One Night at the Games Institute: Critical Play and the Production of Interdisciplinary Discourse

This report was originally written as a work report for Schmidt's co-op work term from May - December, 2019. It was awarded the 2020 University of Waterloo - Graduate Co-op Report Award.

On my first day of co-op at the Games Institute, henceforth GI, I had not known that two other co-ops would be hired alongside myself. In our first week, we were encouraged to play games, chat, and get to know each other as we would all be working together within the GI staff unit. Since none of us knew each other, inevitably we were awkward around each other and because we were all working on different projects, we avoided each other. What made this avoidance worst, was that on the first day, we were encouraged to play games—after all, the “Games Institute” in name alone connotes some form of play—but we nodded our heads and retreated to our individual corners.

At the end of my first week, Marisa, the Research Communications Officer at the GI, in good faith to the GI, invited myself, two other GI co-ops (Krystyna and Grace), and our supervisor Agata to play a round of One Night Ultimate Werewolf as a form of team bonding and letting loose on a Friday afternoon. She had noticed our tension and wanted to use play as an icebreaker which forced us to get to know each other by lying and deceiving within the safe confines of a game. The premise of Werewolf is simple. Players randomly choose a card that assigns their character and/or abilities. You are either Team Village or Team Werewolf – in which one team is trying to kill members of the other. During the game play, players need to do a bit of detective work to figure out who everyone is playing as while trying to track down who the werewolf (or werewolves). You can lie, fabricate identities, and manipulate in this game. As long as it leads to victory, there are no limits to achieving your goal.

During our play through we learned that Marisa always lies, Krystyna laughs at everything, Grace doesn’t reveal information until it is “mission-critical,” Agata always tells the truth, and I get really angry when I tell the truth and no one believes me. After a few rounds, we eventually wandered off-topic from the game. I mentioned how the win condition of Team reminded me of a history course cross-listed with a women’s study course offered at the University called HIST/WS 347 – Witches, Wives, and Whores. To win the game, the werewolves must convince the villagers that they are also a villager and kill another villager—very much reminiscent of the bystander effect. This, in turn, led to a discussion about the treatment of women in historical eras, the Salem Witch Trials, and eventually to hive mentalities and bystander effect—which the game play demonstrates. During the casual academic discussion that took place, we became more comfortable with each other and learned about each other’s specific play styles, cultural and educational backgrounds. It inspired a few of us for potential projects as well as seeing the value of mixed disciplinary conversation as a cradle for interdisciplinarity collaboration to naturally evolve, as opposed to having a group put together in which they are told to be “interdisciplinary”. It through this initial icebreaker and team building exercise, as well as many other play sessions of One Night Ultimate Werewolf, that our inter-office communication became stronger and we understood the value of our different perspectives in making sure the GI continues to run like a well-oiled machine.

The GI is one of the University’s eight faculty-level research institutions, which conduct collaborative research within a specific context. Despite the title, the Games Institute facilitates research that goes beyond game studies: we also support interactive technologies, human-computer interactions, haptics, and more. The GI specializes in creating an environment that allows research in games and technologies flourish; and creates partnerships between academia and industry where research is not only used to further knowledge but also for commercialization and/or social impact. The GI is accepting of all methodologies, all approaches to research, and encourages the collision of different disciplines to create new, weird, and wonderful projects that live up to the University’s mandate of innovation. It is also unique in that it facilitates interdisciplinary discourse to happen on the student, faculty, and staff levels.

“Interdisciplinary” has recently become an ill-defined buzzword in academia and company-funded projects with multiple suffixes (multi-, trans-, inter-, etc.), definitions, and purposes. In fact, throughout my co-op term, I was a part of a debate with the administrative staff to decide how we would define our disciplinary identity. We went from multidisciplinary to post-disciplinary to interdisciplinary to transformational interdisciplinarity…back to interdisciplinary to be more concise. In a study regarding the increasing nature of interdisciplinary collaboration in the Health Science field, Aboelela et al. note in their paper “Defining Interdisciplinary Research: Conclusions from a Critical Review of the Literature” that beyond academia, there has been a “wider societal interest in holistic perspectives that do not reduce human experience to a single dimension of descriptors,” and that many fields of study, such as biophysics, democracy, etc. are inherently interdisciplinary, despite not considering themselves as such (330). When looking at research centres at the University of Waterloo, it is apparent that they are inherently interdisciplinary; focusing on a specific problem area or topic while inviting faculty and students from all disciplines to engage and develop new knowledge in that space. However, simply creating a space that invites researchers to work together does not ensure that the environmental conditions are correct in ensuring interdisciplinary collaboration to occur nor does this mean that the academic efforts occurring are truly interdisciplinary. As mentioned, due to the exploding popularity of conducting all things in an “interdisciplinary" manner, the term itself has become slippery and difficult to apply – furthermore, what interdisciplinarity means may differ between institutions, faculties, disciplines, and even companies. To address this, Aboelela et al. aimed to hone in on what interdisciplinarity truly means so that collaborative teams, regardless of academia, can fully implement this practice rather than forcing teams together without understanding how to utilize its full potential (332). They created the following chart (fig.1.) to map out the typology of what “interdisciplinarity” means.

What Aboelela et al. call “degrees” I interpret more as a spectrum that gives a cohesive breakdown of why “interdisciplinary” as a term is often muddled. Interdisciplinarity is not just defined on how many academic disciplines are involved in a project, but rather, the degree of collaboration, as “the mere addition of researchers from various disciplines or with different academic and professional credentials is not sufficient to make a research effort interdisciplinary” (342). The highest end of the interdisciplinary spectrum, as outlined by Aboelela et al. in Figure 1, is transdisciplinary, which requires an environment that generates the creation of a common language and a research style that synthesizes multiple methodologies from different disciplines.

While most research centres on campus claim to facilitate an interdisciplinary environment, The GI consistently supports and facilitates the entire spectrum of interdisciplinary collaboration that permeates both academic and administrative spheres. The mandate for this is not only driven by a need to expand the realms of knowledge or the nature of games studies and interactive technologies. In fact, I would argue that it is the GI’s commitment to interdisciplinarity naturally occurs because of the stressed importance of breaking down disciplinary biases and its commitment to creating a space of play.

In my first exposure to how play brings people together, I was able to form lasting bonds with the other co-op students after only one hour of playing Werewolf. Throughout the term, I watched as many groups bonded over play across many surprising instances. It is through my observations during my 8-month work term that the GI facilitates a fully interdisciplinary environment by sustaining the ecosystem with play. However, what is “play” and how does it help not only sustain and environment but insight discourse?

Mary Flanagan’s Critical Play is considered to be one of the most seminal texts for understanding how play functions in critical thinking environments. However, even she admits that “play” is difficult to define. Citing anthropologist Brian Sutton-Smith, Flanagan notes that “play” can be grouped into four categories: learning, power, fantasy, and self (4). However, as Ragnhild Tronstad points out in “The Productive Paradox of Critical Play,” Flanagan kept her definitions of “play” and “game” fairly abstract and doesn’t truly link “critical” and “play” together. Some of her questions include “What happens to play when it becomes critical? And how might critical content by influenced by play?” (“The Productive Paradox”).

When thinking of a research institution, play as learning may seem like the obvious category that the GI facilitates and may seem like the most likely category of play were “critical” can be attached. However, I believe that only thinking of play-as-learning as the only avenue for critical thinking and analysis doesn’t view the full picture, or power, of play. Taking on the challenge of nailing down the epistemology of “play” and “gaming”—as well as how they relate/differentiate—Bo Kampmann Walther says in his essay “Play and Gaming: Reflections and Classifications” that “play is an open-ended territory” that oscillates between actual “play” and “non-play.” What Kampmann Walther means is that in any form of play, there is both performativity and feedback and although you may not want to fall back into reality when you are playing, it might be necessary in order to receive feedback and re-define the rules of play. They also make an interesting point for defining “play [as] meta-communication that refers exclusively to itself” without interfering with external sources, but also a medium that “participants mutually create.” Although Kampmann Walther wants do define the epistemology of play as a pure ontology, the reality is that the magic circle of play is often disrupted, and feedback is just as important as performance. In fact, these moments of returning to reality are where I would argue true “critical play” comes into fruition and interdisciplinary discourse happens. What play does is create a common language where everyone is equal. In my initial example with Werewolf, I purposefully did not mention our different academic backgrounds—English, Political Science, Psychology, and Economics. The mechanics of Werewolf gave us a common language to communicate with, and although we learned a lot about each other, our discussion was a by-product created by the feedback process. I had been upset with the rules of play in which “Team Village” had lost when I had been accused of being a Werewolf, despite embodying the plain villager card, that doesn’t even grant special abilities. I had also been marked for metaphorical death by every other player of the game. Being frustrated with the fantasy of the game made me break into the real world and give feedback on my experience.

Therefore, when looking at critical play we should look at play itself as a kind of exploration or investigation. Exploration collapses all of Sutton-Smith’s, and by extension Flanagan’s, categories of play. Werewolf is just a single example of a game that utilizes fantasy, power, looking at self, and learning to create an interactive experience. Although there is a contextual feedback loop within the liminal boundaries of play, it connects to an external one that allows for real-world knowledge to pour over and allow conversations to happen.  Whether or not this conversation is academic is irrelevant—it creates conversation, using the common language produced by play, to break down barriers.

The GI as a space creates an interdisciplinary ecosystem by encouraging play in all capacities. Whether it is a round of Werewolf between staff, play-testing GI member projects, or a session of Dungeons & Dragons, the GI not only facilitates an environment where play is normalized but an environment where feedback is just as important as performance. This feedback is where critical thinking elopes with play to make critical play a place where scholars of all disciplines find a common language to work collaboratively. Although all of Sutton-Smith’s categories can be collapsed, I should also note that not every play is able to collapse them and the GI does not assert itself as trying to force all categories to fit together. Rather, it realizes the potential of all playstyles and therefore, all types of discourse that can evolve from those experience. In a way, play functions much like interdisciplinarity: It lies on a spectrum and can be fully encompassing (transdisciplinary) or base level (multidisciplinary). Where collaboration falls on the interdisciplinary spectrum is itself a methodology that is dependent on individuals, their playstyles, and what the collaboration calls for. Play is, therefore, an important cultural element that feeds the GI environment where true interdisciplinarity is possible.

Although interdisciplinarity is stressed in academia, there is a gap in stressing this type of thinking in the corporate and administrative worlds. Much like academia, working environments deal with multidisciplinary teams, different academic backgrounds, and different positions on methodology and knowledge. The GI administrative team is in a unique position where they must work with the academic world along with the internal, University structure. Although it may appear that interdisciplinary collaboration requires a lack of bias toward other disciplines in the academic world, the reality is that there are many different varieties of bias including race, religion, and gender/sexuality. As Dutton et al. analyze in their paper “Fostering Multidisciplinary Engagement: Communication Challenges for Social Research and Emerging Technologies,” there are huge benefits to interdisciplinary collaborations beyond academia that offer “competing and complementary perceptions, knowledge, values and experience to work within their agreed reference points to address problems…that improve understanding” (130). Fostering this engagement breaks down barriers on all fronts addressing the notion that problems are multifaceted—something that is becoming more widely accepted. However, fostering this relationship is difficult as Dutton et al. give an example of an interdisciplinary project that almost failed because of the misunderstandings between the engineers and social scientists involved (142). The crux of the problem was not only the lack of common language but also a misunderstanding of each other’s expectations and contributions—what could be considered a common scenario of miscommunication revealing a greater underlying issue. “Difficult administrative and ethical issues often emerge from collaborative relationships,” as well as power-differentiation and respecting educational boundaries all tie into whether an interdisciplinary relationship is possible (Baldwin & Austin, 47).

To mediate these other underlying concerns, Agata Antkiewicz, the GI’s Associate Director, Strategic Planning and Administration, mandates that all her staff take the University of Waterloo’s Principles of Inclusivity training. This educational course specializes in educating about sensitivity and respect toward different ethnicities, religions, and gender/sexuality. It instructs on how to create an accommodating environment within Waterloo’s campus. When thinking of interdisciplinary, respect for another person’s discipline is only one facet, but a crucial base on which to work off of. You must also respect their cultural and religious background, their gender, and sexuality to fully understand the diversity of perspective that a single individual holds. In context, play creates a space that can be both positive and negative. If positive, the creative world of play is built on trust and respect, as your aim is to unwind with all parties involved and become more comfortable with one another.

The GI administrative team is interdisciplinary; there is a common operational language to ensure the facility functions adequately, as well as another common language developed through our rounds of Werewolf where we became familiar with one another. The Principles of Inclusivity training ensures that when this common language is found, it is used respectfully. However, I strongly believe that if it were not for those game sessions, our team would not have functioned as well as it did. Playing helped break down power-differentiation and made us more open to talking about ourselves. We began to respect each other not only as colleagues, but as unique human beings who had not only a single perspective, but more. For instance, I was no longer Pamela Maria, a graduate co-op in English. I was Pamela Maria, a graduate co-op in English who is bilingual and thinks in Polish and English at the same time. She has travelled across Europe and lived abroad. She can give insight into cultural differences and language barriers from her own perspective. Breaking down these layers of barriers ensured that all our collaborations were truly interdisciplinary and could vary on that spectrum depending on the needs of the project. Since my colleagues understood just how many perspectives I carried beyond “English Language and Literature,” they not only knew when my expertise was best utilized, but considered me to assist in other tasks that may not have been obvious if our play didn’t generate just basic conversation, but discourse about topics we were passionate about. Since the GI administrative team acts collaboratively with an interdisciplinary mindset, we then lead by example so that students may do the same—specifically, by encouraging and promoting the Principles of Inclusivity. However, by playing not just with our team, but with other student and faculty members at the GI during open houses, events, and potlucks, we learn more about our researchers beyond their disciplines—what drives them outside of academia and how they react to others on an intimate level. As an assistant project manager, playing and encouraging both conversation and discourse were very important tools for me to understanding all facets of our researchers. As the GI works with other institutions and industry partners on collaborative projects, we mandate that all GI teams working on these opportunities are interdisciplinary and the GI, ever since its inception, has had many successful partnerships because of their interdisciplinary nature including partnerships with other research centres, indie game development companies, and even the Government of Canada. The formation of these interdisciplinary teams would not have been possible without the concept and usage of play in an academic and business setting, as well as understanding all the perspectives these researchers have to offer.

The contents of this report outline what interdisciplinary collaboration is, how the GI functions as a fully interdisciplinary institution, and how to play and its ability to provide insight discourse is what truly facilitates an interdisciplinary ecosystem at the GI. This report shows that clustering a group of individuals together or forcing them to work on a project does not mean interdisciplinary collaboration exists. There needs to be a specific working ecosystem in place with productive environmental triggers that both motivate and naturally train students, faculty, and staff to think with an interdisciplinary mindset, or to at least, to acknowledge other perspectives. An interdisciplinary research centre provides more than a holistic view of knowledge. It encourages an egalitarian view of ourselves, how we treat one another, and how we tackle all problems presented before us.

The skyrocketing popularity of interdisciplinary collaboration is mostly being defined in academic and research-based contexts. However, forcing a group of individuals together for a project does not automatically mean that a true multi- inter- or trans- disciplinary collaboration is happening. For the spirit of interdisciplinary approaches to truly resonate with researchers, there must be an ecosystem in place that encourages this collaboration to happen. The GI creates this ecosystem by encouraging a culture of play, which allows for a common language to develop between individuals. The language that is produced and allows for researchers to connect on a personal and academic level is informed by the Principles of Inclusivity that the GI strictly adheres to, ensuring that all expressions of humanity are respected and valued. The GI is such a successful interdisciplinary institution is because of the hard work done by the administration to lead by example and treat their own internal team as interdisciplinary. Starting a conversation is one thing but creating an environment where true discourse happens in a respectful way is when the magic happens—broadening of knowledge that resonates with multi-disciplines, impacts society, and allows us to connect with one another.

As an English student in the Experimental Digital Media stream, I have always thought of myself to be interdisciplinary, even when I did not entirely understand what that meant. In my academic history, I have drawn from multiple disciplines to advance and build upon my own research projects—but did not fully understand the concept until receiving my position at the GI. When I first started my co-op term, I was the Operations Assistant. Since the Operations Assistant position is known for being a co-op position, it has an inevitable high turn-over rate and researchers tend to approach you at an arm’s length. Going to lab meetings helped put a face to my email signature, but it was the actual act of playing games and the conversations erupting that lead to discourse about my research. Once GI members understood my different perspective—and the multiple “hats” I wear including friend, student, and GI Staff—they understood my role more, how I could support them, and that the GI admin was not a wall they had to face, but rather, a safety net meant to help them. When I eventually received a promotion and became the Assistant Project Manager, playing and understanding GI members’ perspectives became even more integral when it came to managing interdisciplinary collaborations and assigning relevant team members for upcoming opportunities. For example, I am project managing collaboration with the Interdisciplinary Climate Change Centre (IC3) and THEMUSEUM in the creation of a digital artefact that articulates the seriousness of climate change, while also breaking down heavy scientific jargon for a general audience. The project currently on-going, but the GI team’s amazing progress is accredited to researchers having multi-facet roles. For example, I am managing the project, but because of my research interests and English background, I am also a narrative designer. Another example is Tina Chan, who recently received her MSc in Applied Public Health. Despite her work revolving around mental health and peer support, she is illustrating the game, and due to her extensive knowledge of game creation, she is a consultant for the overall UX and UI design.

My observations have informed me of the importance of play, valuing perspective, and finding a common language which will be especially beneficial to my MRP—which I am writing this term. My MRP focuses on understanding how hope functions in apocalyptic games and why it only appears after the cataclysm has occurred. Since games are my main medium, I have to consolidate rhetorical, gaming, and literary perspectives on apocalyptic rhetoric, influence on the player, and how this translates into the “real” world. Considering our current environmental emergency, understanding why people develop these particular perspectives, potentially through play, and refuse to accept others will be integral to my research. Understanding the power of play and how holistic knowledge is transferred will be a large part of this project. I am very grateful that co-op has given me the opportunity to work in a place where being a part of a culture can be so informative of my approach to research and the value of interdisciplinary perspectives. As an administrator, tasked with upholding the Principles of Inclusivity, I realized that true interdisciplinarity is not just the acceptance of disciplines: it is respecting all our perspectives and realizing the value in them and play is just an example of an avenue used to achieve that.

Throughout my 8-months as a staff member of the GI, I believe the GI team has an intimate understanding of what interdisciplinarity is and what must happen to keep that ecosystem in place. My recommendation for them is that they continue to use the unifying power of play to continue to break down boundaries made by disciplines, but to be mindful of other groups forming in the background. For instance, English students tend to keep to themselves while students in engineering, human-computer interaction, and computer science students tend to form a group. Although these students interact with each other pleasantly during GI socials and funded projects, they still fall back into categories of SSHRC researchers versus NSERC researchers on their own time. Although play is a great element that the GI uses to create discourse spaces, they may need to learn how to give the students these tools and ensure that they are being used without GI scaffolding.

Aboelela, Sally W., et al. “Defining Interdisciplinary Research: Conclusions from a Critical Review of the Literature.” Health Services Research, vol. 42, no. 1p1, 2007, pp. 329–46. Wiley Online Library, doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00621.x.

Baldwin, Roger G., and Ann E. Austin. “Toward Greater Understanding of Faculty Research Collaboration.” The Review of Higher Education, vol. 19, no. 1, 1995, pp. 45–70. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.1353/rhe.1995.0002.

Dutton, William H., et al. “Fostering Multidisciplinary Engagement: Communication Challenges for Social Research on Emerging Digital Technologies.” Prometheus, vol. 24, no. 2, June 2006, pp.129–49. Taylor and Francis+NEJM, doi:10.1080/08109020600714910.

Flanagan, Mary. Critical Play: Radical Game Design. MIT Press, 2009.

Tronstad, Ragnhild. “The Productive Paradox of Critical Play.” Game Studies, vol. 10, no. 1, Apr. 2010. Game Studies, http://gamestudies.org/1001/articles/tronstad.

Walther, Bo Kampmann. “Playing and Gaming Reflections and Classifications.” Game Studies, vol. 3, no. 1, May 2003. Game Studies, http://gamestudies.org/0301/walther/#top.