Towards a Reconciliation Between Simulational, Ludic, and Historiographical Practices in Research

Author:

Marino Carvalho Vinicius1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Brazil

Abstract

Background Simulations, ludic or otherwise, have so far struggled to gain a foothold in mainstream historiography. Some authors suggest there may be fundamental incompatibilities between history and the language of simulations and scholarly games. Others believe that designing, employing, and validating historical simulations may be simply too costly and/or labor-intensive to justify their widespread adoption. Intervention This paper intends to identify points of friction between historiography and simulation-based research and suggest practical solutions to these issues. Methods My discussion is based on the description and analysis of a case study, the ThomondSim/ The Triumphs of Turlough research project. The initiative consisted of the development and application of an agent-based computational model (ABM) and a scholarly board game to investigate the possible associations between economic, environmental, and military hazards in 13th and 14th centuries Ireland. Results and Discussion Ensuring the simulations matched historical evidence to a standard deemed acceptable by the historiographical community limited their phase space, compromising their capacity to explore emergent phenomena. The intricacy of the underlying conceptual model suited the ABM better than the board game, which struggled to reconcile complexity with good game design practices. The board game, however, proved to be an effective validating tool for the ABM. Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research The project espoused an overt simulation- and game-centric approach, paying little attention to unguided play. Recent literature suggests that fostering, rather than hindering, playful exploration could address some of the pitfalls identified by this project. Conclusion Play could be a means of reconciliation between simulational, ludic, and historiographical practices. However, to ensure that projects adhere to epistemic standards, it is recommended that a methodology is developed to integrate it into research in ways that can be tested and evaluated.

Funder

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo

Publisher

SAGE Publications

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3