Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
ATZ-Fachkongress

Chassis.tech plus 2024


4 Kongresse in einer Veranstaltung

Treffen Sie in München die Fachleute von Chassis, Lenkung, Bremsen sowie Reifen/Räder.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)
Erschienen in: Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 2/2010

01.04.2010

Knowing the Way. Managing Epistemic Topologies in Virtual Game Worlds

verfasst von: Ulrika Bennerstedt, Jonas Ivarsson

Erschienen in: Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) | Ausgabe 2/2010

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This is a study of interaction in massively multiplayer online games. The general interest concerns how action is coordinated in practices that neither rely on the use of talk-in-interaction nor on a socially present living body. For the participants studied, the use of text typed chat and the largely underexplored domain of virtual actions remain as materials on which to build consecutive action. How, then, members of these games can and do collaborate, in spite of such apparent interactional deprivation, are the topics of the study. More specifically, it addresses the situated practices that participants rely on in order to monitor other players’ conduct, and through which online actions become recognizable as specific actions with implications for the further achievement of the collaborative events. The analysis shows that these practices share the common phenomenon of projections. As an interactional phenomenon, projection of the next action has been extensively studied. In relation to previous research, this study shows that the projection of a next action can be construed with resources that do not build on turns-at-talk or on actions immediately stemming from the physical body—in the domain of online games, players project activity shifts by means of completely different resources. This observation further suggests that projection should be possible through the reconfiguration of any material, on condition that those reconfigurations and materials are recurrent aspects of some established practice.
Vorheriger Artikel The Dynamics of Material Artifacts in Collaborative Research Teams

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
1
For the accomplishment of more demanding and highly complex affairs in the game worlds (e.g. so-called raids) there exists additional technological support that can sustain even larger groups.
 
2
Normally, this would be the eyes, but in practices based on optical instruments it might be configured differently (see e.g. Mondada 2003).
 
3
A common tool utilized builds on need, greed or pass, where need is loosely defined as items that the avatar can use while greed is used for items, to sell to other players or give away to other avatars. Needless to say, this practice can lead to disputes.
 
4
A directed emote is accomplished by targeting an avatar with the mouse cursor and typing “/e” followed by the intended action.
 
5
Another practice observed is that of escaping combat situations. When a team has entered into combat, they can at times be overwhelmed. Since the non-player characters will only pursue a fleeing player to a certain extent, it is possible to escape from a pending defeat. The central problem with this practice is to organize it as a highly coordinated event. If an escape is initiated by one player who starts to run away from the scene, the other players must recognize the action as exactly that. Any player staying behind will find him or herself in dire trouble.
 
6
An attack on a team member will also be displayed by changed status of their energy bars and additional icons in the game interface.
 
Literatur
Auer, P. (2005). Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text, 25(1), 7–36.
Bennerstedt, U. (2008a). Sheeping, sapping and avatars-in-action: An in-screen perspective on online gameplay. In O. Leino, G. Calleja, & S. Mosberg Iversen (Eds.), Proceedings of the [Player] conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, August 26 to 29 (pp. 28–52). Copenhagen: Nørrebros Bogtryk ApS.
Bennerstedt, U. (2008b). Welcome to the digital puppet show: Positioning work and make-believe methods in role play Mmorpg servers. In O. Leino, G. Calleja, & S. Mosberg Iversen (Eds.), Proceedings of the [Player] conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, August 26 to 29 (pp. 53–86). Copenhagen: Nørrebros Bogtryk ApS.
Bennerstedt, U., & Linderoth, J. (2009). The spellbound ones: Illuminating everyday collaborative gaming practices in a Mmorpg. In C. O’Malley, D. Suthers, P. Reimann, & A. Dimitracopoulou (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL 2009), Rhodes, Greece, June 8 to 13 (pp. 404–413). New York: ACM.
Bowers, J., Pycock, J., & O’Brien, J. (1996). Talk and embodiment in collaborative virtual environments. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, Canada, April 13 to 18 (pp. 58–65). New York: ACM.
Crabtree, A., & Rodden, T. (2004). Domestic routines and design for the home. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). An International Journal, 13, 191–220.CrossRef
Crabtree, A., Rodden, T., & Benford, S. (2005). Moving with the times: it research and the boundaries of Cscw. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). An International Journal, 14, 217–251.CrossRef
Crabtree, A., Benford, S., Capra, M., Flintham, M., Drozd, A., Tandavanitj, N., et al. (2007). The cooperative work of gaming: orchestrating a mobile Sms game. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). An International Journal, 16, 167–198.CrossRef
Dourish, P., Adler, A., Bellotti, V., & Henderson, A. (1996). Your place or mine? Learning from long-term use of audio–video communications. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). An International Journal, 5(1), 33–62.
Drew, P. (1995). Social intelligence and interaction: Expressions and implications of the social bias in human intelligence. In E. Goody (Ed.), Interaction sequences and anticipatory interactive planning (pp. 111–138) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Duchenaut, N., & Moore, R. J. (2004). The social side of gaming: A study of interaction patterns in a massively multiplayer online game. In Proceedings of the ACM conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Chicago, IL, November 6 to 10 (pp. 360–369). New York: ACM.
Ford, C. E. (2004). Contingency and units in interaction. Discourse Studies, 6(1): 27–52.CrossRef
Fraser, M., Hindmarsh, J., Benford, S., & Heath, C. (2003). Getting the picture: Enhancing avatar representations in collaborative virtual environments. In D. N. Snowdon, E. F. Churchill, & E. Frécon (Eds.), Inhabited information spaces: Living with your data (pp. 133–150). London: Springer.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkheim’s aphorism. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Garfinkel, H., & Livingston, E. (2003). Phenomenal field properties of order in formatted queues and their neglected standing in the current situation of inquiry. Visual Studies, 18(1), 21–28.CrossRef
Gee, J. P. (2008). Learning and games. In K. Salen (Ed.), Ecology of games (pp. 21–40). Cambridge: MIT.
Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489–1522.CrossRef
Goodwin, C. (2006). Human sociality as mutual orientation in a rich interactive environment. Multimodal utterances and pointing in aphasia. In N. Enfield & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Roots of human sociality (pp. 96–125). London: Berg.
Goodwin, C. (2007). Participation, stance, and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse and Society, 18(1), 53–73.CrossRef
Harper, R., Hughes, J., & Shapiro, D. (1991). Harmonious working and CSCW: Computer technology and air traffic control. In J. Bowers & S. D. Benford (Eds.), Studies in CSCW. Theory, practice and design (pp. 225-234). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Heath, C., & Luff, P. (1992a). Collaboration and control: Chrisis management and multimedia in London underground line control rooms. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). An International Journal, 1, 69–94.CrossRef
Heath, C., & Luff, P. (1992b). Explicating face to face interaction. In N. Gilbert (Ed.), Researching social life (pp. 306–327). London: Sage.
Heath, C., Jirotka, M., Luff, P., & Hindmarsh, J. (1995). Unpacking collaboration: interactional organisation of trading in a city dealing room. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). An International Journal, 3, 147–165.CrossRef
Heath, C., Svensson, M. S., Hindmarsh, J., Luff, P., & Lehn, D. V. (2002). Configuring awareness. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). An International Journal, 11, 317–347.CrossRef
Hindmarsh, J., & Heath, C. (2000). Sharing the tools of the trade. The interactional constitution of workplace objects. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 29(5), 523–562.CrossRef
Hindmarsh, J., Fraser, M., Heath, C., Benford, S., & Greenhalgh, C. (1998). Fragmented interaction: Establishing mutual orientation in virtual environments. In Proceedings of the 1998 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, Seattle, Washington, USA (pp. 217–226). New York: ACM.
Hindmarsh, J., Heath, C., & Fraser, M. (2006). (Im)materiality, virtual reality and interaction. Grounding the ‘Virtual’ in Studies of Technology in Action. The Sociological Review, 54(4), 795–817.CrossRef
Hornecker, E. (2005). A design theme for tangible interaction: Embodied facilitation. In H. Gellersen, K. Schmidt, M. Beaudouin-Lafon, & W. Mackay (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW 2005), Paris, France, September 18 to 22 (pp. 23–43). Dordrecht: Springer.
Irani, L., Hayes, G. R., & Dourish, P. (2008) Situated practices of looking: Visual practices in an online world. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, San Diego, CA, November 8 to 12 (pp. 187–196). New York: ACM.
Juul, J. (2005). Half real: Video games between real rules and fictional worlds. Cambridge: MIT.
Kendon, A. (1985). Behavioral foundations for the process of frame attunement in face-to-face interaction. In G. P. Ginsburg (Ed.), Discovery strategies in the psychology of action (pp. 229–253). London: Academic.
Kendon, A. (1990). Spatial organization in social encounters: The F-formation system. In A. Kendon (Ed.), Conducting interaction: Patterns of behavior in focused encounters (pp. 209–238). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Linderoth, J. (2004). Datorspelandets Mening: Bortom Idén Om Den Interaktiva Illusionen. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Linderoth, J. (2008). The struggle for immersion. Narrative re-framing in World of Warcraft. In O. Leino, G. Calleja, & S. Mosberg Iversen (Eds.), Proceedings of the Proceedings of the [Player] conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, August 26 to 29 (pp. 242–274). Copenhagen: Nørrebros Bogtryk ApS.
Luff, P., Heath, C., Kuzuoka, H., Yamazaki, K., & Yamashita, J. (2006). Handling documents and discriminating objects in hybrid spaces. In Proceedings of the ACM CHI 2006 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montréal, Québec, Canada, April 22 to 27 (pp. 561–570). New York: ACM.
Mondada, L. (2003). Working with video: how surgeons produce video records of their actions. Visual Studies, 18(1), 58–73.CrossRef
Mondada, L. (2006). Participants’ online analysis and multimodal practices: projecting the end of the turn and the closing of the sequence. Discourse Studies, 8(1), 117–129.CrossRef
Moore, R. J., Duchenaut, N., & Nickell, E. (2007a). Doing virtually nothing. Awareness and accountability in massively multiplayer online games. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). An International Journal, 16(3), 265–305.CrossRef
Moore, R. J., Hankinson-Gathman, C. E., Duchenaut, N., & Nickell, E. (2007b). Coordinating joint activity in avatar-mediated interaction. In Proceedings of the ACM CHI 2007 Conference on Human factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA (pp. 21–30). New York: ACM.
Nardi, B., & Harris, J. (2006) Strangers and friends: Collaborative play in World of Warcraft. In Proceedings of the Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW´06), Banff, Alberta, Canada, November 4 to 6 (pp. 149–158). New York: ACM.
Rawls, A. (2008). Harold Garfinkel, ethnomethodology and workplace studies. Organization Studies, 29(5), 701–732.CrossRef
Reeves, S., Brown, B., & Laurier, E. (2009). Experts at play. Understanding skilled expertise. Games and Culture, 4, 205–227.CrossRef
Reynolds, P. C. (1993). The complementation theory of language and tool use. In K. R. Gibson & T. Ingold (Eds.), Cognition, tool use, and human evolution (pp. 407–428). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ryave, A. L., & Schenkein, J. N. (1974). Notes on the art of walking. In R. Turner (Ed.), Ethnomethodology (pp. 265–278). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Sacks, H. (1989). Lectures 1964–1965. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.CrossRef
Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70(6), 1075–1095.CrossRef
Schegloff, E. A. (1996a). Confirming allusions. Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology, 102(1), 161–216.CrossRef
Schegloff, E. A. (1996b). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammar and interaction (pp. 52–133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (1998). Body torque. Social Research, 65(3), 535–596.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Selting, M. (2000). The construction of units in conversational talk. Language in Society, 29, 477–517.
Steinkuehler, C. (2004). Learning in massively multiplayer online games. In Y. B. Kafai, W. A. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. S. Nixon, & F. Herrera (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 521–528). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Steinkuehler, C., & Williams, D. (2006). Where everybody knows your (screen) name. Online games as “Third Places”. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(4), 885–909.CrossRef
Streeck, J. (1995). On projection. In E. Goody (Ed.), Interaction sequences and anticipatory interactive planning (pp. 87–110). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Streeck, J. (2009). Gesturecraft. The manu-facture of meaning. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRef
Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sudnow, D. (1983). Pilgrim in the microworld. New York: Warner Books.
Taylor, T. L. (2006). Does Wow change everything?: How a Pvp server, multinational player base, and surveillance mod scene caused me pause. Games and Culture, 1(4), 318–337.CrossRef
Tulbert, E., & Goodwin, M. H. (2008). Choreographies of attention. Multimodality in a routine family activity. Los Angeles: UCLA Sloan Center on Everyday Lives of Families.
Turner, R. (1974). Ethnomethodology. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Yee, N. (2006). The labor of fun. How video games blur the boundaries of work and play. Games and Culture, 1(1), 68–71.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Knowing the Way. Managing Epistemic Topologies in Virtual Game Worlds
verfasst von
Ulrika Bennerstedt
Jonas Ivarsson
Publikationsdatum
01.04.2010
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) / Ausgabe 2/2010
Print ISSN: 0925-9724
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7551
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-010-9109-8

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise