Exploring a Mixed Method Approach: Simulation Games and Q Methodology

  • Anique KuijpersEmail author
  • Heide Lukosch
  • Alexander Verbraeck
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11899)


In this paper we explore the possibilities to combine two research methods we regard as being very useful when interacting with stakeholders in complex systems. We discuss a mixed research methods approach, based on the Q methodology and a simulation game. In a game design process, translating the real or reference system into the game design is an intricate process and rather challenging due to the complexity of today’s societal systems. As shown by various studies, different data techniques are proposed in order to translate reality aspects. One of the proposed data gathering techniques in combination with simulation games is Q methodology. Q methodology is a suitable method to retrieve social perspectives of stakeholders on a particular topic. Yet it is still elusive how the results of a Q methodology can be used in a game design process. In this paper, we explore the possibilities how to combine the two methods and how to translate the results of the Q analysis into a game design concept. In the context of a case within the domain of transport and logistics, we discuss how such mixed research methods approach could look like. We conclude with a future outlook on our research.


Simulation games Q methodology Mixed method approach Game mechanics 


  1. 1.
    Duke, R.D.: Gaming: The Future’s Language, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills (1974)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Harteveld, C.: Triadic Game Design: Balancing Reality, Meaning and Play, 1st edn. Springer, London (2011). Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kriz, W.C.: Creating effective learning environments and learning organizations through gaming simulation design. Simul. Gaming 34(4), 495–511 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lukosch, H.K., Bekebrede, G., Kurapti, S., Lukosch, S.G.: A scientific foundation of simulation games for the analysis and design of complex systems. Simul. Gaming 49(3), 279–314 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Peters, V., Vissers, G., Heijne, G.: The validity of games. Simul. Gaming 29(2), 20–30 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    De Bruijn, H., Herder, P.M.: System and actors perspectives on sociotechnical systems. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A: Syst. Hum. 39(5), 981–992 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mayer, I.S.: The research and evaluation of serious games: toward a comprehensive methodology. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 45(3), 502–527 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cuppen, E., Bosch-Rekveldt, M.G.C., Pikaar, E., Mehos, D.C.: Stakeholder engagement in large-scale energy infrastructure projects: revealing perspectives using Q methodology. Int. J. Project Manage. 34(7), 1347–1359 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Duke, R.D.: The game design process. In: Greenblat, C.S., Duke, R.D. (eds.) Gaming and Simulation: Rationale Design and Applications, pp. 99–168. Wiley, New York (1981)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Geurts, J.L.A., Duke, R.D., Vermeulen, P.A.M.: Policy gaming for strategy and change. Long Range Plan. 40(6), 535–558 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Peters, V., Van de Westelaken, M.: Spelsimulaties – een Beknopte Inleiding in het Ontwerpproces (Simulation Games – A Brief Introduction tot he Design Process), Nijmegen, The Netherlands (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Webler, T., Danielson, S., Tuler, S.: Using Q method to reveal social perspectives in environmental research, Greenfield, MA (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brown, S.R.: Q methodology and qualitative research. Qual. Health Res. 6(4), 561–567 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ligtvoet, A., et al.: New future perspectives through constructive conflict: exploring the future of gas in the Netherlands. Futures 78–79, 19–33 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Barry, J., Proops, J.: Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology. Ecol. Econ. 28(3), 337–345 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nooteboom, B.: Collaboration, trust and the structure of relationships. In: Nooteboom, B., Stam, E. (eds.) Micro-Foundations for Innovation Policy, pp. 199–218. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lewis, J.D., Weigert, A.: Trust as a social reality. Soc. Forces 63(4), 967–985 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mcknight, D.H., Carter, M., Thatcher, J.B., Clay, P.F.: Trust in a specific technology: An investigation of its components and measures. ACM Trans. Manage. Inform. Syst. 2(2), 1–25 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., Perrone, V.: Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organ. Sci. 9(2), 141–159 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lewicki, R.J., Bunker, B.B.: Trust in Relationships: A Model of Development and Decline, 1st edn. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1995)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wiegmans, B., Menger, I., Behdani, B., van Arem, B.: Communication between deep sea container terminals and hinterland stakeholders: information needs and the relevance of information exchange. Marit. Econ. Logist. 20, 531–548 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anique Kuijpers
    • 1
    Email author
  • Heide Lukosch
    • 1
  • Alexander Verbraeck
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Technology, Policy and ManagementDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations