Synergistic Studies

Connecting Historical Games Studies and Science and Technology Studies

Introduction

Since its formal advent in the 1970s, Science and Technology Studies (STS) has provided voice to underrepresented narratives across the sub-disciplines of Science¹. This was motivated by underlying concerns around how the products of Scientific activities such as theories, facts and technology were created and the impacts these artefacts had on society. As a critical discourse, STS is not primarily concerned with the accuracy of scientific theories but rather with the practice of science and its consequences. Contrastingly, Historical Game Studies (HGS) is an artefact of this millennium, emerging from Humanities, but sharing several traits with STS such as a non-hegemonic focus, trans-disciplinary interest and cross-disciplinary antagonisms. HGS foregrounds audience interaction with historical narratives through games and gaming. As a critical discourse, HGS is not primarily concerned with the accuracy of historical narratives but rather engagement with history and its consequences. The goal of this essay is to briefly explore research synergies between these two meta-disciplines which are often regarded in isolation.

Science and Technology Studies

STS is a group of sub-disciplines with common interest in investigating Science. Sub-disciplines include (but are not limited to) philosophy, sociology, economics, gender studies, anthropology and politics. The grouping is multi-disciplinary as it combines several perspectives on Science, including traditional philosophical evaluations, sociological analyses and gender critiques. The grouping is trans-disciplinary in that investigations draw upon methodologies from across the separate research areas of academia e.g. Traweek’s autoethnographic gender criticism of high energy physics [Traweek] and Mol’s ethnographic ontological studies [Mol]. The grouping is also meta-disciplinary as it includes itself as an object of scholarly attention.

This amalgam of activities was officially bundled together in the 1970s. Of course, much work had taken place previously as independent pursuits, for example the socio-scientific critiques of the Frankfurt school in Weimar Germany, Michael Polanyi’s anti-positivist philosophy, and Thomas Kuhn’s socio-philosophical analysis of the history of science [Kuhn]. STS activities overlap in areas of interest, methodologies and analyses including investigating the hegemonic narrative of Science, which exemplifies the authoritative role Science has in modern society.

One of the main STS research topics concerns the creation of the hegemonic narrative of Science as well as its consequences. Areas of interest include the contingency of the scientific narrative, i.e. could an alternative description of the world have been developed; the ways in which Science interacts with wider society, e.g. how the scientific narrative is referenced, exploited or rejected in non-scientific contexts; and the impact on different demographics by scientific activities, i.e. who is affected by science and how. STS investigations foreground participants and practice over theories and concepts, which were traditionally favoured by earlier philosophical analyses.

Synergies in “Studies”

Interdisciplinary activities such as STS are comprised of varying perspectives with flexible relationships. Tolerance is an essential attribute to proceed with multiple views without fracturing the common collective or compromising controversy to the point of scholastic shallowness. Further, in the case of meta-disciplines, tolerance in the object of research is also beneficial, as controversies can illuminate the processes of consensus building and persuasion internal to the object discipline but obscured from outside. However, in reaction to liberal investigation, the various academic origins which provide the inter-disciplinary components may not appreciate or approve of the methodological mixtures which evolve. The hybrid research may even provoke antagonisms. Examples of these general features can be found in the evolution of STS and are provided below.

There is tolerance of views in the subject, where internal discrepancies in practice, analysis or goals do not threaten the existence of the disciplinary amalgam. In the case of STS, there are many competing viewpoints. For example, philosophy is generally normative, seeking some valued assessment of scientific activates, while contrastingly sociological perspectives are satisfied to remain neutral and provide impartial descriptions. In addition, some social theoretical approaches wish to assess the extent to which science achieves wider (extra scientific) societal goals, which are not prioritised by descriptive or normative approaches. All approaches exist under the STS banner.

There is tolerance of views in the object, where atypical dissent as well as normal procedures provide means to better understand the object discipline. In the case of STS, archaic or unofficial topics provide useful insights as well as modern Scientific activities. Previously, astrology was treated as an empirical endeavour: understanding its rejection from the scientific pantheon informs how intuitions as to what counts as Scientific activity develop over time. The treatment of para-scientific research, such as psychics, illustrates the bounds of epistemic ethics and reveals how scientific limits are policed. Investigations of current orthodox activates illuminates the processes of consensus building and persuasion at play in officially sanctioned Science. The resources of the past, present and dissent are all valuable to STS.

Antagonisms with related disciplines have developed previously, where authority of the object is considered criticised or the legitimacy of scrutiny is not appreciated. In addition, parent disciplines may not welcome how epistemic criteria are amended by outside influence when combined in transdisciplinary contexts. In the case of STS, object disciplines, such as physics, greet investigations with indifference and at times hostility. It is unusual for an undergraduate science course to include modules on STS themes such as philosophy or sociology of science (much less gender studies). Often where history is included as a pedogeological feature it is as some Whiggish appeal to the inevitability of the status quo. An extreme example of hostility is the Sokal Affair of 1990s where a group of scientists published a hoax paper in a humanities journal with the intent to damage the credibility of STS research². Fortunately, this explicit enmity was not widespread and has since faded. However, STS still exists in a parallel world to many scientists.

Reflexivity within the subject (meta-)discipline can take place as introspective reviews or meta-disciplinary practices are applied to the disciple itself. In STS this happens repeatedly as the critical products of analyses are considered as narratives themselves and therefore analysed and criticised. The severity of reaction to such introspection is a matter of research interest within STS itself. The lack of unanimity or even consensus in attitudes is not required since tolerance to varying views with shared practice is the crux of STS views of disciplinarity.

Historical Game Studies

Historical Game Studies (HGS) is a grouping of research activities interested in engagement with history through games and gaming. Sub-disciplines include (but are not limited to) history, memory, translation and media. Similarly to STS, HGS combines several perspectives on engagement with history including traditional historical evaluations, translation analyses and media critiques. The assorted grouping officially coalesced in the 2000s³, though much work had previously taken place as independent research before and after the advent of digital games. The activities overlap in areas of interest, methodologies and analyses including investigating how the hegemonic narrative of history is used in games and gaming.

One of the main HGS research avenues concerns how historical engagement is made through games and the consequences. Topics of interest include the production of historical narratives, i.e. how narratives are made; how historical content is communicated in games, e.g. how historical narratives are referenced, exploited or contradicted in gaming contexts; and how gamified historical engagement interacts with society, i.e. who is affected and how. HGS investigations foreground participant engagement over historical accuracy, which was traditionally the prioritised metric of analyses.

Highlighting Hegemony

As part of the broad range of research interests regarding engagement with historical games, HGS examines how historical narratives are presented in games. Some brief examples follow.

Games can invent historical narratives or support or contest existing perspectives on the past. Using the motivating themes of the game, players are presented with a story in historical context. The historical connection can lend authenticity to the content. Thereafter, editorial power can be employed to direct players’ attention to historical or quasi-historical episodes. Characters and scenes provide voice and visibility to historical actors, communities and events. Even in the case of non-factual events, such as mythical, allegorical or alternatives histories, causal networks and contextual mechanisms can be illustrated which inform players about actual historical circumstances. In addition to these examples there are many other narrative techniques which can illustrate, simulate or exploit history in the contexts of games to engage with the player audience.

Beyond the techniques and motivations of engagement, a valid investigative corollary regards the consequences. Issues of translation can arise when a historical narrative moves from source to reception as the designed game is played by a culturally diverse audience. Hence studies of narrative interpretation and its influences are relevant. The interpretation of a game over multiple players leads to a generalised engagement and hence the extent of homogeneity in historical engagement can be investigated over mass or shared perception. The mass experience of (digital) games in the modern world provide another medium to promote a common version of history. This adds to existing media such as literature or art which offer shared historical engagement and public memory. Investigating how historical narratives are received individually and en masse draws attention to the potency of historical gaming in wider society.

Crossings

Below some examples of existing synergies and fruitful opportunities between HGS and STS are described.

Crossing: HGS to STS

Many of the themes of HGS concerning hegemonic narrative creation and engagement are echoed in STS. For example, investigations into the processes by which scientific narratives are created highlight how science can invent, support or contest participant interests. Participants produce (e.g. contest, dispute or establish) theories and practices which compete to be established as authentic. Once anointed, narratives will enjoy amplified communication in scientific media. There is no necessity (as the historical record attests) that participants democratically reflect voices in society, and this can be reflected in the language, analogies and metaphors employed in narratives. Studies of disputes and failures in narrative, rather than rehearsals of acclaimed success, reveal processes in narrative selection which are relevant to the production and wider impacts of scientific facts. Lastly, without broaching the realist-antirealist debate, the editorial role of the scientific community in narrative creation warrants investigation as this shapes the advances in scientific output.

Beyond scientific communities the consequences of scientific narratives have also been investigated. The transmission of narrative interpretations back and forth across the scientific boundary reveal the interplay of science and society. Interpretative examples include the perennial philosophical debate over the status of scientific narratives (truth versus utility). Scientific communication involves shared and public perceptions of Nature as well as what counts as “scientific” methods of investigation. Hence, not only the authority of science in describing the world, but also the authority of science in defining the protocol of description. In addition, interpretation of these issues is not necessarily homogenous across sub-communities of expert and lay observers (e.g. realist, instrumentalists, technologist, politicians, etc.). Scientific disciplines may have their own epistemic ethics, and non-scientific communities may differ in how they value scientific output.

Crossing: STS to HGS

A potentially fruitful area of influence lies in the post-human analyses of Science which came to the fore in STS around the turn of the millennium. Such analyses embraced much of the themes regarding performance which had developed in Arts and Humanities and broadened the cast of actors beyond humans. STS writers such as Latour, Callon, Pickering and Mol were influential in this movement. In particular, Pickering’s analysis [Pickering] granted agency to community protocols, material objects and conceptual frameworks to draw out the themes of contingency, agency and emergence in Scientific practice which was often ignored in official narratives.

Game development and analysis is amenable to this flavour of STS analysis⁴. Agency describes the responses to events which take place within the context of a game. The actions of (familiar) human players are complemented by non-human agency in game rules and simulated players⁵. As players take turns there is a response to each payer event (move, decision, etc.) from the game rules which drives the play forward. Contingency is comparable to some unrepeatable aspects of play. These often bestow novelty and ownership to the sequence of events in the game and are demonstrated in alternatives in game outcome such as victory, game path or duration of play. Emergence is the advent of some (game-changing) element of chance: these events are not controlled by (human or non-human) agents but affect the game outcomes. Emergence may be introduced as special positions, chance cards or simple random interjection. The themes are not equally manifest in each game or even essential criteria to every game; rather, these are analytical themes which can help to classify, interpret or describe games, gaming and engagement. An example categorisation of common anglophone games is given in Appendix A.

Summary

In this brief note the goal has been to relate meta-studies from different academic communities, namely Science and Technology Studies and Historical Game Studies. The hope is that these separate disciplines are presented as synergetic in several aspects. Already several themes are shared between them: narrative building, consequences of engagements and tolerance to varying interests with shared methods. It has been argued fruitful opportunities are available in developing existing synergies further, specifically bringing post-human STS analysis to HGS.

Appendix A: Examples of Pickering’s analyses applied to familiar games

An example categorisation of common anglophone games using Pickering’s analytical structure. See main text for some description of categories.

Snakes & Ladders (🐍🐍&🪜🪜)

• Agency: no human agency (H) in dice rolls; non-human agency (N) in game rules when player lands on snake or ladder

• Contingency: chance in di(c)e rolls makes games novel

• Emergence: uncontrolled positioning of snakes and ladders

Dominos (🁏🁀🀽)

• Agency: players choose what to play (i.e. skill); no game agency

• Contingency: chance in initial tile allocation

• Emergence: no non-agent events

Monopoly (🎩🐕🧐)

• Agency: skill in purchases; game agency in rules

• Contingency: chance in dice rolls and player choice

• Emergence: chance cards add uncontrolled events

Summary Table

🐍🐍&🪜🪜	🁏🁀🀽	🎩🐕🧐
Agency (H, N)	❌, ✅	✅, ❌
Contingency	✅	✅
Emergence	✅	❌

References

Title	Author	Publisher	Year
Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physicists	Traweek, S	Harvard University Press	1988
The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice	Mol, A	Duke University Press	2002
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions	Kuhn, T S	University of Chicago Press	1962
The Mangle of Practice	Pickering, A	University of Chicago Press	1995

Footnotes

---

1. “Science” is used with constructive ambiguity and includes related activities which may be kept separate in other analyses such as Technology. A rough definition would be the official understanding of Nature and tools for interaction. ↩

2. An ill-tempered public spat played out in journals and popular press articles which generated much noise without much consequence. ↩

3. Dedicated workshops, conferences and journals. ↩

4. Engaging participants in a game with STS themes deviates from traditional hegemonic narratives presented in Historical Science games. ↩

5. Non-human agency may a seem strange or unhelpful concept as an analytical tool to help understand phenomena. Cf. relativity and QM where the new formalism was not obviously helpful to those comfortable with classical concepts, however the new descriptive schemes went on to have merit, nonetheless. ↩