How players "read" a game?

It's is funny that while I blog what I am doing for my study, I never mention what my research topic is. My research topic is to find out how players "read" a game and the game genre I am interested in is MMOG. I am confident that we can develop a theory that describe how players "read" game and grounded theory approach will help me achieve that.

Just as learners may not necessarily take the view propounded an author when reading a book, and in some instances they may take a totally opposite and unexpected view, in MMOG too there is likelihood that players may not necessarily "read" a game as game designers and developers would want them to (Gee, 2003). We can better understand what players take away from playing a game by looking into the conversations and interactions players have with other players (Shaffer, 2007), and answer question that will broaden our understanding of social interactions, culture and practices in MMOG. So I will be focusing on a phenomenon or process and my study would look into evidences that will allow understanding of the process that links the two dynamics - players' interactions and conversation that emerge form social structures in MMOG, and their playing experience.

My study has potential to contribute to research on games for learning, because educators who are interested in exploring MMOG as a learning tool have to be aware of the nature of social play and community dynamic found in MMOGs. Furthermore, different learning opportunities are afforded in MMOGs based on different social context found in them (Squire & Jan, 2007). As such, designing MMOG for learning entails not only structuring learning activities to cover an intended syllabus, but also to view MMOG as a social system and to design game and social structures in MMOG that will engender interactions and conversations that are favourable for learning.

I have explored other qualitative approaches during my qualitative class but I feel social constructivist approach to grounded theory by Charmaz (2006) is most suitable (and I am also exploring Adele Clarke's situational analysis on top of Charmaz's approach). Many will argue that qualitative research is not aimed for generalizability but I feel constant comparison method to draw theoretical categories and theoretical concerns to the point of category saturation will end me up with a theory to describe the phenomenon I am investigating.

Choosing the right methodology and methods are important to give credibility to our findings and for readers to take our work seriously (Smagorinsky, 2008). Stories I write if I were to use narrative approaches (Polkinghorne, 1995), would at best explain a phenomenon with respect to a local setting (my specific research site). The same can be said with case study research (Yin, 2005; Stake, 1995). Phenomenology (Moustakas, 1994) would leave me with categories so thin that I can hardy pull them together to draw out a theory. Traditional grounded theory (Rock, 2001; LeCompte & Preissle, 1993) is a no as explained in my earlier post. Mixed method is interesting and Johnson & Onwuegbuzie (2004)'s approach is one version of a few versions of mixed methods approaches. I have heard a seminar by Dr Chen W. who said that in mixed method, quantitative methods may be used to affirm findings from qualitative methods (a turn around from Johnson and Onwuegbuzie). Anyway, I have explored the possibility of getting quatitative data by mining one the game servers of the MMOG I am researching on. However, the game distributor company chooses to put on deaf ears to my request. Ah well, I understand perfectly why they are doing so. : )

Epistemological belief

One of the required readings on Grounded Theory Steve gave us was one by Dey (1999) entitled, Grounding grounded theory: Guidelines for qualitative inquiry. A section in that paper mentions briefly how Glazer and Strauss took different directions in developing grounded theory further after introducing grounded theory to the world back in 1967. My first impression was that both Glazer and Strauss had a fight and decided to go their separate ways. While Glazer chose to remain alone, Strauss found a new ally in Corbin. Hmm...how silly can I be!

Charmaz's (2006) book Constructing Grounded Theory and Locke's (2001) book Grounded Theory in Management Research enlighten what actually happened. What happened was that both remained true to their own epistemological belief.

Glazer had history of quantitative training under the tutelage of Paul Lazarfield at Columbia University. Glazer was very much influence by Lazarfield's work on quantitative research that he saw the possibility of codifying qualitative research methods as how Lazarfield had codified quantitative research. So Glazer brought into grounded theory "dispassionate empiricism, rigorous codified methods, emphasis on emergent discoveries, and its somewhat ambiguous specialized language that echoes quantitative methods" (Charmaz, 2006, p. 7) and is responsible for the objectivist face of grounded theory.

Strauss, on the other hand, did his doctorate in University of Chicago and he was exposed to the humanistic branch of symbolic interactionism through the works of Blumer and Mead. Humanistic branch of symbolic interactionism is a theoretical perspective that assumes self, society and reality are constructed through interaction (how people create, enact and change meanings and actions), where language and communication play an important role. So Strauss brought into grounded theory both symbolic interactionism and ethnographic research, and gave a constructivist face to grounded theory.

Being new to research, the importance of surfacing what my epistemological belief is and staying true to it is something I have not learn to appreciate. I guess young researchers like me (or it could only be me alone) tend to settle on what is most convenient for research. I mean, any epistemological belief will do as long as it fits nicely with a research approach that is easy and fits nicely into our schedule. It was so important for Glazer and Strauss to show commitment to their epistemological belief because they see themselves as lens through which their audiences see their research with. With that lens, the audiences can see "what kind of knowledge is possible and how [they] can ensure that [the knowledge] are adequate and legitimate" (Maynard, 1990, as cited in Crotty, 998, p. 8)

Constructing Grounded Theory by Charmaz

I bought this book during lunch today at NIE bookshop. This book is the first of a few more book on grounded theory that will be my close companions as I continue my journey pursuing a doctoral degree.

Why Charmaz's book is important? Charmaz criticises Glazer's and Strauss' classic grounded theory for not committing to any epistemological assumption. The classic grounded theory expects researchers to be free from taking any philosophical approach and theoretical perspective when beginning their inquiry, to the point that literature review should be conducted only after data has been collected and an independent analysis has been developed by the researcher. Charmaz proposes a social constructivist approach to grounded theory to show that researcher can make a commitment to a theoretical perspective and an epistemological assumption. According to Charmaz, her contructivist approach to grounded theory "takes implicit meanings, experiential views, and grounded theory analyses as constructions of reality" and it complements well with symbolic interactionism (which is the theoretical perspective I take for my study) because "both perspectives emphasize the study of how action and meaning are constructed" (Charmaz, 2003, p. 314).

Anyway, on a seprate note, I didn't have much time to blog these days because most of my free time was spent on reading, writing and rewriting. Well, I have no complaint because I enjoy doing just that. How I wish I can lock myself up in my room every weekend and just write. Hmm...my wife and kids wouldn't like that. Ahh...the struggle to strike a balance.