Theorizing Gender and Digital Gameplay: Oversights, Accidents and Surprises

Jenson and de Castell's chapter examines why research on gender and digital gameplay has repeatedly produced the same conclusions, and argues that these conclusions are often artifacts of researchers' assumptions rather than stable features of players. Their central thesis is that familiar claims, such as girls preferring cooperation and boys preferring competition, are treated as empirical findings when they are in fact socially constructed categories that naturalize hegemonic gender norms. Drawing on Butler's theory of gender performativity, the authors contend that repeated framings in the field limit analysis and reinforce stereotypes, and they call for critical theorization of core concepts such as competition.

The chapter's most concrete evidence comes from a longitudinal study of more than 100 children aged 12 to 15. Many girls in this study enjoyed competitive play, and what researchers had labeled "benevolent competition" appeared less as a distinct gendered trait than as a shift from novice to expert roles. Observations of children playing Guitar Hero reinforce this interpretation: talk, self-deprecation, and collaboration declined as players gained mastery, patterns that had previously been attributed to gender. Supporting work by Carr (2005) suggests that gaming preferences develop through competence and context rather than through fixed identity.

From these findings the authors conclude that much gender-focused research re-entrenches stereotypes by treating gendered responses as stable results instead of situated performances. They recommend context-sensitive, actor-network approaches, attention to experience and investment rather than binary differences, and more interpretive methods. The scope is primarily the study of children and adolescents in digital gameplay settings, with its critique aimed at the broader body of gender-and-games scholarship.