At the science - policy interface there are several reasons to combine models with the participatory process to facilitate the complex policy making process but the communication of the two sides is often too hard to generate any meaningful results. In this paper we argue that to close the communication gap the rationale of the Meta – rule of complex policy making needs to be comprehended and coped with. Gaming as a participatory method can be used to organize the combined process. Through the literature review we summarize the principles of gaming and use them to analyze an empirical case where stakeholders participated in a water policy making process. A computer model called the Planning Kit Blokkendoos (PKB, in English: Box of Blocks) was used here to support the participatory process and is claimed to have had a marked impact on the complex policy making process. We conclude that the PKB tool provided the stakeholders with significant ‘room to play’ with the various policy alternatives and interweaved with the policy process.
In 1995 heeft Bestuurskunde aandacht besteed aan een voor de bestuurskunde wat ‘exotisch’ onderwerp, namelijk ‘spelsimulaties’. Het betreffende themanummer bestond uit vier bijdragen onder gastredactie van prof. Jac Geurts (e.a.), hoogleraar Beleids- en Organisatiewetenschappen in Tilburg. Inmiddels zijn we meer dan een decennium verder. Een interessante vraag is of spelsimulaties (gaming, beleidsexercities) hun weg in de bestuurs- en beleidskunde en in de beleidspraktijk hebben gevonden. Welke inzichten over de relatie tussen beleid en spelsimulaties blijven overeind en welke zijn toe aan een opfrissing of herziening? En, misschien nog interessanter, welke aspecten uit het visionaire beeld over ‘virtueel oefenen met beleid’ zijn (of zullen op korte termijn worden) waargemaakt?
This article presents a review of the current body of academic literature concerning gamification of production and logistics to understand the status quo and provide suggestions for future research. The findings indicate that the execution and control of production and logistic processes has been addressed most often in the current body of literature, which mostly consists of design research. Objectives and goals, points, achievements, multimedial feedback, metaphorical or fictional representations, and levels and progress are currently the most often employed affordances within this field. Research has focused in the given context on examining or considering motivation, enjoyment and flow, as the main psychological outcomes of gamification, while individual performance and efficiency are the most commonly examined or suggested behavioral and organizational impacts. Future studies should employ more rigorous designs within new subdomains of production and logistics and should firmly ground research designs and discussions in management theory and critical studies.
The objective of this chapter is to provide an overview of the different methods that can be used to evaluate the learning outcomes of serious games. These include Randomised Control Trials (RCT),quasi-experimental designs, and surveys. Case studies of a selection of serious games developed foruse in higher education are then presented along with evaluations of these games. The evaluations illustrate the different evaluation methods, along with an assessment of how well the evaluation method performed. Finally, the chapter discusses the lessons learned and compares the experiences with the evaluation methods and their transferability to other games.
In this chapter, the authors present a methodology for researching and evaluating Serious Games (SG) and digital (or other forms of) Game-Based Learning (GBL). The methodology consists of the following elements: 1) frame-reflective analysis; 2) a methodology explicating the rationale behind a conceptual-research model; 3) research designs and data-gathering procedures; 4) validated research instruments and tools; 5) a body of knowledge that provides operationalised models and hypotheses; and 6) professional ethics. The methodology is intended to resolve the dilemma between the “generality” and “standardisation” required for comparative, theory-based research and the “specificity” and “flexibility” needed for evaluating specific cases.
The method of consensus conferences arranges a high-quality analytic debate between a panel of lay people and a panel of experts in the presence of an audience. The attention for consensus conferences matches a more general revival of interest for the concept of participatory policy analysis. However, no comprehensive methodology for participatory policy analysis exists. A preliminary framework on which this methodology could be based is presented. Participatory policy analysis is defined by the authors as 'a practical mode of facilitated analytical inquiry which in different contexts of policy making expands the range of contributors to support the management of knowledge, the decision process and the network relations via the design, application and evaluation of specific fora of communication and participation'. It is illustrated how the consensus conference is used in Europe as a forum for communication and participation of lay men and experts for societal decision making on complex and controversial technological issues such as bio- and gene-technology. Some recent experiences in Europe are described, and particular attention is paid to some of the results of an extensive (quasi-experimental) evaluation study of a consensus conference on the question 'human predictive genetics: where will it lead us?'. This conference and its evaluation were initiated by the Dutch Platform for Science and Ethics. The evaluation focused on the forming of opinions of the members of the lay panel as a result of their participation.
Mass media can, and often do, play a critical role in policy-making. The typical view of media
is that they matter in the early stages of the policy process-that media can help to set an
agenda, which is then adopted and dealt with by politicians, policy-makers, and other actors.
The impact of media is rarely so constrained, however. Our argument here, in short, is that
media matter, not just at the beginning but throughout the policy process.
