Creativity Paradigms and Game Design Research: A Transdisciplinary Approach
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Using a transdisciplinary approach, this paper shows how creativity studies and game design research can complement each other and open new research avenues. In order to study the role of creativity in game designers’ practice, we first touch on the epistemological foundations of creativity studies and game design research. After presenting these disciplines’ epistemological underpinnings, we conduct a qualitative content analysis of game design literature, using Vlad Petre Glăveanu’s “creativity paradigms” as our analytical framework. According to these paradigms, the results show that creative game designers are still largely depicted in the literature as either geniuses or skillful individuals, while cultural and social aspects of creativity are overlooked despite their importance in current game design practice. All in all, an epistemological reflection is necessary to bridge the gap between creativity studies and game design studies. We conclude that a pragmatist approach is a promising avenue to bring forward a comprehensive view of creativity in game design practice. Finally, in order to establish theories suited for a wide array of disciplines, this paper also advocates for more transdisciplinarity in creativity research.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 it