DIFERENTES TIPOS DE PELIGROS Y EMERGENCIAS QUE PUEDEN PRODUCIRSE

Arthur’s comments at the start of this chapter reveal a lot about the idea of playstyles because they uncover a confusion. Is Arthur playing to win, or playing for fun, or a combination of both? In reality, no student held a consistent playstyle for the duration of the year, and although movement between each playstyle cannot (and should not) be characterised as a natural progression, it happened as students became more familiar with the magic circle in which they were participating.

The idea of playstyles allows us to see what students see; that different students will invariably participate in different ways, and that these differences will affect the participation of others. In addition, there are inconsistencies around rules and goals. Students may see one goal as primary, and will read others’ actions in those terms even if that particular goal is not held by others. They draw upon discourse and rhetoric around education in justifying their actions, but interpret these through their own personal experiences.

There may be other playstyles that I have not identified here (in fact Chapter 8 will begin to develop some of these ideas into what might be considered another playstyle). I

have summarised some of the key ideas in Figure 6B, linking playstyles back to the model of the magic circle. I have also included non-participation as defined by the absence of some of these key features. It is possible to not participate because one is ignoring the rules within a particular circle, or because one is not in the circle in the first place. The question marks I include in these sections reflect that this is an area for further work, which may require different methods:

Playstyle Play as… Relationship

to the Rules Relationship to Other Participants The Magic Circle Playing to

Win Competition Rules as the ‘correct answer’

Other participants are

competitors/referees One centre Playing for

Fun Cooperation Rules as guidelines / best

practice

Other participants are

collaborators/influences Many centres

Playing the

Game Appropriation Rules as flexible / negotiable

Other participants are part of negotiation process.

Peripherality / Overlap with other circles Counterplay Transgression Rules as

there to be broken

Other participants are

part of the game. Broken / fuzzy borders Not Playing Non-

participation No rules? No other participants? No circle? Figure 6B: Five playstyles

In answer to the research question that began this chapter, I have argued that play helps us to understand undergraduate participation by providing the magic circle as a powerful tool for analysing forms of participation, and by unlocking the idea of playstyles as a way of describing many of the ‘unofficial’ ways in which students participate beyond conventional conceptions. This ties into existing literature in a number of ways. From the perspective of games-based learning, this answer acts a response to Selwyn (2010) and Halverson’s (2012) demands that social scientists do not treat games as a solution that can be transferred between contexts. Participation in game-based learning, like any form of participation, will depend upon the playstyle that students use, which in turn is profoundly

dependent on context. At the same time playing games in educational settings can provide a context for understanding how the rules might be different, which is a key step in developing a critical understanding of the process of education.

From the perspective of widening participation, playstyles also contribute to a more critical discussion in that they align with the idea of transforming participation from authors like Burke (2012). The implication of there not being one ‘correct’ playstyle is that it is misguided to expect students to fit an academic ideal that is constructed in the image of academics. Playstyles highlight that students construct their own participation in response to that of others, and also that their participation can draw upon influences far beyond the university which might otherwise be seen as obstacles. The power of what is already happening in the lives of students might be utilised to change what they, and their universities, do. Vitally, examining playstyles allows us to consider the way in which students actually participate, and not just the ways in which educators want them to.

Learning is not necessarily about getting ‘better’ at the game, but rather developing a position towards the game so that one can participate on one’s own terms. Games designer Raph Koster (2013) equates playing with learning, arguing that once one has ‘grokked’ a game (i.e. fully understood and developed expertise of its rules), one stops learning and it stops being fun until new rules are created. What happens when HE stops being ‘fun’? A student might excel within the rules of the game, but if they do not have fun, or understand how they could have played differently, have the learnt as much as they could? The issue as it currently stands is that this does not count as ‘success’. Later in the thesis, I will return to this thread in order to understand how the game of HE might change in response to this idea by building upon the way in which participants can shift playstyles.

7 – Educator/researcher/player: Metaphors

In this chapter I address my second research question: ‘How does a playful approach can transform teaching and research in HE?’. In asking this question I turn the playful lens I used to examine students in the previous chapter back on myself and my research. Play is a useful concept here because it enables particular forms of participation, but also provides a frame through which to view participation more generally. In this chapter, participation, as action within a social context, widens out to include my own participation as an educator and researcher, and I consider myself as member of a community of practice including other lecturers and researchers, as well as my students.

In the first half of the chapter, I present my own reflective writing as data that form the basis for an autoethnographic analysis. Rather than telling the story of the whole year, I examine three reflective pieces which provide ‘evocative vignettes’, as advocated by Humphreys (2005) who argues for their value in moving beyond superficial understandings of educational practice. These vignettes demonstrate that the relationship between myself and the community in which I was working shifted over time, and this is key to understanding the ways in which I conceptualise play as often in tension with other activities.

Discussing and analysing this tension requires me to interrogate what participation in teaching and research actually involves. This leads into the second half of the chapter in which I confront my internalised notion of education and research as design, and by examining the ways in which my own teaching, research and play overlapped and interacted with each other I develop alternative metaphors. Building on these, I consider the idea that playful metaphors might transform participation just as much as playful teaching and research methods can. These metaphors are reminiscent of the playstyles in

the previous chapter, but where those were defined in terms of students’ relationship to the rules and others in the magic circle, these metaphors focus instead on the ways in which teaching, research and play intersect with each other. Indeed, in a way ‘educator, ‘researcher’ and ‘player’ are the playstyles at work, and I try to find ways in which they can be used simultaneously.

I return to and build upon the conceptual model of the magic circle of participation throughout. Indeed, the autoethnographic story I tell is really the story of how this model developed as an idea, which means that my actions and thoughts early in the story can feel inconsistent with the ideas I have already outlined. However, honesty about the process of how ideas develop is one of the key threads I will outline as the chapter goes on. Once more it seems that the processes of theorising about play in education, researching play in education and practising play in education are intertwined in a messy, chaotic way that can be difficult to capture in a clean way.