The Division of Biology and Conservation Ecology, MMU called for a designer to develop a ‘game of science’ board game for public engagement. The project duration was 10 weeks, based in All saints campus, department of Science and environment.
Project Brief
‘Evidence shows that people with greater understanding of how medical science is done (health literacy) generally have better outcomes when affected by a long-term health condition themselves. Over the last few years academics from the Faculty of Science and Engineering have been developing public engagement activities in collaboration with Parkinson’s UK, intended to pass on skills of critical evaluation of the quality of different kinds of health information. Most resources now are in digital format, but a substantial section of the public do not use computers routinely. Therefore, to reach this group a non-digital format for activities is needed. This role will be to develop a prototype of a table-top or board game called ‘Game of Science’. The game will allow players to learn about the research process, while they pursue their goal of producing a high quality scientific paper. This is a collaboration with Parkinson’s UK, the leading Parkinson’s charity in the UK.’
Project Supervisors Dr Matthew Sullivan Dr Hannah Mossman School of Science and the Environment Division of Biology and Conservation Ecology Manchester Metropolitan University
Steps I took to design the game:
1.
Understanding and Translating the Scientific Research Process into game language.
2.
Getting disease.
3.
Dance and Parkinson's (a suggested topic by Matthew, to focus the search on a topic related to Parkinson's.
4.
Parkinsons.co.uk.
5.
Books, Magazines.
6.
Discussing the process through the card with the supervisors.
7.
Playing Games, analyzing them to get the feel and a closer idea to what might work.
8.
Developing themes.
9.
testing Ideas.
10.
Selecting scientific papers.
11.
Prototyping selected ideas.
12.
Refining Content .
13.
Game Testing and feedback, public Engagement.
to
know
and
Parkinson’s
fabricating
Brainstorming Themes (Titles + Brief Descriptions)
Find the 1%, in the middle of the 99.9% failures.. Looking for the 1% right
‘Aha’ – a new treatment Oops! - False alarm
Accidents happen from the most unlikely places therefore allow accidents, collaboration and connections curiosity to happen
curiosity!
why are trees green?
'the stupider the better!' Look around and ask a stupid question!
Dead end no proof, never seen complications , new research new funding , what do scientists do to progress the process?
The billiard
‘'Molding the idea''
getting more physical!!
The idea vs., the idea taken to lab, match against odds
Construct the Path
Scientists said: ‘…’
Scenario 1: single arm , moves in the z-Axis only, players throw dice to move around the board underneath, the board gives them the credit to change weights of the balance according to the credibility of the hypothesis .
Scenario 2: Rotate: The balance rotated 360 degrees where one of the arms points downwards towards the board, as well as moves in the Z direction according to the weight. The rotation allows more collaboration between players facing each other or as it goes from one player to the next .
The idea is to go backwards, allow people to see and dig deep, behind the endless headlines seen on flyers, brochures and printed materials. ‘Is it true?’ A frustrating question, leaves a person/patient wondering whether to believe or not.
NorthWest playtesters Venue: Madlab 3-7-2014
I stumbled upon a play testing group on meetup.com where mind-like game designers get together to play, and test games. On the third week of the project, we attended a play testers’ meeting to tryout the preliminary game ideas and get a feedback from the experienced. Although it was quite early for this step, it was useful to listen to some ideas and suggestions about making science reach the public in a simple and engaging way and about some game mechanics. At this stage, I had been focusing on the broad themes and the physicality of the game and so it was time to think about the game mechanics and the scientific content.
Form and Sequence Trial 1. The Hexagons We experimented with some laser cut hexagonal shapes to try out the sequence of the game. Those physical pieces were a good aid when thinking about the game mechanics and content.
Form and Sequence Trial II. The Obstacles and Successes This is a game which requires pure logic and sequence, where players pick a card with instructions, the result could be a progressive flow in the research process or an obstacle which might divert the route taken. This game was left unfinished as the content of the game needs to be filled in with scientific detailed instructions. It was suggested that it might be taken forward by science students as a tool for thinking about a certain topic.
The Start
Obstacle The research steps
success
Form and Sequence Trial III. The Puzzle This classic puzzle idea was suggested as a group activity and a discussion generator, where some scientific concepts, facts, figures and stories were to be printed on each.
Objective: Understanding a scientific paper and the potential obstacles and progresses that can happen during the research process. Components •Balls: 10-15 balls for each player. •Board: scores are from 0 to +5, 0 is the worst-case scenario, +5 is the best possible move that could be attained in one of the research phases. •Cards: Correspond with the scoring system on the board, with a research paper topic written on the front and the back has the scoring system and the steps spread in a table with the possible scenarios for failures and successes. •Ball launcher: requires a physical move to hit the ball, •Pins: to randomize the ball movement
Game Mechanics The two players sit opposite to each other. They take turns to pull the launcher and hit a target. According to the place of the ball on the board, the two players work together towards achieving the full research steps. The game ends when all steps have been achieved, By the end of the game, players can see what worked and what obstacles they encountered.
Game Scenarios: Scenario 1: Same scientific paper, the two players work collaboratively, a platform for conversation and discussion. Scenario 2: Playing against each other: each player(s) work towards achieving best result , best process, sharing the same research paper. Scenario 3: Two different papers, two researchers, two results, more Competitiveness.
Further development •The scoring system could be further developed to add more competitiveness and become a more realistic success indicator. •The physicality can be further developed. •The Card design needs to be more visually appealing and less formal.
1- Initial Prototyping (Thinking through crude making)
2- The Physical Body Drawing and Fabrication Laser Cutting
3- Scoring Board On the left is the initial trial, where the scientific words related to the research process were randomized. It lacked structure, and scoring to guide the game. I then developed a more structured board base with mirrored hexagons and scores from 0 to +5.
The mirrored hexagons give equal chances for both players to hit same target probabilities. Colours are of the same tone, as for the +5 score, it is given a striking contrasting color, as a visual cue to make players focus on the ultimate targets.
4- The Corresponding Scoring Cards Based on a scientific paper. The chosen paper could be on any topic,; general science or a certain disease .. etc. Below is a selected paper among different Parkinson's disease related topics as the focus group who were to try the game were Parkinson’s UK support group.
0
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
Actual research
Hypothesis
Don't bite off more than you can chew!
Good observation , yet not quite specific
Relevant but not clear enough
Plausible, and complements previous studies
Clear, testable and innovative.
Choose Wisely
Choose a better option
Find suitable equipment
Will you be able to bring in participants?
Good feasible plan, plan well
Best choice of research method, and resource planning
No funding - The research is not promising
Local grant form charities
Small grant
Your research might contribute, grant is being provided
Big grant Looks like you have a high scientific profile and experience
Won a competition
Sample Size too small
No Control group used
Unrepresentativ e sample
Low quality of equipment might result in flawed results
Beware, some ethical issues might hinder your process. Obtain a signature on the consent form
Research carried out as planned, with consistency, and the right collaboration.
Right / enough tools Not enough sample Sample size Ethical Issue
Results are not consistent
Misinterpreted results
Cherry-Picked Results
Bias results, due to lack of blind testing.
Something is wrong, the results are not replicable
Results are reliable and accurate
Reliable Results / tools Statistics / accuracy Unique
Low quality.. Not eligible for publishing
Needs revision,
Slight changes before sending out to journals
Sent for Peer reviewing
Peer Reviewed
you have made a giant leap towards ‘The cure’
Design Study
Too vague and only based on predictions.
Innovative Correlational Causation
Best choice Suitability Data collection Epistemology Could have been best carried out through
Funding
Sufficient grant Status / experience / significance of the study
Trials Results Publish
Peer review Research taken forward Amount of contribution Open access (Dave the worm)
What can worms teach us about Parkinson’s? Using worms understand why nerve cells die Parkinson‘s
The Selected Scientific Paper for Testing: Observation: Worm nerve cells look and act like human nerve cells, but are far fewer in number, so they are much easier to study.* .
What can worms teach us about Parkinson’s? Using worms understand why nerve cells die Parkinson's
"C. elegans are a fantastic animal model. Many things that would require years of research and millions of pounds can be done more quickly and cheaply in worms. "While worms and people are obviously very different, there are many similarities in the way our cells work. "So this simple animal model could provide important clues about what happens in the brain in Parkinson's."
* http://www.parkinsons.org.uk/content/using-worms-understand-why-nerve-cells-die-parkinsons#sthash.Lh9R1wXU.dpuf
Hypothesis Design Study Funding Trials Results Publish
0
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
Too vague and only based on prediction s.
Don't bite off more than you can chew!
Good observation , yet not quite specific
Relevant but not clear enough
Plausible, and complements previous studies
Clear, testable and innovative.
Choose Wisely
Choose a better option
Find suitable equipment
Will you be able to bring in participants?
Good feasible plan, plan well
Best choice of research method, and resource planning
No funding - The research is not promising
Local grant form charities
Small grant
Your research might contribute, grant is being provided
Big grant Looks like you have a high scientific profile and experience
Won a competition
Sample Size too small
No Control group used
Unrepresentati ve sample
Low quality of equipment might result in flawed results
Beware, some ethical issues might hinder your process. Obtain a signature on the consent form
Research carried out as planned, with consistency, and the right collaboration.
Right / enough tools Not enough sample Sample size Ethical Issue
Results are not consistent
Misinterprete d results
Cherry-Picked Results
Bias results, due to lack of blind testing.
Something is wrong, the results are not replicable
Results are reliable and accurate
Reliable Results / tools Statistics / accuracy Unique
Low quality.. Not eligible for publishing
Needs revision,
Slight changes before sending out to journals
Sent for Peer reviewing
Peer Reviewed
you have made a giant leap towards ‘The cure’
Actual research Innovative Correlational Causation
Best choice Suitability Data collection Epistemology Could have been best carried out through Sufficient grant Status / experience / significance of the study
Peer review Research taken forward Amount of contribution Open access (Dave the worm)
4- The finished Prototype ‌ ready for testing The rectangular version
The circular version
REFERENCES: Books Browner, W. (2006). Publishing and presenting clinical research. 1st ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Tekinbas¸, K. and Zimmerman, E. (2003). Rules of play. 1st ed. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Gray, D., Brown, S. and Macanufo, J. (2010). Gamestorming. 1st ed. Sebastopol, Calif.: O'Reilly. Michalko, M. (2006). Thinkertoys. 1st ed. Berkeley, Calif.: Ten Speed Press. Page, P., Carr, J. and Eardley, W. (2012). An introduction to clinical research. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Journal Articles Dance for Parkinson's: A new framework for research on its physical, mental, emotional, and social benefits Original Research Articlem Complementary Therapies in Medicine, Volume 22, Issue 3, June 2014, Pages 426-432, Ashley McGill, Sara Houston, Raymond Y.W. Lee. Rehabilitation, exercise therapy and music in patients with Parkinson's disease: a meta-analysis of the effects of music-based movement therapy on walking ability, balance and quality of life, Original Research Article, Parkinsonism & Related Disorders, Volume 18, Supplement 1, January 2012, Pages S114-S119, M.J. de Dreu, A.S.D. van der Wilk, E. Poppe, G. Kwakkel, E.E.H. van Wegen. Wii Fit Balance Board Playing Improves Balance and Gait in Parkinson Disease Original Research Article, PM&R, Volume 5, Issue 9, September 2013, Pages 769-777, Priya V. Mhatre, Iris Vilares, Stacy M. Stibb, Mark V. Albert, Laura Pickering, Christina M. Marciniak, Konrad Kording, Santiago Toledo. Websites Parkinsons.org.uk, (2014). Homepage. [online] Available at: http://www.parkinsons.org.uk [Accessed 15 July 2014]. Danceforparkinsonsuk.org, (2014). Dance for Parkinsons UK. [online] Available at: http://www.danceforparkinsonsuk.org [Accessed 15 July. 2014]. Senseaboutscience.org, (2014). Sense about Science – Equipping people to make sense of science and evidence. [online] Available at: http://www.senseaboutscience.org/ [Accessed 20July 2014]. The Michael J. Fox Foundation, (2014). The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research | The Michael J. Fox Foundation. [online] Available at: https://www.michaeljfox.org/ [Accessed 15 July 2014].