Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Handbuch Politikberatung pp 1–20Cite as

Simulation and Gaming for Policy Advice

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:

  • 222 Accesses

Part of the book series: Springer Reference Sozialwissenschaften ((SRS))

Abstract

This chapter aims at extending the policy advisor’s toolbox, by presenting the potential of serious games to support the whole spectrum of advisory and analytical processes behind public policymaking. Serious games are structured and interactive exercises, reproducing the elements of reality, within a set of rules, wherein participants individually, or collectively, organize and act to solve a dilemma and experience the effects of their actions through a feedback mechanism, built deliberately into and around the game. The lessons learned (both individual and social) are transferrable to the world outside the game. ‘Multilogue’, the unique ‘simultaneous dialogue of multiple actors in pursuit of a greater understanding of the topic at hand’ (Duke, Richard D. Gaming the future’s language. New York: Sage, 1974), takes place both during the game and the debriefing afterwards, and constitutes a crucial feature of the advisory potential of gaming.

Starting with a brief sketch of the origins and development of serious games, the chapter moves on to their potential as advisory tools, supporting various stages of policymaking processes, as well as educational devices, enhancing the broader quality of advisory systems and processes. It concludes with an introduction of the basic principles of a design methodology for serious games.

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    For a more elaborate picture of the definition challenges, see Mayer et al. 2014.

  2. 2.

    The gamification approach has already been widely used in marketing and health and increasingly attracts the attention of policymakers. The mechanics of gamification and its potential use in the public sector is well illustrated by the example of a campaign in Sweden, which introduced a speed camera lottery to reward drivers who stayed within the speed limit, with the intention of using ‘the mixture of fun and competition’ to influence behaviour (Chambers 2015).

  3. 3.

    Our way of talking about serious games in advisory contexts has been inspired and influenced by the approach of Bots and van Daalen (2007) and Mayer et al. (2013), who have described policy analysis via a hexagonal model and apply metaphors and vivid comparisons to talk about the various functions games can fulfil. Expressing our gratitude for this inspiration, we also try to capture the potential roles of games in the forms of metaphor and comparison.

  4. 4.

    More simulations of this type can be found at https://www.crossroads.org.hk/home/our-work/international/x-periential-simulations-of-need/, Crossroads Foundation 2016a, 2016b.

  5. 5.

    Available at http://www.gamesforchange.org/play/half-the-sky-movement-the-game/

  6. 6.

    For an overview, see Shaw 2010.

  7. 7.

    Jane McGonigal even predicts that a game developer will win the Nobel Peace Prize in the next 25 years. On the other hand, some game-based mechanisms are used on a number of extremist and terrorism-related sites in order to increase loyalty and engagement, as well as to promote a certain ideology.

References

  • Ambrosio, Thomas. 2006. Trying Saddam Hussein: Teaching international law through an undergraduate mock trial. International Studies Perspectives 7(2): 159–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appelman, Robert L. 2007. Serious game design: Balancing cognitive and affective engagement. In Organizing and learning through gaming and simulation: Proceedings of Isaga 2007, eds. Igor Mayer und Hanneke Mastik, 1–10. Delft: Eburon Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Araral, Eduardo, Scott Fritzen, Howlett Michael, M. Rames, und Xun Wu, eds. 2013. Routledge handbook of public policy. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassi, Andrea M., Frank de Rego, John Harrisson, and Niccolo Lombardi. 2015. WATERSTORY ILE: A systemic approach to solve a long-lasting and far-reaching problem. Simulation & Gaming 46(3–4): 404–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878115580412.

  • Bergeron, Bryan P. 2006. Developing serious games. Newton: Charles River Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bervens, Mathilde, Marcel Quanjel, Kees Lokhorst, and Kirsten de Ries. 2007. Innovating innovations: Exploring the impact of technological innovation with gaming-simulation. In Organizing and learning through gaming and simulation: Proceedings of Isaga 2007, eds. Igor Mayer and Hanneke Mastik, 29–38. Delft: Eburon Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bielecki, Witold, and Marcin Wardaszko, eds. 2009. Games and simulations in business learning and teaching. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Akademickie i Profesjonalne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Botermans, Jack. 2008. The book of games: Strategy, tactics & history. New York: Sterling Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bots, Pieter W.G., and Els van Daalen. 2007. Functional design of games to support natural resource management policy development. Simulation & Gaming 38(4): 512–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyne, Shawn Marie. 2012. Crisis in the classroom: Using simulations to enhance decision-making skills. Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law Research Paper 14. Available online at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2103603 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2103603.

  • Brynen, Rex, and Gary Milante. 2012. Peacebuilding with games and simulations. Simulation & Gaming 44(1): 27–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, Joshua. 2015. Gamification: When governments up their game. Civil Service World, 7 Apr 2015. Available online at http://www.civilserviceworld.com/articles/feature/gamification-when-governments-their-game, checked on 5 Mar 2016.

  • Chasek, Pamela S. 2005. Power politics, diplomacy and role playing: Simulating the UN Security Council’s response to terrorism. International Studies Perspectives 6(1): 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crossroads Foundation. 2016a. A day in the life of a Refugee at Davos. http://www.refugee-run.org/, checked on 7 Apr 2016.

  • Crossroads Foundation. 2016b. X-periential simulations of need. Available online at https://www.crossroads.org.hk/home/our-work/international/x-periential-simulations-of-need/, updated on 7 Apr 2016, checked on 7 Apr 2016.

  • de Caluwé, Léon, Gert Jan Hofstede, and Vincent Peters, eds. 2008. Why do games work? In search of the active substance. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Caluwé, Léon, Gert Jan Hofstede, and Vincent Peters. 2010. Why simulation games work – In search of the active substance: A synthesis. Simulation & Gaming 41(6): 824–843.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Caluwe, Leon, Jac Geurts, and Wourter Kleinlugtenbelt. 2012. Gaming research in policy and organization. An assessment from the Netherlands. Simulation & Gaming 43(5): 600–626.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Gloria, Alessandro, eds. 2014. Games and learning alliance: Second international conference. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Vries, Bert. 1989. Environmental planning: Workshop review. In Simulation-gaming: On the improvement of competence in dealing with complexity, uncertainty and value conflicts. Proceedings of the international simulation and gaming Association’s 19th international conference, Utrecht University, Netherlands, 16–19 August 1988, eds. Jan H.G. Klabbers, Willem J. Scheper, Cees ATh Takkenberg and David Crookall, 286–291. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denemark, Robert A., eds. 2010. The international studies encyclopedia. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deterding, Sebastian, Rilla Khaled, Lennart E. Nacke, and Dan Dixon. 2011. Gamification: Toward a definition. CHI 2011 Gamification Workshop Proceedings: 12–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duke, Richard D. 1974. Gaming the future’s language. New York: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duke, Richard D., and Jac Geurts. 2004. Policy games for strategic management: Pathways into the unknown. Amsterdam: Dutch University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahey, Rob. 2008. It’s inevitable: Soon we will all be gamers. The Times, 7 July 2008. Available online at http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/law/columnists/article2047355.ece, checked on 1 Jan 2015.

  • Fischer, Frank, and Gerald J. Miller, eds. 2007. Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Games for Change. 2013. Half the sky movement: The game. Firma Studio. Available online at http://www.gamesforchange.org/play/half-the-sky-movement-the-game/, checked on 7 Apr 2016.

  • Geurts, Jac L.A., and Cisca Joldersma. 2001. Methodology for participatory policy analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 128: 300–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harteveld, Casper. 2011. Triadic game design. Balancing reality, meaning and play. London: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Haug, Constanze, Dave Huitema, and Ivo Wenzler. 2011. Learning through games? Evaluating the learning effect of a policy exercise on European climate policy. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 78: 968–981.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, Michael, Michael Ramesh, and Anthony Perl. 1995. Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems, 3. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huizinga, Johan. [1938] 1955. Homo ludens: A study of the play-element in culture. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Innes, Judith E., and David E. Booher. 1999. Consensus building as role playing and bricolage: Toward a theory of collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 65: 9–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jann, Werner, and Kai Wegrich. 2007. Theories of the policy cycle. In Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods, eds. Frank Fischer and Gerald J. Miller, 43–62. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, Marijn, and Bram Klievink. 2010. Gaming and simulation for transforming and reengineering government. Towards a research agenda. Transforming Government 4(2): 132–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joldersma, Cisca. 2007. Policy learning through gaming/simulation. In Simulation and games for strategy and policy planning. The international simulation and gaming research yearbook, eds. Danny Saunders and Nina Smalley, Vol. 7, 77–88. Hove: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Dong-Young. 2014. Understanding integrated environmental assessment in a multi-stakeholder negotiation via role-play. Simulation & Gaming 45(1): 125–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon, John. 1995. Agendas, alternatives and public policy. 2th ed. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klabbers, Jan H.G., Willem J. Scheper, Cees A. Th. Takkenberg, and David Crookall, eds. 1989. Simulation-gaming: On the improvement of competence in dealing with complexity, uncertainty and value conflicts. Proceedings of the international simulation and gaming Association’s 19th international conference. Utrecht University: Pergamon Press, 16–19 Aug 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klievink, Bram, and Marijn Janssen. 2010. Simulation gaming as a social development instrument: Dealing with complex problems. Information Polity: The International Journal of Government & Democracy in the Information Age 15(1/2): 153–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knowledge Brokers. Available online at http://knowledgebrokers.edu.pl/, checked on 7 Apr 2016.

  • Kotter, John P. 1996. Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraft, Michael E. 2016. Environmental policy and politics. 6th ed. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kriz, Willy C. 2009. Bridging the gap: Transforming knowledge into action through gaming and simulation. Simulation & Gaming 40(1): 28–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuit, Martijn, Igor Mayer, and Martin de Jong. 2005. The INFRASTRATEGO game: An evaluation of strategic behavior and regulatory regimes in a liberalizing electricity market. Simulation & Gaming 36(1): 58–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leigh, Elyssebeth. 2003. A practitioner researcher perspective on facilitating an open, infinite, chaordic simulation. Learning to engage with theory while putting myself to practice. A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of doctor education. University of Technology, Sydney. Available online at https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/10453/20068/2/02whole.pdf, checked on 1 Mar 2016.

  • Ma, Minhua, Manuel Fradinho Oliveira and Jannicke Baalsrud Hauge, eds. 2014. Serious games development and applications. In 5th international conference, SGDA 2014. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machiavelli, Niccolo. 2005 [1513]. The prince with related documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, Igor. 2008. Gaming for policy analysis. Learning about complex multi-actor systems. In Why do games work? In search of the active substance, eds. Léon de Caluwé, Gert Jan Hofstede und Vincent Peters, 31–40. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, Igor S. 2009. The gaming of policy and the politics of gaming: A review. Simulation & Gaming 40(6): 825–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, Igor, and Martin de Jong. 2004. Combining GDSS and gaming for decision support. Group Decision & Negotiation 13(3): 223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, Igor, and Hanneke Mastik, eds. 2007. Organizing and learning through gaming and simulation: Proceedings of Isaga 2007. Delft: Eburon Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, Igor, Ellen M. van Bueren, Pieter W.G. Bots, and Haiko van der Voort. 2005. Collaborative decision-making for sustainable urban renewal projects: A simulation – Gaming approach. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 32: 403–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, Igor S., C. Els van Daalen, and Pieter W.G. Bots. 2013. Policy analytical steps. In Routledge handbook of public policy, eds. Eduardo Araral, Scott Fritzen, Howlett Michael, M. Ramesh and Xun Wu, 255–270. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, Igor, Qiqi Zhou, Xander Keijser, and Lodewijk Abspoel. 2014. Gaming the future of the ocean. In Serious games development and applications. 5th international conference, SGDA 2014, eds. Minhua Ma, Manuel Fradinho Oliveira and Jannicke Baalsrud Hauge, 150–162. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, Igor S., Harald Warmelink, and Qiqi Zhou. 2016. The utility of games for society, business and politics: A frame-reflective discourse analysis. In Wiley handbook of learning technology, eds. Nick Rushby and Dan Surry, 406–435. Chichister/Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGonigal, Jane. 2011. Reality is broken. Why games make us better and how they can change the world. New York: Penguin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mind Tools Editorial Team. Kotter’s 8-Step change model, implementing change powerfully and successfully. Mind Tools. Available online at www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newPPM_82.htm, checked on 1 Mar 2016.

  • O’Toole, Laurence J. 2000. Research on policy implementation: Assessment and prospects. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10(2): 263–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osimo, David, Francesco Mureddu, Riccardo Onori, Stefano Armenia, and Gianluca Carlo Misuraca. 2013. Towards policy-making 2.0. The International Research Roadmap on ICT for Governance and Policy Modelling. Edited by ICT Seventh Framework Programme. Available online at http://crossover-project.eu/Portals/0/0205F01_International%20Research%20Roadmap.pdf, checked on 7 Jan 2016.

  • Peters, Vincent, and Marleen van de Westelaken. 2009. Organizing child centered care: Dealing with time bombs. In Games and simulations in business learning and teaching, eds. Witold Bielecki and Marcin Wardaszko, 15–26. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Akademickie i Profesjonalne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, Vincent, and Marleen van de Westelaken. 2014. Simulation games – An introduction to the design process. Information on Simulatio Games. Samen spraak. Nijmegen. Available online at http://www.samenspraakadvies.nl/publicaties/Simulation%20games%20-an%20introduction%20to%20the%20design%20process.pdf, checked on 7 Apr 2016.

  • Rushby, Nick, and Dan Surry, eds. 2016. Wiley handbook of learning technology. Chichester/Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, Tom. 2000. The role of simulation gaming in policy-making. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 4: 359–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, Danny, and Nina Smalley, eds. 2007. Simulation and games for strategy and policy planning. The international simulation and gaming research yearbook, Vol. 7. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schein, Edgar H. 1985. Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schenk, Todd. 2014. Boats and bridges in the sandbox: Using role play simulation exercises to help infrastructure planners prepare for the risks and uncertainties associated with climate change. In Infranomics: Sustainability, engineering design and governance, eds. Todd Schenk, 239–255. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, Carolyn M. 2004. Using role-play scenarios in the IR classroom: An examination of exercises on peacekeeping operations and foreign policy decision making. International Studies Perspectives 5(1): 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, Carolyn M. 2006. Simulating negotiations in a three-way civil war. Journal of Political Science Education 2(1): 51–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, Carolyn M. 2010. Designing and using simulations and role-play exercises: The international studies encyclopedia: International studies compendium project. In The international studies encyclopedia, eds. Robert A. Denemark, 842–854. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Elizabeth T., and Mark A. Boyer. 1996. Designing in-class simulations. Political Science and Politics 29(4): 690–694..

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterman, John D. 1989. Modeling managerial behavior: Misperceptions of feedback in a dynamic decision making experiment. Management Science 35(3): 321–339. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.3.321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stouten, Hendrik, Aimé Heene, Xavier Gellynck, and Hans Polet. 2012. Learning from playing with microworlds in policy making: An experimental evaluation in fisheries management. Computers in Human Behavior 28: 757–770.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susskind, Lawrence E., Ravi K. Jain, and Andrew O. Martyniuk. 2001. Better environmental policy studies: How to design and conduct more effective analyses. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorngate, Warren, and Mahin Tavakoli. 2009. Simulation, rhetoric, and policy making. Simulation & Gaming 40(4): 513–527.

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Ven, Josine G.M., Hester Stubbé, and Micah Hrehovcsik. 2014. Gaming for policy makers. It’s serious! In Games and learning alliance: Second international conference, eds. Alessandro de Gloria, 376–382. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dyke, Gretchen J., Edward G. Declair, and Peter H. Loedel. 2000. Stimulating simulations: Making the European Union a classroom reality. International Studies Perspectives 1(2): 145–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Pelt, S.C., Marjolijn Haasnoot, Bas Arts, Fulco Ludwig, Rob Swart, and Robbert Biesbroek. 2015. Communicating climate (change) uncertainties: Simulation games as boundary objects. Environmental Science and Policy 45: 41–52..

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermaas, Juliette, and Lonneke Nieuwland. 2007. Policy simulation and ex ante evaluation: A perfect match. In Organizing and learning through gaming and simulation: Proceedings of Isaga 2007, eds. Igor Mayer and Hanneke Mastik, 371–376. Delft: Eburon Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeff, Eleanor E. 2003. Negotiating in the European Council: A model European Union format for individual classes. International Studies Perspectives 4(3): 265–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, Qiqi.2014. The princess in the Castle. Challenging serious game play for integrated policy analysis and planning. Dissertation, Delft University of Technology. Available online at http://repository.tudelft.nl/view/ir/uuid:29ae9dce-0320-49d6-b5de-281b7aed1b3f/, checked on 7 Jan 2016.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pracownia Gier Szkoleniowych, ul. Puławska 39/2, 02-508, Warszawa, Polen

    Jagoda Gandziarowska-Ziołecka

  2. Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS) e.V., Potsdam, Germany

    Dorota Stasiak

Authors
  1. Jagoda Gandziarowska-Ziołecka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dorota Stasiak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jagoda Gandziarowska-Ziołecka .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Accenture GmbH, Kronberg, Germany

    Svenja Falk

  2. Landau, Germany

    Manuela Glaab

  3. Berlin, Germany

    Andrea Römmele

  4. Hertie School of Governance, Berlin, Germany

    Henrik Schober

  5. Political Science, Heidelberg Center for American Studies Political Science, Heidelberg, Baden-Württemberg, Germany

    Martin Thunert

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH

About this entry

Cite this entry

Gandziarowska-Ziołecka, J., Stasiak, D. (2017). Simulation and Gaming for Policy Advice. In: Falk, S., Glaab, M., Römmele, A., Schober, H., Thunert, M. (eds) Handbuch Politikberatung. Springer Reference Sozialwissenschaften. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-07461-6_72-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-07461-6_72-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-07461-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-07461-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Referenz Sozialwissenschaften und Recht

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation