Advertisement

Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 201–230 | Cite as

Knowing the Way. Managing Epistemic Topologies in Virtual Game Worlds

  • Ulrika BennerstedtEmail author
  • Jonas Ivarsson
Article

Abstract

This is a study of interaction in massively multiplayer online games. The general interest concerns how action is coordinated in practices that neither rely on the use of talk-in-interaction nor on a socially present living body. For the participants studied, the use of text typed chat and the largely underexplored domain of virtual actions remain as materials on which to build consecutive action. How, then, members of these games can and do collaborate, in spite of such apparent interactional deprivation, are the topics of the study. More specifically, it addresses the situated practices that participants rely on in order to monitor other players’ conduct, and through which online actions become recognizable as specific actions with implications for the further achievement of the collaborative events. The analysis shows that these practices share the common phenomenon of projections. As an interactional phenomenon, projection of the next action has been extensively studied. In relation to previous research, this study shows that the projection of a next action can be construed with resources that do not build on turns-at-talk or on actions immediately stemming from the physical body—in the domain of online games, players project activity shifts by means of completely different resources. This observation further suggests that projection should be possible through the reconfiguration of any material, on condition that those reconfigurations and materials are recurrent aspects of some established practice.

Key words

conversation analysis collaborative gaming coordinated action ethnomethodology gameplay massively multiplayer online game projectability recognizability virtual action 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work reported was supported by the Linnaeus Centre for Research on Learning, Interaction, and Mediated Communication in Contemporary Society (LinCS). It has been financed by the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, the Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation and the Swedish Research Council by means of the project ‘Learning, interactive technologies and the development of narrative knowing and remembering’. The study has also been funded by the Swedish Research Council through a grant to the project ‘Representation in imaginative practice’. We also wish to express our gratitude to Charles Goodwin, Christian Greiffenhagen, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

References

  1. Auer, P. (2005). Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text, 25(1), 7–36.Google Scholar
  2. Bennerstedt, U. (2008a). Sheeping, sapping and avatars-in-action: An in-screen perspective on online gameplay. In O. Leino, G. Calleja, & S. Mosberg Iversen (Eds.), Proceedings of the [Player] conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, August 26 to 29 (pp. 28–52). Copenhagen: Nørrebros Bogtryk ApS.Google Scholar
  3. Bennerstedt, U. (2008b). Welcome to the digital puppet show: Positioning work and make-believe methods in role play Mmorpg servers. In O. Leino, G. Calleja, & S. Mosberg Iversen (Eds.), Proceedings of the [Player] conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, August 26 to 29 (pp. 53–86). Copenhagen: Nørrebros Bogtryk ApS.Google Scholar
  4. Bennerstedt, U., & Linderoth, J. (2009). The spellbound ones: Illuminating everyday collaborative gaming practices in a Mmorpg. In C. O’Malley, D. Suthers, P. Reimann, & A. Dimitracopoulou (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL 2009), Rhodes, Greece, June 8 to 13 (pp. 404–413). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  5. Bowers, J., Pycock, J., & O’Brien, J. (1996). Talk and embodiment in collaborative virtual environments. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, Canada, April 13 to 18 (pp. 58–65). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  6. Crabtree, A., & Rodden, T. (2004). Domestic routines and design for the home. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). An International Journal, 13, 191–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crabtree, A., Rodden, T., & Benford, S. (2005). Moving with the times: it research and the boundaries of Cscw. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). An International Journal, 14, 217–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crabtree, A., Benford, S., Capra, M., Flintham, M., Drozd, A., Tandavanitj, N., et al. (2007). The cooperative work of gaming: orchestrating a mobile Sms game. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). An International Journal, 16, 167–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dourish, P., Adler, A., Bellotti, V., & Henderson, A. (1996). Your place or mine? Learning from long-term use of audio–video communications. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). An International Journal, 5(1), 33–62.Google Scholar
  10. Drew, P. (1995). Social intelligence and interaction: Expressions and implications of the social bias in human intelligence. In E. Goody (Ed.), Interaction sequences and anticipatory interactive planning (pp. 111–138) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Duchenaut, N., & Moore, R. J. (2004). The social side of gaming: A study of interaction patterns in a massively multiplayer online game. In Proceedings of the ACM conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Chicago, IL, November 6 to 10 (pp. 360–369). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  12. Ford, C. E. (2004). Contingency and units in interaction. Discourse Studies, 6(1): 27–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fraser, M., Hindmarsh, J., Benford, S., & Heath, C. (2003). Getting the picture: Enhancing avatar representations in collaborative virtual environments. In D. N. Snowdon, E. F. Churchill, & E. Frécon (Eds.), Inhabited information spaces: Living with your data (pp. 133–150). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  15. Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkheim’s aphorism. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  16. Garfinkel, H., & Livingston, E. (2003). Phenomenal field properties of order in formatted queues and their neglected standing in the current situation of inquiry. Visual Studies, 18(1), 21–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gee, J. P. (2008). Learning and games. In K. Salen (Ed.), Ecology of games (pp. 21–40). Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  18. Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489–1522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goodwin, C. (2006). Human sociality as mutual orientation in a rich interactive environment. Multimodal utterances and pointing in aphasia. In N. Enfield & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Roots of human sociality (pp. 96–125). London: Berg.Google Scholar
  20. Goodwin, C. (2007). Participation, stance, and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse and Society, 18(1), 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harper, R., Hughes, J., & Shapiro, D. (1991). Harmonious working and CSCW: Computer technology and air traffic control. In J. Bowers & S. D. Benford (Eds.), Studies in CSCW. Theory, practice and design (pp. 225-234). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  22. Heath, C., & Luff, P. (1992a). Collaboration and control: Chrisis management and multimedia in London underground line control rooms. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). An International Journal, 1, 69–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heath, C., & Luff, P. (1992b). Explicating face to face interaction. In N. Gilbert (Ed.), Researching social life (pp. 306–327). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Heath, C., Jirotka, M., Luff, P., & Hindmarsh, J. (1995). Unpacking collaboration: interactional organisation of trading in a city dealing room. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). An International Journal, 3, 147–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heath, C., Svensson, M. S., Hindmarsh, J., Luff, P., & Lehn, D. V. (2002). Configuring awareness. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). An International Journal, 11, 317–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hindmarsh, J., & Heath, C. (2000). Sharing the tools of the trade. The interactional constitution of workplace objects. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 29(5), 523–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hindmarsh, J., Fraser, M., Heath, C., Benford, S., & Greenhalgh, C. (1998). Fragmented interaction: Establishing mutual orientation in virtual environments. In Proceedings of the 1998 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, Seattle, Washington, USA (pp. 217–226). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  28. Hindmarsh, J., Heath, C., & Fraser, M. (2006). (Im)materiality, virtual reality and interaction. Grounding the ‘Virtual’ in Studies of Technology in Action. The Sociological Review, 54(4), 795–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hornecker, E. (2005). A design theme for tangible interaction: Embodied facilitation. In H. Gellersen, K. Schmidt, M. Beaudouin-Lafon, & W. Mackay (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW 2005), Paris, France, September 18 to 22 (pp. 23–43). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Irani, L., Hayes, G. R., & Dourish, P. (2008) Situated practices of looking: Visual practices in an online world. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, San Diego, CA, November 8 to 12 (pp. 187–196). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  31. Jørgensen, K. (2008). Audio and gameplay: An analysis of Pvp battlegrounds in World of Warcraft. Game studies. The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 8(2), http://gamestudies.org/0802/articles/jorgensen.
  32. Juul, J. (2005). Half real: Video games between real rules and fictional worlds. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  33. Kendon, A. (1985). Behavioral foundations for the process of frame attunement in face-to-face interaction. In G. P. Ginsburg (Ed.), Discovery strategies in the psychology of action (pp. 229–253). London: Academic.Google Scholar
  34. Kendon, A. (1990). Spatial organization in social encounters: The F-formation system. In A. Kendon (Ed.), Conducting interaction: Patterns of behavior in focused encounters (pp. 209–238). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Linderoth, J. (2004). Datorspelandets Mening: Bortom Idén Om Den Interaktiva Illusionen. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
  36. Linderoth, J. (2008). The struggle for immersion. Narrative re-framing in World of Warcraft. In O. Leino, G. Calleja, & S. Mosberg Iversen (Eds.), Proceedings of the Proceedings of the [Player] conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, August 26 to 29 (pp. 242–274). Copenhagen: Nørrebros Bogtryk ApS.Google Scholar
  37. Linderoth, J., & Bennerstedt, U. (2007) Living in World of Warcraft: The thoughts and experiences of ten young people. Department of Education, University of Gothenburg. Report for the Swedish Media Council, http://www.medieradet.se/upload/Rapporter_pdf/World_of_Warcraft_eng.pdf.
  38. Luff, P., Heath, C., Kuzuoka, H., Yamazaki, K., & Yamashita, J. (2006). Handling documents and discriminating objects in hybrid spaces. In Proceedings of the ACM CHI 2006 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montréal, Québec, Canada, April 22 to 27 (pp. 561–570). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  39. Manninen, T., & Kujanpää, T. (2005). The hunt for collaborative war gaming—case: Battlefield 1942. Game studies. The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 5(1), http://www.gamestudies.org/0501/manninen_kujanpaa/.
  40. Mondada, L. (2003). Working with video: how surgeons produce video records of their actions. Visual Studies, 18(1), 58–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mondada, L. (2006). Participants’ online analysis and multimodal practices: projecting the end of the turn and the closing of the sequence. Discourse Studies, 8(1), 117–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moore, R. J., Duchenaut, N., & Nickell, E. (2007a). Doing virtually nothing. Awareness and accountability in massively multiplayer online games. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). An International Journal, 16(3), 265–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moore, R. J., Hankinson-Gathman, C. E., Duchenaut, N., & Nickell, E. (2007b). Coordinating joint activity in avatar-mediated interaction. In Proceedings of the ACM CHI 2007 Conference on Human factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA (pp. 21–30). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  44. Nardi, B., & Harris, J. (2006) Strangers and friends: Collaborative play in World of Warcraft. In Proceedings of the Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW´06), Banff, Alberta, Canada, November 4 to 6 (pp. 149–158). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  45. Rawls, A. (2008). Harold Garfinkel, ethnomethodology and workplace studies. Organization Studies, 29(5), 701–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Reeves, S., Brown, B., & Laurier, E. (2009). Experts at play. Understanding skilled expertise. Games and Culture, 4, 205–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Reynolds, P. C. (1993). The complementation theory of language and tool use. In K. R. Gibson & T. Ingold (Eds.), Cognition, tool use, and human evolution (pp. 407–428). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Ryave, A. L., & Schenkein, J. N. (1974). Notes on the art of walking. In R. Turner (Ed.), Ethnomethodology (pp. 265–278). Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  49. Sacks, H. (1989). Lectures 1964–1965. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  50. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70(6), 1075–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schegloff, E. A. (1996a). Confirming allusions. Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology, 102(1), 161–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schegloff, E. A. (1996b). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammar and interaction (pp. 52–133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Schegloff, E. A. (1998). Body torque. Social Research, 65(3), 535–596.Google Scholar
  55. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Selting, M. (2000). The construction of units in conversational talk. Language in Society, 29, 477–517.Google Scholar
  57. Steinkuehler, C. (2004). Learning in massively multiplayer online games. In Y. B. Kafai, W. A. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. S. Nixon, & F. Herrera (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 521–528). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  58. Steinkuehler, C., & Williams, D. (2006). Where everybody knows your (screen) name. Online games as “Third Places”. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(4), 885–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Streeck, J. (1995). On projection. In E. Goody (Ed.), Interaction sequences and anticipatory interactive planning (pp. 87–110). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Streeck, J. (2009). Gesturecraft. The manu-facture of meaning. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Sudnow, D. (1983). Pilgrim in the microworld. New York: Warner Books.Google Scholar
  63. Taylor, T. L. (2006). Does Wow change everything?: How a Pvp server, multinational player base, and surveillance mod scene caused me pause. Games and Culture, 1(4), 318–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tulbert, E., & Goodwin, M. H. (2008). Choreographies of attention. Multimodality in a routine family activity. Los Angeles: UCLA Sloan Center on Everyday Lives of Families.Google Scholar
  65. Turner, R. (1974). Ethnomethodology. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  66. Woodcock, B. (2008). An analysis of Mmog subscription growth. Version 23.0, http://www.mmogchart.com.
  67. Yee, N. (2006). The labor of fun. How video games blur the boundaries of work and play. Games and Culture, 1(1), 68–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationUniversity of GothenburgGöteborgSweden

Personalised recommendations