One can see that a large majority have been working as researchers and teachers/lecturers which corresponds to the previous question when asked about professional sector. We also see that some participants have worked in policy making, resource management, planning, advising, consulting and engineering. This shows that the group playing the game have all come from different professional backgrounds allowing for a diverse cast of participants to play the game with.

2.3. Data Collection (Laura)

2.3.1. Pre-, During- and Post-Game Surveys

            In order to collect data about the participants, their knowledge of MSP and gaming, their willingness to take part in the game event, and their experience playing simulation game, the participants were asked to complete three surveys. The surveys asked used an incremental scale that was customized to the specific questions in the survey. The surveys also included questions requiring written answers to get a deeper understanding of their experience. The first survey was given to them before the game began to gather personal and professional information, to gage their knowledge of MSP and to measure their willingness to try a novel tool such as serious games. A second survey was filled out by each team during the game (AT WHAT POINT WAS IT GIVEN?) (end of first day i think? -Steven). This survey gathered information on the players’ experience using the game and their relationship with other teams. Finally, the post-game survey was given to all participants and focused on their impression of the game, the power dynamics within their team, and the usefulness of serious games as a teaching and policy tool. Together the surveys provide comprehensive data on the participants, their experience, their learning outcomes, and their impressions of serious games. 

2.3.2. Interaction Analysis: Video and Sound Recordings  

During the game, each team was recorded with audiovisual equipment to later perform interaction Analysis (IA). The IA was performed based on the methodology of Jordan and Henderson (1995). Both verbal and non-verbal interactions between players were studied (Jordan & Henderson, 1995). Also, the participants’ interactions with artefacts, such as the computer or mouse, were analyzed (Jordan & Henderson, 1995). The method described by Frey et al. (2006) was adapted to be more relevant for a game situation. Each verbal interaction with another player or with the group was recorded and mapped (Frey et al., 2006). IA was conducted by two researchers from the team to remove any biases and gain a deeper understanding of interactions. Finally, collaboration maps were made of interactions between the different players and different teams.

2.3.3. Discourse Analysis and Inductive Reasoning (Laura)

2.3.4. (Auto)-Phenomenology (Laura)

3. Results

3.1. Research Question 1: How do interactions between team members and different teams differ in board games versus in computer simulations?

Hypothesis: during the board game, discussions will be less serious, while during computer simulations, the players might be more serious. 
Also: Board games allow participants from different teams to be physically
closer
to each other, therefore could facilitate interactions between teams. Also, computer simulations can be isolating, in their difficulty and interface, which might discourage teams from interacting with each other in the real world. 
Board games can allow for negotiated non-sense because the game layer is not a complex adaptive system. 
Concept of tyranny of small decisions is also harder to notice in boardgames. In general, board games cannot teach about CAS because they are missing part of the physical-technical complexity of computer simulations. 

Research Question 1 (Steven and Laura Together? - Mostly Steven)