BEGIN:VCALENDAR
PRODID:-//Columba Systems Ltd//NONSGML CPNG/SpringViewer/ICal Output/3.3-
 M3//EN
VERSION:2.0
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTAMP:20161206T142328Z
DTSTART:20161208T140000Z
DTEND:20161208T160000Z
SUMMARY:Seminar: Digital Game Ontologies (Andreas Gregersen)
UID:{http://www.columbasystems.com/customers/uom/gpp/eventid/}hgg-iuzlmqs
 6-pa1n1w
DESCRIPTION:Speaker: Andreas Gregersen (University of Copenhagen)\n\nWhat
  do we mean when we say digital being? …and who are “we”? Well\, I will 
 assume that this “we” could refer to researchers that can identify\, at 
 least a bit\, with the label “game studies”. This is in part due to pers
 onal\, if not idiosyncratic reasons – if I have anything to contribute t
 o this debate\, game studies will play at least some part\, somewhere. W
 ould it help or hinder a discussion of digital being to situate it withi
 n the study of games? That depends\, I think.\n\nOn the one hand\, digit
 al games have become a pervasive phenomenon in the lives of many people.
  We also have a reasonably large amount of scholarship devoted to the st
 udy of games. Game studies\, however\, is far from a unitary field\, and
  it includes many different academic disciplines (Quandt et al.\, 2015).
  Power struggles between these disciplines have been known to occur. In 
 fact\, the mere usage of the terms “field” and “discipline” could be see
 n as an indicator of particular loyalties: these terms have been particu
 larly influential within debates native to the territory of communicatio
 n studies and\, lately\, media studies. Communication studies have famou
 sly been described as a crossroads where “scholars come into it from the
 ir own disciplines\, bringing valuable tools and insights\, and later go
  back […] to the central concerns of their disciplines” (Schramm 1959\, 
 p. 8).\n\nWhile there are important parallels between this and the histo
 ry of game studies\, I would suggest that the situation is a bit differe
 nt. I think that there is\, at present\, an overall tenuous relationship
  between social science\, media studies\, and game studies. All of these
  fields are exactly that\, in that they are non-unitary and cover a plet
 hora of approaches under their respective umbrellas – and every field\, 
 discipline and/or approach has a tendency to think that this place right
  here\, this is where the crossroads meet. \nIn other words: Are we look
 ing for:\n\nOne disciplinary ontology to rule them all\, one searchlight
  to find them\nOne field to bring them all and in the light bind them?\n
 \nOr\, are we rather standing underneath our individual lampposts\, sear
 ching for the keys to unlocking the true nature of digital being – even 
 as we suspect that we lost those keys somewhere else\, a place less illu
 minated?\n\nReferences\nQuandt\, T.\, Van Looy\, J.\, Vogelgesang\, J.\,
  Elson\, M.\, Ivory\, J. D.\, Consalvo\, M.\, & Mäyrä\, F. (2015). Digit
 al Games Research: A Survey Study on an Emerging Field and Its Prevalent
  Debates. Journal of Communication\, 65(6)\, 975-996. doi:10.1111/jcom.1
 2182\nSchramm\, W.\, Riesman\, D.\, & Bauer\, R. A. (1959). The State of
  Communication Research: Comment. The Public Opinion Quarterly\, 23(1)\,
  6-17. \n\nThis is a Critical Investigations of Digital Culture Seminar\
 , organised by the Digital Work and Living Research Group.\n\n
STATUS:TENTATIVE
TRANSP:TRANSPARENT
CLASS:PUBLIC
LOCATION:Room 3.205\, University Place\, Manchester
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR