Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethics and Simulation Games in a Cultural Context: Why Should We Bother? And What Can We Learn?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Gaming as a Cultural Commons

Part of the book series: Translational Systems Sciences ((TSS,volume 28))

Abstract

Ethics is a challenging subject, especially when applied to the already social complex reality of simulation games (SGs). In this chapter we explain the factors involved and provide suggestions on how to deal with the challenges that arise. Our aim is to create learning opportunities for both participants and facilitators. Ethical challenges in SGs stem from two main sources; the first is the context of the SG and its participants as they start interacting in the gameplay, and the second is within the SG itself. In this chapter we take you on a journey to provide insights into the kinds of challenges you may encounter and how they can enable you as designer and facilitator to optimize learning both within and beyond the SG. Because SGs as tools are adding much of their value by connecting to specific (ethical) issues relevant for learners, it is important for facilitators to understand how these may become problematic as a SG proceeds.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abt, C. C. (1987). Serious games. University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Achterbergh, J., & Vriens, D. J. (2010). Organizations: Social systems conducting experiments (2nd rev. ed.). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Achterbergh, J., & Vriens, D. J. (2019). Organizational development. Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781315695228

  • Alklind Taylor, A.-S. (2014). Facilitation matters: A framework for instructor-led serious gaming. University of Skövde.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, G., Boud, D., & Sampson, J. (2014). Learning contracts: A practical guide. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175–1184. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.44.9.1175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bedwell, W. L., Pavlas, D., Heyne, K., Lazzara, E. H., & Salas, E. (2012). Toward a taxonomy linking game attributes to learning: An empirical study. Simulation & Gaming, 43(6), 729–760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878112439444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beer, S. (1984). The viable system model: Its provenance, development, methodology and pathology. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 35(1), 7–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekebrede, G., Lo, J., & Lukosch, H. (2015). Understanding complexity: The use of simulation games for engineering systems. Simulation and Gaming, 46(5), 447–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878115618140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bion, W. R. (1984). Learning from experience. Karnac Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogost, I. (2010). Persuasive games: The expressive power of videogames. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckingham, D., & Burn, A. (2007). Game literacy in theory and practice. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 16(3), 323–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrera, A. M., Naweed, A., Leigh, E., Crea, T., Krynski, B., Heveldt, K., Lyons, M., Knott, C., & Khetia, S. (2016). Constructing safe containers for effective learning: Vignettes of breakdown in psychological safety during simulated scenarios. In Intersections in simulation and gaming (pp. 15–29). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christopher, E., & Smith, L. (1990). Shaping the content of simulation/games. In Simulation, gaming, and language learning (pp. 47–54). Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Flow and education. NAMTA Journal, 22(2), 2–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Caluwé, L. I. A. (2001). Denken over veranderen in vijf kleuren. In Facility management handboek.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Wijse-van Heeswijk, K. (2022). A design science perspective on formative evaluation in simulation games (release spring).

    Google Scholar 

  • De Wijse-van Heeswijk, M. (2021). Ethics and the simulation facilitator: Taking your professional role seriously. Simulation & Gaming, 52(3), 312–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/10468781211015707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Wijse-van Heeswijk, M. (2022). Facilitation interventions to increase learning effectiveness in game simulations. A generic approach of facilitation applicable to a broad variety of simulation games (release spring).

    Google Scholar 

  • De Wijse-van Heeswijk, M., Rouwette, E., & van Laere, J. (2022). Comparative case study analysis on effects of facilitation interventions in different types of simulation games an effect study (release spring).

    Google Scholar 

  • Deen, M. (2015). GAME games autonomy motivation & education. Retrieved from Lulu.com

    Google Scholar 

  • Dieckmann, P. (2020). The unexpected and the non-fitting—Considering the edges of simulation as social practice. Advances in Simulation (London, England), 5, 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-020-0120-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dieckmann, P., Lippert, A., Glavin, R., & Rall, M. (2010). When things do not go as expected: Scenario life savers. Simulation in Healthcare, 5(4), 219–225. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0b013e3181e77f74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dieckmann, P., Molin Friis, S., Lippert, A., & Ostergaard, D. (2009). The art and science of debriefing in simulation: Ideal and practice. Medical Teacher, 31(7), 287–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, T., & Scharf, L. F. (2013). Learning contracts in undergraduate courses: Impacts on student behaviors and academic performance. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13(4), 36–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geurts, J. (2015). Over Systemen, Organisaties en Grenzen. afscheidsrede Universiteit van Tilburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodarzi, M., Makvandi, P., Saen, R. F., & Sagheb, M. D. (2017). What are causes of cash flow bullwhip effect in centralized and decentralized supply chains? Applied Mathematical Modelling, 44, 640–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2017.02.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, P. S., & Beenen, G. (2008). Organizational learning contracts and management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(4), 521–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harteveld, C. (2011). Triadic game design: Balancing reality, meaning and play. Springer Science & Business Media.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hays, R. T. (2005). The effectiveness of instructional games: A literature review and discussion. Technical report 2005-004 naval air warfare center Orlando.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. J. (2009). Research on cultures: How to use it in training? European Journal of Cross-Cultural Competence and Management, 1(1), 14–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. J., De Caluwé, L., & Peters, V. (2010). Why simulation games work-in search of the active substance: A synthesis. Simulation & Gaming, 41(6), 824–843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, G. J. (2013). The Routledge guidebook to Aristotle’s Nicomachean ethics. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jankowicz, A. Z. (1973). Feedback for learning in business games. Simulations and Games, 4(2), 175–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/104687817300400206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, K. (1998a). Three categories of ethics. Simulation & Gaming, 29(3), 363–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878198293016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, K. (1998b). What are we talking about? Simulation & Gaming, 29(3), 314–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878198293006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kato, F. (2010). How we think and talk about facilitation. Simulation & Gaming, 41(5), 694–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kickmeier-Rust, M. D., & Albert, D. (2010). Micro-adaptivity: Protecting immersion in didactically adaptive digital educational games. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(2), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00332.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why unguided learning does not work: An analysis of the failure of discovery learning, problem-based learning, experiential learning and inquiry-based learning. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klabbers, J. H. G. (2000). Learning as acquisition and learning as interaction. Simulation & Gaming, 31(3), 380–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/104687810003100304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klabbers, J. H. G. (2009). The magic circle: Principles of gaming & simulation (3rd and rev. ed.). Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2009). The learning way: Meta-cognitive aspects of experiential learning. Simulation & Gaming, 40(3), 297–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878108325713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kriz, W. C. (2011). Qualitätskriterien von Planspielanwendungen. Planspiel–Qualität und Innovation. Neue Ansätze aus Theorie und Praxis, 11–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kriz, W. C., & Auchter, E. (2016). 10 years of evaluation research into gaming simulation for German entrepreneurship and a new study on its long-term effects. Simulation & Gaming, 47(2), 179–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878116633972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laycock, M., & Stephenson, J. (2013). Using learning contracts in higher education. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Leigh, E., & Spindler, L. (2004). Simulations and games as chaordic learning contexts. Simulation & Gaming, 35(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878103252886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leigh, E., & Spindler, L. (2005). Congruent facilitation of simulations and games. In Gaming, simulations, and society (pp. 189–198). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lukosch, H. K., Bekebrede, G., Kurapati, S., & Lukosch, S. G. (2018). A scientific foundation of simulation games for the analysis and design of complex systems. Simulation & Gaming, 49(3), 279–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878118768858

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world. Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakamura, M. (2021). Unpacking and disclosing the reasoning behind: A structured instruction improves team performance, In Conference Proceedings ISAGA Indore 21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. J. (1996). Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situated change perspective. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 63–92. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.7.1.63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, V., Westelaken, M., & Bruining, J. (2014). Simulation games as a safe environment—Considerations for game designers and facilitators.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., Kinzer, C., Frye, J., & Perlin, K. (2011). Learning mechanics and assessment mechanics for games for learning. G4LI White Paper, 1, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plass, J. L., & Kalyuga, S. (2019). Four ways of considering emotion in cognitive load theory. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 339–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09473-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravyse, W. S., Blignaut, A. S., Leendertz, V., & Woolner, A. (2017). Success factors for serious games to enhance learning: A systematic review. Virtual Reality, 21(1), 31–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-016-0298-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roungas, B., de Wijse, M., Meijer, S., & Verbraeck, A. (2016). Pitfalls for debriefing games and simulations: Theory and practice. Intersections in simulation and gaming (pp. 101–115). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph, J. W., Foldy, E. G., Robinson, T., Kendall, S., Taylor, S. S., & Simon, R. (2013). Helping without harming: The instructor’s feedback dilemma in debriefing—A case study. Simulation in Healthcare, 8(5), 304–316. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0b013e318294854e

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph, J. W., Raemer, D. B., & Simon, R. (2014). Establishing a safe container for learning in simulation: The role of the presimulation briefing. Simulation in Healthcare, 9(6), 339–349. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph, J. W., Simon, R., Dufresne, R. L., & Raemer, D. B. (2006). There’s no such thing as “nonjudgmental” debriefing: A theory and method for debriefing with good judgment. Simulation in Healthcare, 1(1), 49–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph, J. W., Simon, R., & Raemer, D. B. (2007). Which reality matters? Questions on the path to high engagement in healthcare simulation. Simulation in Healthcare, 2(3), 161–163. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0b013e31813d1035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaefer, J. J. I., Vanderbilt, A. A., Cason, C. L., Bauman, E. B., Glavin, R. J., Lee, F. W., & Navedo, D. D. (2011). Literature review: Instructional design and pedagogy science in healthcare simulation. Simulation in Healthcare, 6(7), S30–S41. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0b013e31822237b4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sessa, V. I., London, M., Pingor, C., Gullu, B., & Patel, J. (2011). Adaptive, generative, and transformative learning in project teams. Team Performance Management, 17(3/4), 146–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sitter, L. U. d. (1981). Op weg naar nieuwe fabrieken en kantoren: produktie-organisatie en arbeidsorganisatie op de tweesprong: een rapport inzake de kwaliteit van de arbeid, organisatie en arbeidsverhoudingen. Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spindler, L., & Leigh, E. (2003). Reconciling design issues and values in simulations. Simulation & Gaming, 34(3), 447–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878103255794

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Squire, K. D. (2008). Video games and education: Designing learning systems for an interactive age. Educational Technology, 48(2), 17–26. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/44429558.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoppelenburg, A., de Caluwé, L. I. A., & Geurts, J. L. A. (2012). Gaming: organisatieverandering met spelsimulaties.

    Google Scholar 

  • Streicher, A., & Smeddinck, J. D. (2016). Personalized and adaptive serious games. In R. Dorner, S. Gobel, M. KickmeierRust, M. Masuch, & K. Zweig (Eds.), Entertainment computing and serious games (Vol. 9970, pp. 332–377). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46152-6_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., Kirschner, P. A., & Clark, R. E. (2007). Why minimally guided teaching techniques do not work: A reply to commentaries. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tavella, E. (2018). On novice facilitators doing research in problem structuring methods as autoethnography. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 35(1), 58–75. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teach, R. (1993). Forecasting and management ability: A response to Wolfe. Simulation & Gaming, 24(1), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878193241007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teach, R. D. (1990). Profits: The false prophet in business gaming. Simulation & Gaming, 21(1), 12–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878190211002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tieben, R. (2015). Activating play: A design research study on how to elicit playful interaction from teenagers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tosey, P. (2006). Bateson’s levels of learning: A framework for transformative learning?

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13(5), 567–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, B. L., Goodman, M., Machen, R., Mathis, C., Rhoades, R., & Dunn, B. (2020). Results of Beer game trials played by natural resource managers versus students: Does age influence ordering decisions? Systems, 8(4), 37. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems8040037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Laere, J. (2005). ICT inbedden in de politieorganisatie: Spelsimulatie als ontwikkelomgeving voor nieuwe kennisdelingsprocessen. Journal of Social Intervention: Theory and Practice, 14(1), 31–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Foerster, H. (1984). Principles of self-organization—In a socio-managerial context. In Self-organization and management of social systems (pp. 2–24). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Watt, K., & Smith, T. (2021). Research-based game design for serious games. Simulation & Gaming, 52(5), 601–613. https://doi.org/10.1177/10468781211006758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenzler, I., & Chartier, D. (1999). Why do we bother with games and simulations: An organizational learning perspective. Simulation & Gaming, 30(3), 375–384.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Business Administration, Section Intervention Methodology, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Marieke de Wijse-van Heeswijk

  2. Faculty of Engineering and IT, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Elyssebeth Leigh

Authors
  1. Marieke de Wijse-van Heeswijk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elyssebeth Leigh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marieke de Wijse-van Heeswijk .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Keio University, Tokyo, Japan

    Toshiko Kikkawa

  2. Department of Management and Business Administration, FHV University of Vorarlberg, Dornbirn, Austria

    Willy Christian Kriz

  3. Keio University, Tokyo, Japan

    Junkichi Sugiura

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

de Wijse-van Heeswijk, M., Leigh, E. (2022). Ethics and Simulation Games in a Cultural Context: Why Should We Bother? And What Can We Learn?. In: Kikkawa, T., Kriz, W.C., Sugiura, J. (eds) Gaming as a Cultural Commons. Translational Systems Sciences, vol 28. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0348-9_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation