser and target allows him to distinguish between empathy as low-level, a “process…resonance which is more or less non-conscious” (p302), and the more complex “outcome…a form of pretence, a species of imagination” (ibid). Whilst this delineation is helpful in that it helps to clarify factors of empathetic methods, the problem still remains that his reliance on imagining the situation from one’s own self-orientated point of view still requires at least some similarity or shared understanding of situation between empathiser and target; Goldie would need to know that both he and his wife find the person in the scenario difficult in the first place.

It is perhaps wise to distinguish empathy into forms that is either therefore felt as well as something that guides. It may also be beneficial to consider how any trigger can be seen to play on aspects of both. Verducci (2000) highlights this need also. She suggests that it is not as important as to define a particular view of empathy to supplant all other definitions but to qualify the manner in which we might define the affect being triggered. Her solution is the affective/cognitive axis; a scale on which one can clarify intent to determine empathy as wholly or partially aligned to either an issue of ‘feeling’ what the other person may experiencing or ‘knowing’ what the other person may be going through. As she puts it, since “most conceptions of empathy possess a primary affinity with either emotion or cognition [and that] in them, empathy becomes primarily a mode of feeling or a mode of knowing or reasoning” (Verducci, 2000: 66), the likelihood is that every scenario (be it empathy as seen from an aesthetic, sympathetic, or cognitive perspective) will always be relevant in some way in helping to ‘know’ how the target has been affected. The academic perspective is secondary to the fact that a visceral appreciation of a trigger has occurred.

Any study of games in this manner would require a working definition of each end of this axis. As an aesthetic medium, engaging with the facets of a game would require what Smith describes as “cognitive prostheses” (Smith, 2014: 109) insofar as games by their very nature require an extension of our own mind into the position of another. We are vicariously experiencing other potential realities that ask us to apply our imaginative understanding to the game’s created world space and objects whilst all the time we are feeling, first hand, the combined emotions of joy, frustration, release, and so forth that the experience generates with its tasks. We not only therefore have to cognitively appreciate the situation, we also must navigate the way the experience affects us as players.

2.2 Games Study and Empathy

The unique environment of the game space (a place where gamers are both viewers of and agents of the events unfolding) when compared to other narrative or play-based media means that there is a certain hybridity of self/other when attributing any potential perspective shifting. Accordingly, any working definition of empathy must allow for it to be determined by either the resonant cognition of mirroring or the “effortful” (Goldman, 2014: 36) route of imagination in tandem. The fear of death may be effortful insofar as the player would have to imagine how Tomb Raider’s Lara Croft falling into a canyon would be concerned for her physical wellbeing but the fear of ‘game-death’ is very real and knowable. Re-construction would have to occur on a level whereby “part of the observer’s brain simulates the activity of a corresponding part of the model” (Goldman, 2014: 35) whilst it is also actually stimulated by the model’s offered agency.

Referring once again to mirror neurons, the possible answer to how develop an affective/cognitive axis for games would be this: since Iacoboni’s asserts that mirror neurons are able to bridge the gap between simple imitation and re-constructive empathy via the insula and the limbic system (2008), it may be possible to presume that we can literally empathise the same feeling as target as long as the simulation is sufficiently foregrounded and/or demonstrated. For example, we may be able to feel Mario’s ‘pain’ of dying both by the facial expressions the character portrays and also through envisioning his ‘fear’ of the fireball that did it should we be heavily involved imaginatively within the same active affect. We may also be able to imagine further and query the rationale of the developer who placed the antagonist in Mario’s/my/our way through a holistic appreciation of the game world and its requisite spaces, objects, narratives, and their overall behaviours in relation to ours as player.

Understanding what the emotional state displayed by a game object could mean to the target of player, (“I understand what the character/object feels”) also then requires at least some level of ontological consideration (“I understand why the character/object feels that way and/or why the character/object is in that situation both in terms of the game’s reality and the overall design”).

My evaluative position of empathy as a concept in relation to games and gaming is one that foregrounds cognitive reasoning as a means through which to potentially determine either a) a target’s actual or implied emotional state through perspective-taking or b) the possible meaning of the emotional state displayed by the target. Both require high-level other-orientated consideration, both require some level of background evidence on which to base any interpretation, and both can appear at any point on the cognitive axis.

In order to give clarity to my definition, I will refer to these two types of empathy as either Engagement Empathy or Sententious Empathy. Firstly, engagement empathy would refer to how one might attempt to ascertain meaning from a game text through an emotional relation to the messages being relayed via the gameplay. This would relate to the way in which the game provides visual, auditory, and haptic signifiers in order to convey meaning. This meaning might be associative to a character’s ‘state of mind’, their subsequent ‘feelings’ and how the player may be connecting with these or other prompts the game delivers with the intention of making the player feel a certain way. In a way, engagement empathy will be primarily concerned with the isomorphic signs and signifiers that the game deploys and how these can be seen to be having an effect on the player.

Sententious empathy, on the other hand, would correlate with the cognitive aspects of what the game’s signs and signifiers represent to the player, both in terms of helping create understanding of the developers’ intent and/or being able to imagine the character/object’s rationale for engaging with the given task in the way it/he/she has.[footnoteRef:5] Such a definition would be required to take on “multiple duty” (Coplan & Goldie, 2014: XI) in much the same way Hume and Smith’s early definitions linked sentiment and empathy, feeling and knowing. This should not be impossible, however, if I am to borrow from the concepts of affect theory and Sobchack’s suggestion, in particular, that an explicitly psychoanalytical consideration of film media and its “synthesis of subject and object” (Sobchack, 1992: xvi) (a sublimation of self into the film characters’ restricted environs) allows for a signification to be taken within context. Also, to avoid any major concerns within the debate surrounding ludology and narratology[footnoteRef:6], should I focus on the “process of attunement” (Ash, 2013: 28), the way games promote self-management of the affective and emotional state of being within the user, means that the emphasis will not be on whether it is the narrative or game that precipitates the empathetic connection but rather whatever factor the gamer feels is most relevant to him/her at any one time. [5: I am aware that the semantics for defining an avatar/character as possessing reason are clearly problematic. Part of the eventual aim of this study will be to clarify how the hybridity of the gamer being both agent and audience where he/she both ‘feels into’ in the aesthetic sense as well as dictates the action and directly ‘feels’ the signifiers as emotions of his/her own. One possible avenue of consideration is what Iacoboni (2014) describes as super mirror-neurons. These are located in the medial temporal lobe (the area responsible for higher order visual properties and memory) and not the same motor-response generating hippocampal formation. As they are able to help delineate between the self and other within mirroring they could be seen to allow us to semi-consciously increase or limit the level of excitation or inhibition that the more basic neurons cannot. This could then possibly allow for a blended consideration of empathetic connection that allows us to be both character and gamer.] [6: The discussion of whether games should be studied as formal systems or narrative texts (see Frasca, 1999; Aarseth, 2001; Eskelinen, 2004; Juul, 2005, Murray, 2005)]

Both terms, Engagement Empathy and Sententious Empathy, will be more fully developed as further study continues. As David Buckingham says “we urgently need more sustained, in-depth analysis of specific games and gaming experiences, not least to counter the easy generalizations about games that circulate within popular – and indeed some academic – debates” (Buckingham, 2008: 190), and Amy Coplan’s decree that we need “more specificity, not more generality” (Coplan, 2014: 5) in empathy study, I believe the rationale of studying games in this manner is sound. Hopefully, through an appropriate and relevant research paradigm, this investigation will be able to determine, however introductorily, how games are able to “inspire the full gamut of emotional reactions, from fear and hatred to utter devotion” (Nielsen et al, 2008: 243). In the next section I will outline how I intend to achieve this.

3. Proposed Methodology

3.1 Research Questions

As the main thrust of this study, entitled “Identifying the Factors that Support the Development of Empathy within Gamers” is to highlight and justify the importance and effectiveness of certain signs and signifiers that appear within games in terms of their ability to generate an empathetic response. In order to do this, and as the rationale highlighted the need for research that focussed on both high and low forms of empathy (what I call engagement and sententious empathies), it becomes necessary to qualify:

· What are the major elements of gameplay? (i.e. what is it that the gamer is engaging with whilst playing the game and how is that defined)

· What is it about these elements that engage a player in a game? Are any seemingly more important than others?

· Whilst studying play (be it of my own or another individual/group) along the lines of the above questions, is there anything about the player’s choices that can be understood as A) being an empathetic response or B) being facilitated by an empathetic response?

· Is there any one factor or combination of factors that help determine a level of engagement that is ‘immersive’? (i.e. to what extent can it be seen that the player’s emotional involvement becomes intrinsically meaningful to him/her)

3.2 Initial Research Design

3.2.1 Overview

In their 2015 book, Game Research Methods, Lankoski and Björk refer to game study as “both a multidisciplinary research field and a new one” (Lankoski & Björk, 2015: 3). They argue that this creates challenges that a researcher needs to be overcome in order to prepare an appropriate methodology for any particular focus. One particular example of how one might begin to define a study of games comes from Nielsen, Smith, and Tosca’s 2008 work, where they categorise any focus as relating to either game, player, culture, or ontology.

Type of Analysis

Common Methodologies

Theoretical Inspiration

Common Interest

Game

Textual Analysis

Comparative literature, film studies

Design choices, meaning

Player

Observation, Interviews, Surveys

Sociology, ethnography, cultural studies

Use of games, games communities

Culture

Interviews, Textual Analysis

Cultural studies, sociology

Games as cultural objects, games as part of the media ecology

Ontology

Philosophical Enquiry

Various (e.g. philosophy, cultural history, literary criticism)

Logical/philosophical foundations of games and gaming

(Nielsen, Smith, and Tosca, 2008: 10)

This delineation is helpful in that it helps account for the unique properties of games whilst placing them into a wider cultural and academic context. Using Nielsen, Smith, and Tosca’s definition, one is able to highlight elements of game study that would help classify it along the lines of any qualitative (e.g. narrative, phenomenological, participatory action, grounded theory, ethnographic, and/or case study) or quantitative (e.g. developmental, observational studies, correlational, and/or survey) approach. It also, and perhaps most importantly, helps any potential researcher to focus development of his or her own skills in a prudent and pragmatic manner. For instance, should it be the case that a researcher was interested in how teams interact with one another whilst gaming online, the common interest would suggest prioritising methods and strategies that focus on ethno-methodological means.

For my study, along the lines of the table above, the research questions would seem to point toward qualitative game based analysis along the lines of close reading and textual analysis. That is to say that consideration of gaming contexts and how design factors combine to create an emotional effect seem to relate most to the game section’s common interests. However, the other more subjective concerns of how to define an empathetic response and how it is being demonstrated relies more on a study of player. It may even be the case that empathy’s historically philosophical concerns requires at least some consideration of a more ontological means.

Another possible way to approach developing a methodology, according to Lankoski and Björk, is to first consider the “unit of analysis” (Lankoski & Björk, 2015: 4) and the subsequent systematic design that the researcher wishes to consider. Since game study might often rely on abstract data, they say that the unit of analysis can be more phenomenological. Casting a wide net of mixed-methods is acceptable as long as care is taken to consider the relevance of the data to the central question. Systematic design of research planning would then require guidelines less on the specificity of a type of qualitative or quantitative research and more on the issues of:

1

Sampling (i.e., what is the target population and how reach informants from that population)

2

How are the data gathered in detail (e.g., interview questions or themes, questionnaire

questions, or instrumentation)

3

How are the data analysed

4

How are the data stored after study and how it is anonymize, or how the data will be

destroyed

(Lankoski and Björk, 2015: 4)

The third point would be the most critical in that as long as the relevant and proper considerations of validity and reliability appropriate to each type of method are followed when used, the answers to any research question will start to appear across methods.

The most obvious drawback to relying purely on an approach of a phenomenological study of units would be the sheer amount of work that would be necessary were it not clarified in some way. This study will combine both of these highlighted approaches within a grounded theory methodology (GTM). This is because whenever research relies on a practice that intends to develop a theory generating approach (Johnson & Christensen, 2010), the intention needs always to be the development of the investigation at a more holistic level. Basically, it would be unwise to speculate what areas I believe are likely to produce an empathetic response without experiencing a text first. As such, if I were to initially attempt to answer the first two research questions (what are the elements and which are more important) within the more specific approach of qualitative textual analysis before querying the findings through the abductive reasoning approach of GTM, I should be able to clarify exactly what methods will be needed for the next questions (defining empathetic response and immersion) as a result of the analysis. So long as my units of analyses are secure and applied throughout the research approach adopted, the specific methodology of what to do with the data can be decided upon at a later date.[footnoteRef:7] [7: Whilst the specifics for the initial approach is discussed in section 3.3, that GTM is “typically articulated in gerund form connoting ongoing action” (Clarke, 2007: 425) means that there will be no pre-emptive operationalisation relating to how the ‘best’ way of collating or analysing data outside of the conceptual framework discussed here. ]

This GTM approach will show how games themselves progress in a manner that imbues players with immediate frustrations and/or gratification as well as overall holistic appreciation. In the same way it may be difficult for a player to judge whether he or she ‘enjoyed’ a game until they have finished it, answering any questions on full engagement or immersion may not be possible until the game itself (and the playing situation) has been analysed in order to uncover any phenomenological concerns that may be unpredictable. So, as GTM is abductive reasoning that allows for inclusive analysis, “the theorizing offered downstream…should comfortably ‘handle’ the data, be sufficient to address variation and change, and offer a fresh theoretical grasp of the phenomena that has practical applications” (Clarke, 2007: 424).

3.2.2 Pilot Study & Subsequent Findings for Future Study

Having undertaken a limited pilot study on the game FTL (2012) on the iPad format in order to highlight some of the possible questions that may arise after an initial study based on textual analysis, I was able to determine a number of issues for further research. This approach, whilst small, does evidence how the further study will also be contextualised.

A brief synopsis of FTL goes as such:

In FTL you experience the atmosphere of running a spaceship trying to save the galaxy.

It's a dangerous mission, with every encounter presenting a unique challenge with

multiple solutions… This "spaceship simulation roguelike-like" allows you to take your

ship and crew on an adventure through a randomly generated galaxy filled with glory

and bitter defeat… No Second Chances! - Permadeath means when you die, there's no

coming back. The constant threat of defeat adds importance and tension to every

action (Steam Store, 2016)

I chose this game for two major reasons. The mobile format of the game allowed me to play the game in a number of different environments should such this factor prove important and also because the style of the game, as per the synopsis, offered the chance to become intensely emotionally engaged.

By using myself as the only research participant I concentrated on the ‘design choices and meaning’ element from the Nielsen, Smith, and Tosca table using textual analysis. This was so that I could concentrate on textual analysis, highlighting the specific potential factors that engaged me empathetically or otherwise. I also utilised Juul’s six defining features of a game, taken from his 2005 book, Half Real in order to help me clarify what a game ‘is’ before I analysed it. These features are:

“1. A rule-based formal system;

2. with variable and quantifiable outcomes;

3. where different outcomes are assigned different values;

4. where the player exerts effort in order to influence the outcome;

5. the player feels emotionally attached to the outcome;

6. and the consequences of the activity are optional and negotiable.” (Juul, 2005: 6-7)

I chose Juul’s features not because of my implicit agreement with them but rather because of Half Real’s “nadiral approach” (Ruggill & McAllister, 2011: 4) and the definitive nature of his model. With such an adaptable and seemingly secure concept, it can be tempting to adhere to models quite rigidly and presume that rules therefore make up players’ ‘responsibility’ in engaging with the text. Juul’s attempt to exemplify the structure and rule system allows him to suggest that every form of play, be it as activity, or object will always conform to being on a spectrum of ‘games’, ‘not games’, or ‘borderline cases’ on sheer weight of numbers that fit into his model. Although my interpretations of what constitute a game do not necessarily agree or disagree with Juul’s ludological outlook[footnoteRef:8] as Juul’s features can, to some extent, be unpacked as to suggest the following: [8: ‘Ludological’ relating to ludology and the study of games and as a “discipline that studies game and play activities… independent from the medium that supports the activity” (Frasca, 1999)]

Juul’s features

Related Meaning – My Understanding of Juul’s Feature

Rule Based System

Defined options the player has in deciding how to progress the game / narrative

Variable and Quantifiable Outcomes

There are different ways in which one can be seen to be progressing through the game, e.g. ‘Level-Up’ or ‘You Died’

Different Outcomes possess Different Value

Different routes can be taken in order to complete the game’s task / narrative but are able to be judged as ‘more’ or ‘less’ appropriate within the game rules

Exertion of effort

Level of skill needed to ‘succeed’ as per the game rules

Emotional Attachment

Wanting to progress through the game, either due to narrative elements (e.g. discovery) or gameplay elements (e.g. psychological reward)

Impermanent Consequences

Can restart encounter as to reach more preferable conclusion

Figure 1

I was able to highlight units of analyses that allowed me to consider how FTL was making me ‘feel’ as I interacted with these features. Effectively I queried 1) whether the gameplay, or ‘ludus’ as it can be termed, was engaging me emotionally, 2) whether the demonstrable progress was affecting me, 3) whether I agreed with the game’s assessment of my progression as good or otherwise, 4) whether my skill was adding or detracting from the experience and thus affecting my emotional state, 5) how much I wanted to keep playing and why, 6) how I acted when I either ‘died’, progressed to the next sector of the game, or ‘won’. I documented these both in an audio or written account recorded part way (no specific time) and at the end of the game session.

The findings of this study showed that whilst I had demonstrated an empathetic response in relation to elements of the gameplay (losing members of the crew for instance), refining exactly why, and/or how to be fully objective in documenting the findings, proved difficult. Across four sessions of roughly 90 minutes each, I recorded three audio accounts and four written reflections. Probably as a result of not defining questions to answer whilst playing, much of the findings were to do with general emotional state prior to playing rather than specifics. However, there were occasional examples of interesting discoveries. For example, I was able to articulate in the audio account that:

“As usual, you end up losing crew members of your own. Errm, I lost Jon…to giant

alien spiders…. I did feel bad, errm, coz whenever I lose a member of the crew, I feel

as though I’ve done something wrong, that I should have done better…it’s [my] fault”.

Although I have to re-imagine the compassion I felt for ‘him’ and the frustration I had at myself for ‘letting him die’ as I did not specifically outline that that was how I felt at the time, the response shows an engagement of sorts. The problem is that I also fell into the trap of allowing my own tacit understanding of the game through multiple previous play let me use shorthand phrases rather than full explanations. I did not relate fully the importance of Jon as a mantis crew member and how that species’ in-game bonuses allow for melee combat on board other ships. Since that was the most effective way to defeat another ship (and progress through the game with the ship configuration I had), highlighting this would have gone some way as to explain my disappointment at his death, both via sententious engagement – I knew I needed a character like him to complete the game – and empathetic engagement – I had formed a bond with this named character and ‘trusted’ Jon specifically to succeed in completing tasks for me. So although some of the findings were positive, the pilot study showed that a more fastidious approach is necessary before drawing conclusions holistically.

Approaching the game and these questions holistically led to what now seem to be obvious concerns and which through application of GTM can help me define a more beneficial approach. What I was able to garner from approaching game analysis in this way was that it can become easy to slip between solely participatory or analytical states and will need further consideration. Just ‘playing’ meant that it became difficult to articulate just exactly why I found myself feeling a certain way after the event had passed. Although for evidence I recorded audio and wrote an account detailing my emotional state prior to and following a game session, re-visiting the data now it is unclear as to whether either account fully answers the six considerations. Inevitably, it seems, play can distract from addressing each area specifically as a result of requiring full skill attention to complete a task. My current thinking on how to resolve this problem will be discussed in section 3.3. Further evidence of how initial findings were read in the first instance can be seen in the appendix.

‘Meaningful play’ – as termed by Salen and Zimmerman (2006) to mean the ‘discernable’ and ‘integrated’ elements that a player understands through the act of playing – would appear to be the most important aspect of any further study and immediate revisions to any further study would have to include:

1. Each playthough should last for a predetermined amount of time to keep consistency between game titles. Also, breaks should occur at approximately twenty minute intervals to address the queries. Whilst the queries should remain, they should be formalised and each query should be answered in turn, most likely through audio so that emotional affect might be apparent in voice. This continually links any affectation to evidence.

2. Each playthrough should be prefaced with a brief checklist detailing emotional state. The accounts do not require background necessarily (as the accounts for FTL seemed to concentrate too heavily on how non-gaming events were affecting emotion), simply three 1-10 scales of Depressed-Happy, Tired-Energised, Disinterested-Engaged. These scales seem appropriate due to their quantifiable nature over time as well as they avoid the very subjective reasons as to why someone may be feeling that way. As the study is looking at factors in games rather than psychological profiles as a whole, this seems prudent.

3. Each playthrough should conclude with a second checklist answering the same questions so that a comparison can be drawn.

4. The game played should be unknown to the player before first playthrough in order to avoid tacit engagement and lack of clarity when explaining interaction with the game. The playthrough should be recorded in order to capture any demonstrable reaction. This playthrough footage can then be compared to the answers on the checklist.

5. These studies are then compared to other gamers’ demonstrable interactions/reactions/affected emotional state via watching their playthroughs on Youtube, Twitch, or other appropriate video channels. These recordings will be subject to the following questions: a) Does the player mention empathy in one form or another? In what context? b) Does the player display empathy in one form or another? In what context?

To properly qualify the results of such an approach would require not only an appreciation of how empathy can be displayed and discerned but also the context of the in-game and extra-game environments in which the player acts. Salen and Zimmerman define engagement frameworks as being when a player understands the “context of a game [via] spaces, objects, narratives, and behaviors” (Salen and Zimmerman, 2006: 41). These four factors go some way to help define the first two of this study’s research questions, what are the major elements of gameplay, and which are more relevant for engagement? As such, given that these also represent a formula based approach similar to Juul’s features they provide a helpful starting point to this investigation.

As shown by the table I devise below, appropriating Salen and Zimmerman’s contexts allows me to identify examples of game elements which can then be considered in terms of how they reach the player engaging with them.

Context (Factors)

Possible Examples (Elements)

Helps Define Engagement via:

Spaces

Play Environment, View of, Graphical / Auditory Representation

Appreciation of world design – The ‘Look’ of a game

Objects

Signifiers, (i.e. game mechanisms and their contextual relevance in the space), Rules, Control formats, Methods of Interactions (i.e. Avatars, NPCs), Methods of Progression, Gameplay Mechanics

Challenge, Interaction – The ‘Feel’ of a game

Narratives

Genre, Character(s), Setting, Motivation, Developmental intention

Involvement in story – Possible analysis of text

Behaviours

Phenomenology of real world setting, Gameplay Style (e.g. cautious/reckless), Format of machine, Amount of Play time afforded, Stickiness, Understanding of Intellectual Property/Fandom, Physical/Emotional Considerations relating to Access

Environmental factors – Possible analysis of player

Figure2

The possible problem to such a model is the varying use of the term ‘context’ itself. In a wider setting, context suggests a more informal understanding of setting or the manner in which a player is able to interact with the computer hardware running the game. And even though Järvinen (2004) explains that by contexts, Salen and Zimmerman are referring to “the forms of player activities or the games’ position within culture in general” – the idea that praxis forms the academic content – it may still be overly schematic for this research. As such, I posit factors that in turn are made up from elements. To show how phenomenological evidence might be categorised and its importance qualified, this approach can be considered thusly:

1. Spaces

Taken on a macro level, Salen and Zimmerman (2004) view spaces to mean either liminal, social, lusory or real-world, systems of pure conflict and/or interstitial depending on the context. In taking these varying definitions and attempting to make them explicit, arguably they all relate to the ‘look’ of a game and the player’s acceptance of it as a realistic, i.e. contextually appropriate environment. To engage with it may require an active role with the objects within it or the narrative that surrounds it, but even a passive viewer is still able to appreciate and understand the aesthetic of the world design.

2. Objects

Whereas spaces are often commented upon in academic theory (for example Aarseth, 2001; Salen & Zimmerman, 2004; Gee, 2003; Juul, 2005; Bogost, 2007; Nielsen et al, 2008; Carr et al, 2008) as a place where action occurs within a consciously designed environment, the objects within these spaces appear to be less well defined. Salen and Zimmerman themselves refer to objects only as functional aspects of their discussion of design and throughout their work provide no real definition other than to say the “interaction between people, objects, and contexts [is how] we make sense of our surroundings and [how] we engage with, interpret, and construct meaning” (2004: 56) within the game. My position is that objects are elements within the space that are given the illusion of substance as a result due to their seemingly physical properties or interactivity potential within the game. Related to design, objects are therefore placeholders through which meaning can be imbued.

3. Narratives

Related to techniques associated with film analysis, close textual reading of a game’s narrative may reflect on authorial intent and/or investigation of the game’s signification via the spaces and objects displayed. The difference between close reading of films and games however is that games need not involve too much use of reception theory (e.g. Hall, 1980; Morley, 1980) as the agency of a viewer and a gamer are very different. Instead an investigation of game narrative will define what details the game developers have included in order to try to elicit a reaction from the gamer. As such, combining Salen and Zimmerman’s implication of narrative that says “meaning of an action in a game resides in the relationship between action and outcome” (2004: 50) consideration of genre theory, structuralism, auteur theory, and specific theoretical frameworks by researchers involved in each will allow for a holistic appreciation of narrative; one that incorporates issues of simple storytelling to the complexities between the ludus of game mechanics and gamer response.

4. Behaviours

An analysis of the players themselves, studying behaviours is studying attitudes towards the “set boundaries established by the act of play” (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004: 106). Do players acquiesce readily to the rules or do they create their own modes of engagement within the play environment? How do the physical elements of their gaming hardware and real world play environment define their engagement opportunities? This research will consider how engaged the player is within any given “magic circle” (Huizinga, 1938/1944) – the “setting oneself apart from the outside world and surrendering to a system that has no effect on anything which lies beyond the circle” (Nielsen, Smith, and Tosca, 2008: 24). Essentially, it would be through behaviours that the potential evidence for sententious or engagement empathies would be demonstrated. Whereas appreciation of spaces, objects, and narratives in a player relay on consideration of what can be described as ‘internal realms’ (both of the game and psychological response) the analysis of behaviours will deal more with external manifestations of specific engagements.

This delineation provides a valid concept of factors to study in that each helps distinguish elements of what constitute a game in a relatively straightforward manner. Although subjective, the ‘look’ and/or ‘feel’ of a game is often related to a game’s defining attributes[footnoteRef:9] so to qualify an interpretation of this is important when attempting to turn phenomenological concepts into identifiable features. Answering questions about ‘look’ and ‘feel’ can be achieved then, but only if it is in context or within the consideration of the defined factors. Possible questions that could be asked in order to incorporate all factors could be: [9: Defining ‘look and feel’ is difficult partly because of this subjectivity and also because of the phrase’s informal usage. Identifying some uses in contemporary culture leads to examples by the company, Java: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/uiswing/lookandfeel/, the industry job site, creativeskills.org: http://creativeskillset.org/job_roles/328_creative_director_games, and trade title, Gamasutra: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131822/artists_and_game_design_documents_.php ]

1. Is the gameplay engaging me emotionally?

2. How does progression though the game make me feel?

3. Do I agree with the game’s ‘assessment’ of my progress?

4. How difficult do I think the game is?

5. How much do I want to keep playing after each break/session?

6. What was the over-riding emotion felt when the game experience ended?

Also, specific agree or disagree statements could be incorporated to add clarity to some of the answers and help position any answers within the factors of spaces, objects, narratives, or behaviours. These could be:

1. I like the ‘look’ of this game.

2. I like the ‘feel’ of this game.

3. I understand the narrative of this game.

4. I enjoy the narrative of this game.

5. I understand what the game creators intended to make me feel when they made this game.

Each of these responses would be recorded either by camera and/or through written accounts to document the on screen progression and my response to it. Any correlation or otherwise between accounts would be noted. With regard to other gamers’ reactions, the questions can be augmented so to acknowledge whether or not they are mentioning anything pertaining to Space, Objects, Narratives, or Behaviours – how often they are being mentioned, if they are foregrounded over other concerns, or whether there seems to be a more heavily associated emotional response when considering one element in particular for example. Analysis could also consider whether or not the other gamers’ reactions seem to specifically demonstrate an ‘agree or disagree’ position along the line one of the statements.

3.3 Possible Research Process

3.3.1 Outline

With such an inductive approach being proposed, it is vital that patterns be the major point of search within the study. Although the data that arises from the participants will invariably be subjective and impossible to predict at this stage, this would be in keeping with how any school of thought investigates reaction and/or affect.

Analysis of mostly qualitative data via empirical means adds further weight to the choice of GTM as the overall methodological approach. The potential applications of sociology study (e.g., Strauss & Corbin, 2008), cultural studies (e.g., Gelder & Thornton, 1997), education, (e.g., Cresswell, 2012), and computing (e.g., Bryant, 2002) mean that provisional ‘live’ analysis remains exploratory as the researched individual (me) explores an experiential setting for the first time. Also, applying this to Clarke’s understanding of GTM in the context of “situational analysis” (Clarke, 2007: 433) it should be possible to incorporate the cartographic approach of situational maps (the human↔game discursive element), social worlds (interpretation of that discourse), and positional maps (live analysis of the decisions taken / not taken) to highlight more relevant ‘elements’ to each subjective situation.

Emphasising the research in the manner described here should help identify key issues and key variables within the subject focus. Although it may not be possible to predict what specific themes or avenues will be uncovered, this approach should offer a reasonable method through which to extract a large amount of qualitative data taken both from direct study, the use of a camera to record an auto-biographical account of my own game play, and indirect study, the analysis of game reviews, comments in blogs, recordings of other gamers' game play, etc. to allow for contrasting opinions to the game being studied.

To accomplish this, I have devised a way of harnessing this data through deployment of Venn diagrams. If either myself or the person studied refers to factors/elements from within an area from within the game’s context, that source can be admitted to one of the relevant sections as visible in the diagram I have developed here:

Figure 1 Unpopulated Venn Diagram showing crossover factors relating to the principle concerns of Spaces, Objects, Narratives, and Behaviours

These sources may link to specific quotes from the reflection, demonstrable responses, challenges, reasoning, discussions, or any other evidence deemed pertinent. The aim of classifying the evidence in such a manner would however be entirely focussed on determining whether any specific factor, number of factors, or factors that appear in correlation to one another seem to be visible in accordance with demonstrations of or relation to sententious and/or engagement empathy. For instance, should the majority of review and debate around Game A highlight a specific amount of interest in its design mechanics a map could be populated along the lines of the hypothetical example here:

Figure 2: Hypothetical results table potentially showing objects, narratives, behaviours combined as important for empathetic response.

The important element would be that the examples highlighted (these may feature anywhere or nowhere across the map) are those that feature an empathetic response along the lines determined by this study. For the sake of simplicity, this hypothetical map shows a direct correlation to objects, narratives, and behaviours for Game A’s evocation of empathy. With a pattern established, it would then follow that specific investigation of how empathy appears to have been evoked through more close analysis of each piece of evidence. Should a second game follow a similar pattern and through analysis of those evidences demonstrate similar paths to evocation, it may suggest that there might potentially be an answer to how empathetic engagement enhances game play experience.

Of course, conversely, such an investigation may prove no correlation or that the methodology requires further attention. It may be that after highlighting a particular example of game or games that further more primary research is carried out. This would have to be addressed within the full remit of the study however.

3.3.2 Choosing the Texts to Investigate

In terms of choosing specific games and/or the data gathered demonstrating other gamers’ play, it is important to define exactly what and how this will be achieved. Primarily, as the study is about direct and indirect study of responses to games, the choice of games themselves must be varied enough as to allow for inference and a level of generalisation as to become apparent. This could possibly be seen as a problem for case study analysis which, by its nature, does not easily lend to abstract generalisation (Yin, 1994; Falk & Gunther 2007). This is where the identification of factors within these games must take precedent within the observation. It would not be enough for instance to say that since one platform game led one participant to demonstrate identifiable anxiety that all platformers elicit negative responses.

Saying this, the games chosen must also be ‘well-regarded’ enough as to mean they are culturally resonant and that enough examples of interaction exist. The reason for this is two-fold. Firstly, as Falk and Gunther go on to elaborate, enough instances of an occurrence might suggest “good reason” (2007: 1) to generalise from qualitative research. As long as the principles in place were not esoteric, it may be possible to identify recurring factors within game language that seek to implore certain responses. To discover these will require GTM study but as a beginning point, it would not seem too unreasonable, for instance, to presume a small number of important games as defined by industry journalism and/or academic analysis that exist across genres will be enough to consider this.

3.4 Research Site and Participants / Ethical Considerations (Health and Safety, Site Access and Informed Consent & Data Protection, Confidentiality, and Anonymity)

I am planning to conduct this research firstly via an autoethnographic critical response to games within a controlled environment. This will be in a ‘games room’ with access to PC, console, and mobile devices away from the University of Leeds campus. This is partly due to distance and part time study requirements but also due to resource availability. The second stage of study will involve consideration of individuals and/or groups who have uploaded and/or broadcasted gameplay footage of themselves interacting with one of the titles under study onto the internet. Related articles, comments, blogs etc. will be factored into any intention of discovering empathetic connection to the game. This may include responses along the lines of Sheepdog Gaming’s playthrough/review of FTL on Youtube. This is because such an account not only gives specifically considered responses to the text (“the fact [the developers] are releasing DLC for free really boosts my opinion of this game” (Sheepdog Gaming, 2014)), it also has examples of game choices that might demonstrate an empathetic/non-empathetic response (when offered the chance to purchase a slave, the reviewer says, “ooh, hello, umm, twenty nine… yeah, screw it, we’ll get him coz then we can have someone on shields” (Sheepdog Gaming, 2014) without seemingly any consideration of the ethical dilemma of slavery).

The main ethical considerations that all study shall be required to take into account are issues surrounding health and safety, site access, informed consent, anonymity, confidentiality, and ensuring data protection of participants (Kvale, 1996; Ransome, 2013). However, as the only likely ‘live’ participant in the study, the concerns will relate more to rights of license and the intricacies of low risk observation protocol as defined by the University of Leeds and ‘non-reactive internet-mediated research’ (British Psychological Society, 2013)

In terms of video rights, both Youtube and Twitch (the platforms that contain the most research material in the form of game playthroughs, comments, and discussion) have documents relating to how each company licenses content uploaded to their respective sites. These policies (available at https://www.twitch.tv/user/legal and https://www.youtube.com/static?gl=GB&template=terms) state that it is, in effect, the company that owns the rights to the content once uploaded. From there, they can ‘exploit’ the material in any way they choose and in perpetuity until the content is removed from the site. Youtube goes further still as to state:

“When [an indivudal/group] uploads or post Content to YouTube, [they] grant…to each user

of the Service [the viewer], a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free licence to access [the]

Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of,

display and perform such Content to the extent permitted by the functionality of the Service

and under these Terms” (Youtube Terms of Service, 2016)

Subsequently, although there is a case to be made for gaining consent from the creator and/or the company should the study data lead to further dissemination of the video participant’s response (e.g. detailed and specific study of one person’s response in contrast to my own), or should the study require more direct questioning of the uploader, legal consideration would suggest that use of this material in a manner of study such as this to be acceptable.

When considering low risk observation protocol the major point of consideration should be that as long as the research and observation “is not intrusive and poses little or no risk of harm to participants” (Uni of Leeds RIS, 2011), then justification is more tenable than otherwise. In this instance, as the subjects of study have willingly broadcast their videos and/or performed them live in a sphere designed to garner as wide an audience as possible, then unlike a private conversation occurring in a public space, these are specifically public facing discussions whereby the broadcasters do not expect to be seeking one-to-one discourse. That said, data privacy and anonymity will be factored into any production of research results. Only my supervisors and I will have access to the collated data and each example of broadcaster will have their details kept secure with pseudonyms on my university/home drives.

Health and safety concerns will apply only to myself and as the study will take place in my own home, no undue problems should arise. Repetitive strain injury considerations and alike are considered on the relevant forms.

Appendix

Here is an example of how I was able to extrapolate information from my FTL game diary into information relating to my proposed Spaces, Objects, Narratives, Behaviours approach. Notice how reflection tends to foreground behaviour and seemingly takes objects for granted as actual real life individuals as opposed to narrative place holders or elements of interaction within the game. There are many instances of crossover (as apparent in the Venn diagram) but most specific instances of concern revolve around behaviour in this occasion. For instance, there appear to be around twenty-six examples of key words or statements around behaviour from this section compared to eighteen for spaces, sixteen for objects, and thirteen for narrative.

The environments, sounds, and visuals that make up the space is not mentioned at all. Spaces are considered (insofar as the objects of characters, resources, methods of engagement are seen within the context of ludus - the ‘magic circle’ of gameplay) but the need to reference it seems unnecessary as the game has become ‘real’. This might help explain how it can become easy to accidentally merge personal response with the objective analysis of the researcher. The spaces have offered agency; it is no longer required to see them as a foregrounded concern, perhaps. This meta-approach of being both the objective participant as well as the objective observer after the fact could therefore warrant a more quantitative analysis of the Venn diagram when conducting planning and preparation for further study. As long as these key phrases are initially justified and predicted, this could be compared against an overall ‘feeling’ of empathetic engagement in order to determine whether a connection was apparent.

Game Diary Example Page with examples of S.O.N.B. underlined:

Venn Diagram of instances of S.O.N.B highlighting patterns of engagement:

Bibliography

Aarseth, E. (2001) Computer Game Studies, Year One. Game Studies [Online] 1(1) [Accessed 12 May 2015] Available from: http://www.gamestudies.org/0101/

Alexander, L. (2012) GDC 2012: Sid Meier on how to see games as sets of interesting decisions. Gamasutra [Online] 7 March [Accessed 7 March 2016] Available from: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/164869/GDC_2012_Sid_Meier_on_how_to_see_games_as_sets_of_interesting_decisions.php

Ash, J. (2013) Technologies of Captivation: Videogames and the Attunement of Affect. Body & Society [Online] 19(1) [Accessed 3 April 2016] Available from: http://bod.sagepub.com/content/19/1/27.full.pdf+html

Atkinson, P., Coffey, A., & Delamont, S. (2003) Key Themes in Qualitative Research: Continuities and Change Walnut Creek: Alta Mira Press

Batson, D. (2009) These Things Called Empathy: Eight Related But Distinct Phenomena. In Decety, J. & Ickes, W. eds. The Social Neuroscience of Empathy London: MIT Press pp.3-15

Barthes, R. (1997) Elements of Semiology New York: Hill and Wang (Original work published 1964)

Bisoglio, J., Michaels, T. I., Mervis, J. E., & Ashinoff, B. K. (2014) Cognitive Enhancement through Action Video Game Training: Great Expectations Require Greater Evidence. Frontiers in Psychology [Online] 5(136) pp72-75 [Accessed 23 February 2016] Available from: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00136/full

Bogost, I. (2007) Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames Cambridge: MIT Press.

Bordwell, D. (1987) Narration in the Fiction Film London: Routledge

British Psychological Society (2013) Ethics Guidelines for Internet-mediated Research [Online] INF206/1.2013 Leicester: Authors Hewson, C., Buchanan, T., Brown, I., Coulson, N., Hagger-Johnson, G., Joinson, A., Krotokski, A., Oates, J. [Accessed 20 June 2016] Available at www.bps.org.uk/publications/policy-andguidelines/research-guidelines-policydocuments/

research-guidelines-poli

Brown, R.B. (2006) Doing Your Dissertation in Business and Management: The Reality of Research and Writing London: Sage Publications

Bryant, A. (2002) Re-grounding grounded theory. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application [Online] 4(1) pp26-42 [Accessed 1 December 2015] Available at http://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1186&context=jitta

Buckingham, D. (2008) Doing Game Analysis. In Carr, D., Buckingham, D., Burn, A., & Schott, G. (2008) Computer Games: Text, Narrative and Play pp179-190 Cambridge: Polity Press (Original work published 2006)

Bura, S. (2013) Keynote at Interactive Storytelling Symposium 10 May 2013

Burgos, D., Tattersall, C. & Koper, R. (2007) Repurposing existing generic games and simulations for e-learning. Computers in Human Behavior [Online] 23(6) pp2656-2667 [Accessed 20 February 2016] Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563206000963

Byford, S. (2014) Japan used to rule video games, so what happened?. Verge [Online] [Accessed 13 August 2016] Available from: http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/20/5522320/final-fight-can-japans-gaming-industry-be-saved

Carr, D., Buckingham, D., Burn, A., & Schott, G. (2008) Computer Games: Text, Narrative and Play Cambridge: Polity Press

Carroll, N. & Choi, J. (2006) Philosophy of Film and Motion Pictures: An Anthology Oxford: Blackwell Publishing

Carroll, N. (2006) Film, Emotion, and Genre. In Carroll, N. & Choi, J. (eds) Philosophy of Film and Motion Pictures: An Anthology pp217-233 Oxford: Blackwell Publishing

Centola, D. (2010) The Spread of Behavior in an Online Social Network Experiment. Science [Online] 5996, pp1194-1197 [Accessed 25 March 2016] Available from: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/329/5996/1194.full-text.pdf+html

Chesney, T. & Lawson, S. (2015) Critical Mass and Discontinued Use of Social Media. In Systems Research and Behavioral Science [Online] 32(3) pp376-387 [Accessed 25 March 2016] Available from: http://0-onlinelibrary.wiley.com.wam.leeds.ac.uk/doi/10.1002/sres.2231/epdf (Published online 19 November 2013 in Wiley Online Library)

Clark, A. J. (2007) Empathy in Counselling and Psychotherapy: Perspectives and Practices Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Clarke, A. E. (2007) Grounded Theory: Critiques, Debates, and Situational Analysis. In Outhwaite, W. & Turner, S. P. (eds.) The Sage Handbook of Social Science Methodology pp423-442 London: Sage

CNN (2013) How Twitter is Like An Angry Mob CNN Newsroom [Online] CNN 23 December [Accessed 25 March 2016] Available from: http://newsroom.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/23/how-twitter-is-like-an-angry-mob/

Collins, F. M. (2014) The Relationship between Social Media and Empathy MSc Thesis, Georgia Southern University [Online] [Accessed 25 March 2016] Available from: http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2189&context=etd

Coplan, A. (2004) Empathetic Engagement with Narrative Fictions. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism [Online] 62(2) pp141-152 [Accessed 12 December 2015] Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-594X.2004.00147.x/pdf

Coplan, A. (2014) Understanding Empathy: Its Features and Effects. In Coplan, A. & Goldie, P. (eds) Empathy: Philosophical and Psychological Perspectives pp3-18 Oxford: Oxford University Press (Original work published 2011)

Coplan, A. & Goldie, P. (2014) Empathy: Philosophical and Psychological Perspectives Oxford: Oxford University Press (Original work published 2011)

Cresswell, J. W. (2012) Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (4th Ed) London: Pearson

Culler, J. (2001) The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature, Deconstruction London: Routledge

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990) Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience New York: Harper Perennial

Davidson, D. (1980). Mental events. In D. Davidson (Ed.), Essays on actions and events Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Davis, M. H. (1996) Empathy: A Social Psychological Approach Colorado: Westview Press

Dawkins, R. (2006) The Selfish Gene (30th Anniversary Ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press

Decety, J. & Meltzoff, A. N. (2014) Empathy, Imitation, and the Social Brain. In Coplan, A. & Goldie, P. (eds) Empathy: Philosophical and Psychological Perspectives pp58-81 Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 2011)

Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.) (2005) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research 3rd Ed. London: Sage

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) Building Theories from Case Study Research In Academy of Management Review [Online] 14(4) pp532-550 [Accessed 19 March 2016] Available from https://www.tu-chemnitz.de/wirtschaft/bwl5/forschung/forschungsseminar/downloads/15/eisenhardt1989.pdf

Ensslin, A. (2014) Literary Gaming London: MIT Press

Eskelinen, M. (2004) Towards computer game studies. Electronic Book Review [Online] [Accessed 13 March 2016) Available from: http://electronicbookreview.com/thread/firstperson/anticolonial

Fares, N. (2014) The rise of the Western games in Japan. VGP [Online] [Accessed 13 August 2016] Available from: http://www.vgprofessional.com/the-rise-of-the-western-games-in-japan/

Frasca, G. (1999) Ludology meets Narratology: Similitude and differences between (video)games and narrative. Parnasso (Original in Finnish) [Online] 3 [Accessed on 13 February 2016] Available from: http://www.ludology.org/articles/ludology.htm

Gallese, V., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., & Rizzolatti, G. (1996) Action Recognition in the Premotor Cortex. In Brain [Online] 119(2) pp593-609 [Accessed 2 March 2016] Available from: http://www.kuleuven.be/mirrorneuronsystem/readinglist/Gallese%20et%20al%201996%20-%20Action%20recognition%20in%20the%20premotor%20cortex%20-%20B.pdf

Gee, J. P. (2003) What Video Games Have To Teach Us About Learning And Literacy New York: Palgrave Macmillan

Gee, J. P. (2013) Good Video Games + Good Learning: Collected Essays in Video Games, Learning and Literacy, Second Edition New York: Peter Lang Publishing

Gelder, K. & Thornton, S. (1997) The Subcultures Reader London: Routledge

Greenberg, L. S., Watson, J. C., Elliot, R., & Bohart, A. C. (2001) Empathy. In Psychotherapy 38(4) pp380-384

Greenfield, S. (2014) Mind change: how digital technologies are leaving their mark on our brains London: Rider

Gregg, M. & Seigworth, G. J. (eds) (2010) The Affect Theory Reader London: Duke University Press

Goldie, P. (1999) How we think of others’ emotions’. In Mind and Language 14, pp394-423

Goldie, P. (2000) The Emotions: A Philosophical Exploration Oxford: Clarendon

Goldie, P. (2014) Anti-Empathy. In Coplan, A. & Goldie, P. (eds) Empathy: Philosophical and Psychological Perspectives pp302-317 Oxford: Oxford University Press (Original work published 2011)

Goldman, A. I. (2006) Simulating Minds: The Philosophy, Psychology, and Neuroscience of Mind-reading Oxford: Oxford University Press

Goldman, A. I. (2013) Joint Ventures: Mindreading, Mirorring, and Embedded Cognition Oxford: Oxford University Press

Goldman, A. (2014) Two Routes to Empathy: Insights from Cognitive Neuroscience. In Coplan, A. & Goldie, P. (eds) Empathy: Philosophical and Psychological Perspectives pp31-44 Oxford: Oxford University Press (Original work published 2011)

Golofshani, N. (2003) Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. In The Qualitative Report [Online] 8(4) pp597-607 [Accessed 20 July 2016] Available from: http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR8-4/golafshani.pdf

Google (2015) Paris Under Attack: Terror in the Heart of France [Online] [Accessed 25 March 2016] Available from: https://www.google.co.in/trends/story/JP_cu_NOwMQFEBAABpLM_en

Googletrends (2015) How the world searched for the Paris attacks [Online] [Accessed 25 March 2016] Available from: http://googletrends.github.io/parisattacks/

Hall, S. (1973) Encoding and Decoding in the Television Discourse. CSS Stenciled Paper 7, University of Birmingham

Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1994) Emotional Contagion Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Heal, J. (2003) Mind, Reason, and Imagination: Selected Essays in Philosophy of Mind and Language Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Hjorth, L. (2011) Games and Gaming Oxford: Berg

Hoffman, M. L. (2000) Empathy and Moral Development: Implications for Caring and Justice Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Huizinga, J. (1938/1944) Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture London: Routledge

Hume, D. (1739/2007) A Treatise of Human Nature [Online] [Accessed 26 February 2016] Available at: https://people.rit.edu/wlrgsh/HumeTreatise.pdf

Husserl, E. (1989) Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy: Second Book: Studies in the Phenomenology of Constitution. Rojcewicz, R. & Schuwer, A. (trans). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers

Iacoboni, M. (2008) Mirroring People: The New Science of How We Connect With Others, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux

Iacoboni, M. (2014) Within Each Other: Neural Mechanisms for Empathy in the Primate Brain. In Coplan, A. & Goldie, P. (eds) Empathy: Philosophical and Psychological Perspectives pp45-57 Oxford: Oxford University Press (Original work published 2011)

Järvinen, A. (2004) A Meaningful Read: Rules of Play reviewed. Game Studies [Online] 4(1) [Accessed 23 October 2016] Available from: http://www.gamestudies.org/0401/jarvinen/

Jaan-Sudmann, A. & Stockman, R. (2008) Computer Games as a Social Phenomenon London: Palgrave MacMillan

Jenkins, H. (2004) Game Design as Narrative Architecture. In Harrigan, P. & Wardrip-Fruin, N. (2004) First Person: New Media as Story, Performance, and Game London: MIT Press

Johnson, B. & Christensen, J. (2010) Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitiative, and Mixed Approaches London: Sage

Juul, J. (2005) Half Real: Video Games between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds London: MIT Press

Juul, J. (2015) The Ludologist [Online] [Accessed 7 March 2016] Available from http://www.jesperjuul.net/ludologist/

Karhulahti, V-M. (2015) Defining the Videogame. Game Studies [Online] 15(2) [Accessed 7 March 2016] Available from: http://gamestudies.org/1502/articles/karhulahti

Kohler, C. (2010) In Japan, Gamemakers Struggle to Instill Taste for Western Shooters. Wired [Online] 16 September [Accessed 13 August 2016] Available from: http://www.wired.com/2010/09/western-games-japan/

Kohut, H. (1971) The Analysis of Self New York: International Universities Press

Kvale, S. (1996) InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing London: Sage

Lankoski, P. & Björk, S. (eds) (2015) Game Research Methods – An Overview Pittsburgh: ETC Press

Lipps, T. (1931) Empathy, Inward Imitation, and Sense Feelings. In Philosophies of Beauty: From Socrates to Robert Bridges being the sources of Aesthetic Theory Carritt, E. F. (ed) pp252-256. Oxford: Clarendon Press (Original work published 1903)

Makkreel, R. A. (1996) How is Empathy Related to Understanding? In Issues in Husserl’s Ideas II, Nenon, T. & Embree, L. (eds) pp199-212 The Hague: Kluwer Academic Publishers

Makkreel, R. A. (2000) From Simulation to Structural Transposition: A Diltheyan Critique of Empathy and Defense of Verstehen In Empathy and Agency: The Problem of Understanding in the Human Sciences, Kögler & Stueber (eds), pp181-193 Boulder CO: Westview Press

Manger, S. (2015) Are videogames harming our kids? Study warns they lead to neglect of parts of brain. The Mirror [Online] 21 May [Accessed 25 January 2016] Available from: http://www.mirror.co.uk/lifestyle/staying-in/video-games/video-games-harming-kids-study-5732893

Matravers, D. (2014) Empathy as a Route to Knowledge. In Coplan, A. & Goldie, P. (eds) Empathy: Philosophical and Psychological Perspectives pp19-30 Oxford: Oxford University Press (Original work published 2011)

McCants, W. (2015) Why Did ISIS Attack Paris. The Atlantic [Online] 16 November [Accessed 25 March 2016] Available from: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/11/isis-paris-attack-why/416277/

McFarlane, A., Sparrowhawk, A., & Heald, Y. (2002) Report on the Educational Use of Games - Teachers Evaluating Educational Multimedia Cambridge, MA: TEEM

McFee, G. (2014) Empathy: Interpersonal vs Artistic. In Coplan, A. & Goldie, P. (eds) Empathy: Philosophical and Psychological Perspectives pp185-208 Oxford: Oxford University Press (Original work published 2011)

McKenna, K., Green, A., & Gleason, M. (2002). Relationship formation on the internet: What’s the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues [Online] 58(1) pp9-31 [Accessed 25 March 2016] Available from http://www.nslg.net/class/Relationship%20Formation.pdf

Moran, D. (2000) Introduction to Phenomenology. London: Routledge

Morton, A. (2014) Empathy for the Devil. In Coplan, A. & Goldie, P. (2014) Empathy: Philosophical and Psychological Perspectives pp318-330 Oxford: Oxford University Press (Original work published 2011)

Mott, T., Brown, N., Maxwell, B., & Clapham, M. (eds.) (2015) Edge – The 100 Greatest Videogames: The Ultimate Collection of Modern Classics London: Future Publishing

Murray, J. (1997) Hamlet on the Holodeck New York: Free Press

Murray, J. (2013) The Last Word on Ludology v Narratology 2005. Inventing The Medium [Online] 28 June [Accessed 14 August 2016] Available from: https://inventingthemedium.com/2013/06/28/the-last-word-on-ludology-v-narratology-2005/

Nielsen, S. E., Smith, J. H, & Tosca S. P. (2008) Understanding Video Games: The Essential Introduction London: Routledge

Parfitt, T. (2015) How to change YOUR Facebook profile picture to French flag to honour Paris victims. Daily Express [Online] 16 November [Accessed 25 March 2016] Available from: http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/science-technology/619512/Paris-attacks-Facebook-profile-picture-France

Patton, M. Q. (2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods London: Sage Publications

Posso, A. (2016) Internet Usage and Educational Outcomes Among 15-Year-Old Australian Students. International Journal of Communication [Online] 10, pp3851-3876 [Accessed 13 August 2016] Available from: http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/5586/1742

Preemack, D. & Woodruff, G. (1978) Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences [Online] 1(4) pp515-526 [Accessed 20 February 2016] Available from: http://0-journals.cambridge.org.wam.leeds.ac.uk/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7131588&fileId=S0140525X00076512

Preston, S. D. & de Waal, F. B. M. (2002) Empathy: Its Ultimate and Proximate Bases. Behavioral and Brain Sciences [Online] 25 pp1-71 [Accessed 2 January 2016] Available from: http://www.psychology.emory.edu/cognition/rochat/lab/VariousKindsofempathyasrevealedbmonkeysbrain.pdf

Propp, V. (2015) Morphology of the Folk Tale Eastford: Martino Fine Books (Original work published 1958)

Ransome, P. (2013) Ethics and Values in Social Research London: Palgrave MacMillan

Rizzolatti, G., Fadiga, L., Gallese, V., & Fogassi, L. (1996) Premotor Cortex and the Recognition of Motor Actions. In Cognitive Brain Research 3: pp131-141

Rizzolatti, G. & Sinigaglia, C. (2008) Mirrors in the Brain: How Our Minds Share Actions, Emotions, and Experience New York: Oxford University Press

Ronson, J. (2015) So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed London: Picador

Ruggill, J.E. & McAllister, K. S. (2011) Gaming Matters: Art, Science, Magic, and the Computer Game Medium Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press

Ryan, M. L. (2003) On Defining Narrative Media. Image and Narrative [Online] 3(2) [Accessed 1 March 2016] Available from: http://www.imageandnarrative.be/inarchive/mediumtheory/marielaureryan.htm

Ryan, M. L. (2006) Avatars of Story Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press

Salen, K. & Zimmerman, E. (2004) Rules of Play – Game Design Fundamentals London: MIT Press

Schertz, M. V. (2007) Empathy as intersubjectivity: resolving Hume and Smith’s divide. Studies in Philosophy and Education [Online] vol26 iss2 pp165-178 [Accessed 3 October 2015] Available from: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11217-006-9022-2

Seigworth, G. J., & Gregg, M. (2010) An Inventory of Shimmers. In Gregg, M. & Seigworth, G. J. (eds) The Affect Theory Reader pp1-25 London: Duke University Press

Sheepdog Gaming (2014) Sheepdog's Unfair Review - FTL : Faster Than Light [Online] [Accessed 25 September 2016] Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgVxAXG8myU

Sheldon, K. M, Abad, N., & Hinsch, C. (2011). A two-process view of Facebook use and relatedness need-satisfaction: Disconnection drives use, and connection rewards it.

Psychology of Popular Media Culture [Online] 100(4) pp766-775 [Accessed 25 March 2016] Available from: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/100/4/766/

Smith, A. (1759/2005) The Theory of Moral Sentiments [Online] [Accessed 4 October 2015] Available from http://www.ibiblio.org/ml/libri/s/SmithA_MoralSentiments_p.pdf

Smith, D. W. (2007) Husserl London: Routledge

Smith, M. (2014) Empathy, Expansionism, and the Extended Mind. In Coplan, A. & Goldie, P. (2014) Empathy: Philosophical and Psychological Perspectives pp99-117 Oxford: Oxford University Press (Original work published 2011)

Sobch