Review of Archaeogaming

During my dissertation ideation, I’ve been fascinated with the concept of treating abandoned MMOs (those who only live on with private servers) as an archaeology site. These ghost towns are fascinating to me because they represent a virtual world that has gone from boom to bust, and is living on in a decrepit state, a relic of an earlier time. At first, I thought Media Archaeology was the key, but I soon discovered that theoretical framework was not the rabbit hole I wanted, nor one I could understand.

Then I stumbled upon a promotional tweet for a book by Andrew Reinhard called Archaeogaming: An Introduction to Archaeology in and of Video Games. This book was exactly what I was looking for, as it established the theory of applying archaeology methods and theories to video games. Sometime soon I hope to write a little bit more about a method I took from that book and applied to a paper of mine (it became one of my favorite papers to write), but for now I’ll jump into a review of this book.

After finding this book, and checking it out from my university’s library, I jumped into the blog that spawned the book. This blog on archaeogaming had such a variety of topics, not only examining archaeology IN video games (mechanics of playing as an archaeologist, or the inclusion of archaeologists as characters) but using archaeology OF video games (digging up the Atari ET carts in the New Mexico desert, examining virtual worlds from an anthropology lens). These posts cover a wide variety of topics, and the best ones found their way into the book, with some minor expansions and revisions.

Due to my interests then in video games, and my background as a media studies scholar and not an anthropologist, there were certain topics and chapters that resonated with me more than others. Obviously, those that were interested in how antiquity was represented in video games (specifically the Assassins Creed series) was cool, but not that relevant. Or the framing of archaeologists in games was kind of irrelevant as well. While these chapters were necessary, for me I wish there was a book that focuses more on the details of the theory and the method that could then be applied to future research. In some instances, this book reads more like “hey, look at this cool thing,” instead of having a deep, scholarly literature to draw upon.

This book is a great read, really easy to digest, and a great primer for potential topics. As a first book on this emerging field, it sets the stage for future research. While a lot of it is not ground breaking, field-changing, or incredibly thorough in its finding, it fulfills its purpose. For that, I give Archaeogaming 4.5 out of 5 hearts.

(PS – great timing that this lined up with the Game Studies Book Club for October. #gsbc1019)

Killing your thesis

I think this story deserves a bit of background. As a newly minted Master’s student, I was drawn back into Media Studies and Communication for a couple of reasons: first, I studied Advertising as an undergrad and felt like returning to the field that I knew, and second, I was fascinated with the field of media effects. I felt like I could make a big difference by studying direct correlations, and ask the deep questions that were swirling around the media and my personal life at the time (Are we becoming addicted to the media? Are our smartphones really causing negative effects?).

My MA thesis then was a quantitative experiment, shaped a lot by my adviser who was also a positivist whose research line was in health communication, eye tracking, and biometrics. However, my experiment used adapted measures, which proved unreliable (Chronback alphas in the 50-70 range) which probably led to the insignificant results. Heartbroken, I was going to chalk it up to my inexperience and move on. My adviser suggested I do a two-part study where I acknowledge the failures of this first experiment, and do a follow-up one with new measures and items. This second experiment worked much better, had reliable measures, and a couple significant findings.

In the meantime I moved on, quite literally. I applied to PhD programs, reached out to one of the biggest and best programs for media effects, found a potential adviser there who was doing similar research, and made a connection with them. They were very supportive, encouraging, and seemed very willing to help me pursue this study of media effects, avatars, and gender issues. Sadly though, I was not accepted into this program, and thus did not work with this potential adviser (no worries though, I love my current program and know that I am where I am meant to be).

During my PhD program I then put together a huge paper that covered all of this, including both experiments and the process that led to each, and had an outside mentor review it. They suggested that I don’t give up on the first experiment, that there was probably something there, and that it was probably just my errors in not finding the real answers. They suggested a factor analysis with the items to test what measures worked together and what didn’t. I did that, and found new groupings that were much more reliable. But in the process of explaining the failure, revising, and new direction with my first experiment alongside my second experiment, I felt that it was just too much to fit into a 5000 word journal article. So I split my two-study paper in half, worked with a new mentor on being transparent with my original thesis, what happened, and trying to be ethical about the whole situation.

However, as is usual with PhD programs, what I wanted to do when I entered has since changed. While I appreciate and respect media effects, I’m not sure if it is the research path I want to take any more. I’m now head-over-heels for a new topic for my dissertation, and have since shifted out of the positivist paradigm (I don’t even consider myself post-positivist right now). But after submitting my new paper of my original thesis experiment to a journal, I got a lengthy and thorough rejection. While my paper suffered a lot in the literature and method section (per the editor’s comments), they mostly had issues with the ethics of how I handled my failure and revision of my hypotheses. This editor even suggested that I do not resubmit to another journal for this reason.

As hard as it is to hear this, it seems to be for the best. Perhaps me moving on from media effects and that research paradigm is emblematic of needing to kill my thesis. I wanted to share this story not as a “pity me and not getting published” kind of way, but out of a need to share what happened, why I thought it would work, and why it probably doesn’t. This editor told me that I was probably trained this way (to hack my data), and not to feel bad, they were too. As it turns out, this editor was the media effects professor at the elite PhD program I mentioned earlier. I don’t know if they realized who I was when they reviewed my paper (as I had mentioned in vagueness about my thesis to them in our initial correspondences nearly two years ago), but I like to think that they would have been this kind in their feedback regardless.

So in closing, I hope you can learn from me about the messy journey that I had in grappling with my MA thesis, and how it manifested in me the ethics of significance, publication, and how to talk about failure in science. I really hoped that my paper could be published not because I wanted that on my CV, but because I think we need to discuss in the social sciences what we do when things don’t turn out. And also, I hope that you know how much it meant to me to have such kind, thorough, and encouraging feedback on even a desk reject. While the editor had some issues with my paper, they weren’t belittling and negative in their feedback, which I really appreciated.