Abstract
Verisimilitude is a key feature of every simulation. After describing the key features and learning objectives of our simulations through a recent case study on EU negotiations, we explain how we strive to ensure verisimilitude, and we discuss the limits of our approach. From our experience, four elements in simulations of EU negotiations that aspire to verisimilitude are essential: reliance on original documentation and on the real procedural rules, the representation of non-institutional actors in the process, the availability of IT tools to allow near-real social media activities and the opportunity to exchange views with the actual negotiators during or at the end of the exercise.
Pierpaolo Settembri writes in a personal capacity and the views he expresses in this publication may not be in any circumstances regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Or “illusion of reality”, as Keys and Wolfe (1990, p. 307) call it.
- 2.
- 3.
The reason for assigning different roles between the first and the second phase is explained in detail in the chapter on assessment.
- 4.
The Treaty of Lisbon renamed it “ordinary legislative procedure”.
- 5.
This has been done in various ways, also depending on the number of participants. For a simulation to include negotiations in the Council (or relevant preparatory body) and in the EP (or relevant committee), the minimum required number of participants is above 50.
- 6.
A social media in all similar to Twitter except for its closed nature (i.e. only open to and visible by the participants). Its author, Jon Worth, explained the details here: https://jonworth.eu/teaching-eu-online-communication-through-simulation-the-twitcol-case/
- 7.
In the example described by Scherpereel (2014, pp. 5–7), practitioners are not only involved to debrief students and provide a reality check. They codesign and co-manage the simulation game, thus injecting and ensuring verisimilitude to the whole exercise.
References
Aldrich, C. (2006). Nine paradoxes of educational simulations: A new way to view a world that is not that tidy. Training and Development, 60(5), 49–56.
Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and simulation. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Belloni, R. (2008). Role-playing international intervention in conflict areas: Lessons from Bosnia for Northern Ireland education. International Studies Perspectives, 9(2), 220–234.
Bernstein, J. L., & Meizlish, D. S. (2003). Becoming congress: A longitudinal study of the civic engagement implications of a classroom simulation. Simulation and Gaming, 34(2), 198–219.
Boocock, S. (1972). Validity-testing of an intergenerational relations game. Simulation and Games, 3, 29–40.
Brunazzo, M., & Settembri, P. (2012). Experiencing the European Union. Learning how EU negotiations work through simulation games. Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino.
Brunazzo, M., & Settembri, P. (2015). Teaching the European Union: A simulation on Council’s negotiations. European Political Science, 14(1), 1–14.
Brunazzo, M., & Settembri, P. (2017). Gender balance in business leadership: A simulation game on EU negotiations. Quaderni di Scienza Politica, 24(1), 89–106.
Chiesl, N. E. (1979). The dynamic aspects of interactive gaming puts the realism into gaming. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, 6, 271–276.
Chin, J., Dukes, R., & Gamson, W. (2009). Assessment in simulation and gaming. A review of the last 40 years. Simulation and Gaming, 40(4), 553–568.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Crookall, D. (2010). Serious games, debriefing, and simulation/gaming as a discipline. Simulation and Gaming, 41(6), 898–920.
Elias, A. (2014). Simulating the European Union: Reflections on module design. International Studies Perspectives, 15(4), 407–422.
Gastinger, M. (2015, September 7–9). Learning through repetition: Using “simple” simulations to teach basic principles of international negotiations. Paper prepared for presentation at the 45th annual conference UACES at Bilbao, Spain.
Guasti, P., Muno, W., & Niemann, A. (2015). Introduction – EU simulations as a multi-dimensional resource: From teaching and learning tool to research instrument. European Political Science, 14, 205–217.
Hall, J. J. S. B. (2015). Business simulations: Reality… and beyond. Development in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 42, 84–90.
Ishiyama, J. (2012). Frequently used active learning techniques and their impact: A critical review of existing journal literature in the United States. European Political Science, 11(1), 116–126.
Jones, R., & Burses, P. (2015). The effects of active learning environments: How simulations trigger affective learning. European Political Science, 14, 254–265.
Keys, B., & Wolfe, J. (1990). The role of management games and simulations in education and research. Journal of Management, 16, 307–336.
Kibbee, J. M. (1961). Model building for management games. In A. Newgarden (Ed.), Simulation and gaming: A symposium (pp. 8–15). New York: American Management Association.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & DeShon, R. P. (2004). A psychological fidelity approach to simulation based training: Theory, research and principles. In E. Salas, L. R. Elliott, S. G. Schflett, & M. D. Coovert (Eds.), Scaled worlds: Development, validation, and applications (pp. 75–99). Hants: Ashgate.
Loveluck, C. (1994). Simplicity and realism in business games. In R. Armstrong, F. Percival, & D. Saunders (Eds.), The simulation and gaming yearbook. Volume 2, Interactive learning (pp. 24–28). London: Kogan Page.
Meerts, P. (2012). Simulare necesse est. Simulation & Gaming, XX(X), 1–16.
Norris, D. R. (1986). External validity of business games. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Exercises, 13, 126–129.
Obendorf, S., & Randerson, C. (2013). Evaluating the Model United Nations: Diplomatic simulation as assessed undergraduate coursework. European Political Science, 12(3), 350–364.
Perchot, P. (2016). Les simulations européennes: Généalogie d’une adaptation au Collège d’Europe. Politique européenne, 52, 58–82.
Raiser, S., Schneider, A., & Warkalla, B. (2015). Simulating Europe: Choosing the right learning objectives for simulation games. European Political Science, 14, 228–240.
Raymond, C. (2010). Do role-playing simulations generate measurable and meaningful outcomes? A simulation’s effect on exam scores and teaching evaluations. International Studies Perspectives, 11(1), 51–60.
Rünz, P. (2015). Beyond teaching: Measuring the effect of EU simulations on European identity and support of the EU. European Political Science, 14, 266–278.
Scherpereel, C. M. (2014). It’s only a game: Reliability theory a better way to explain decision making in business simulation games, developments in business simulation and experiential. Learning, 41, 1–22.
Usherwood, S. (2009). Grounding simulations in reality: A case study from an undergraduate politics degree. On the Horizon, 17(4), 296–302.
Usherwood, S. (2013). Constructing effective simulations of the European Union for teaching: Realising the potential. European Political Science, 13, 1–8.
Usherwood, S. (2014, March 26–29). Assessment strategies in simulation games. Paper prepared for presentation at the International Studies Association annual conference, Toronto.
Wright-Maley, C. (2015). Beyond the “Babel problem”: Defining simulations for the social studies. Journal of Social Studies Research, 39(2), 63–77.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Settembri, P., Brunazzo, M. (2018). Mission Impossible? Verisimilitude in EU Simulations. In: Bursens, P., Donche, V., Gijbels, D., Spooren, P. (eds) Simulations of Decision-Making as Active Learning Tools. Professional and Practice-based Learning, vol 22. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74147-5_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74147-5_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-74146-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-74147-5
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)