A case of values conflict in the video game design field. A critique of Schön’s appreciative system.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Schön’s model of design as a reflective conversation with the situation is one of the most important models in design research, but it is not often criticized. This paper questions Schön’s vision of values by contrasting it with Dewey’s vision. It presents a case study from the video game industry to show the difference between Schön’s and Dewey’s value system. Game designers were interviewed about their values concerning casual games. The results show that some designers have had a change of values during a project: they moved from a negative position on casual games to a positive one. In terms of Schön’s fixed appreciative system, a change of values is unusual, and it risks jeopardizing the design project. But this fixedness is contradictory with the idea of conversation with the situation, and Dewey’s vision of values, which is more flexible, demonstrates stronger coherence with the model.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.043 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.084 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".