Increasing Coherence in Impact: Crossing Disciplines and Framing

The document argues that the field of game design for "impact" is growing rapidly but fragmenting, as researchers, designers, and funders struggle to compare proposals and communicate effectively. It proposes that the field may need new umbrella language and shared frames to enable meaningful comparison and improve efficacy across stakeholder groups. The authors frame their work as an open, iterative conversation rather than a set of finished solutions, emphasizing that no single individual or discipline should prescribe fixes for deep disciplinary divisions.

The work builds on an earlier report that drew on dozens of interviews with sector leaders, primarily in the United States, which identified five areas of concern undermining impact. Key findings include a widening gulf between research and practice, the persistent marginalization of certain impact types by disciplinary divides, the need for common language to compare impact across domains, and the risk of framing research in opposition to creativity. In response, more than 30 individuals submitted formal feedback, which led the authors to identify several "risky assumptions" driving fragmentation. Examples include the belief that quality research must be kept separate from design, that research planning can be deferred under funding constraints, and that logic models are self-evident and need not be articulated.

The authors also report on a designer's resistance to being assessed, which prompted them to explore frames that might build mutual respect, such as recognizing the playtesting designers already conduct as a form of research. The document acknowledges that such frames require careful validation across distinct disciplines rather than treating them as a single group. Audience-specific framing is also highlighted as necessary, given the differing needs of practicing designers, policymakers setting federal funding guidelines, distributors of educational games, and NGO executive producers. The authors plan to test interventions, particularly framing and policy recommendations, and to share in-process results at cross-disciplinary conferences.