skip to main content
10.1145/3383668.3419897acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pageschi-playConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

At the Intersection of Digital Games, Gender, and Age: A Participant Observational Study with Active Older Women

Published:03 November 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper presents work-in-progress that informs a current understanding of intersectional themes (age, gender, and digital games) that are important, but under-studied, in the player-computer interaction community. This paper draws on a 4-month participant observational study of game play and interest among active older women (aged 63-83, N=14). The results show how gender and age shape digital game interest and play among the participants. For them, being an older woman now means keeping up with the times, being active and helping others. They disregarded digital games that clashed with this identity. When the digital games projected their identity, their play was fun and productive; and led to recommending the games to others. Current and future research activities are outlined.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

cpwp1015vf.mp4

mp4

22.1 MB

References

  1. Michael Ahmadi, Rebecca Eilert, Anne Weibert, Volker Wulf, and Nicola Marsden. 2019. Hacking Masculine Cultures - Career Ambitions of Female Young Professionals in a Video Game Company. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 413--426. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3311350.3347186Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Barbara Barbosa, Frank Vetere, 2019. Ageing and digital technology designing and evaluating emerging technologies for older adults. SpringerGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Virginia Braun, Victoria Clarke. 2019. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis, Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11:4, 589--597, DOI: 10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Kathleen M. DeWalt, Billie R. DeWalt, 2012. Participant observation. A guide for fieldworkers. Altamira Press, PlymouthGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Jeannette Durick, Toni Robertson, Margot Brereton, Frank Vetere, and Bjorn Nansen. 2013. Dispelling ageing myths in technology design. In Proceedings of the 25th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference: Augmentation, Application, Innovation, Collaboration (OzCHI '13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 467--476. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2541016.2541040Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. ESA. 2019. Essential facts about the computer and video game industry. 2018 Essential Facts About the Computer and Video Game Industry. https://doi.org/10.15713/ins.mmj.3Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Leap Frog Test Games. http://www.seenandshared.com/leap-frog.htm Retrived July 10, 2020Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Geographic Games (in Spanish). http://www.juegos-geograficos.com/juegosgeografia- Ciudades-de-Espana-_pageid39.html Retrieved July 20, 2020Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Scot M. Hofer, Duane F. Alwin, (Eds). 2008. Handbook of Cognitive Aging: interdisciplinary perspectives. SAGE Publications, LondonGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Sara M Iversen, 2016. Play and Productivity: The Constitution of Ageing Adults in Research on Digital Games. Games & Culture 11(1--2): 7--27Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. J. Jenson, S. de Castell, S., 2010. Gender, simulation, and gaming: Research review and redirections. Simul. Gaming 41, 51--71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878109353473Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Yasmin B. Kafai, Gabriela T. Richard, Brendesha M. Tynes, 2016. Diversifying Barbie and Mortal Kombat. Intersectional perspectives and inclusive design in gaming. ETC Press, PittsburghGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. David Kaufman and Louise Sauvé. 2020. Playful Aging: Digital Games for Older Adults. A white paper by the AGE-WELL 4.2 projectGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Aphra Keer, 2006. The business and culture of digital games. SAGE Publications: LondonGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. M. Kite, 2001. Changing times, changing gender roles: Who do we want women and men to be, in: Unger, R (ed.) Handbook of the psychology of women and gender, NJ: John Wiley, pp: 215--227Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Typing Maniac. http://www.wordgames.com/en/typing-maniac.html Retrieved 20 July, 2020Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Jennifer A. Rode, 2011. A theoretical agenda for feminist HCI. Interacting with Computers, 23(5), 393--400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2011.04.005Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Sergio Sayago, Andrea Rosales, Valeria Righi, Susan Ferreira, Graeme Coleman, Josep Blat. 2016. On the Conceptualization, Design and Evaluation of Appealing, Meaningful and Playable Digital Games for Older People. Games and Culture, 11(1--2), 53--80Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Bob De Schutter, Vero V. Abeele, 2015. Towards a Gerontoludic Manifesto. Anthropol. Aging 36, 112. https://doi.org/10.5195/aa.2015.104Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Richard Settersten, 2003. Invitation to the Life Course. Toward New Understandings of Later Life. Amityville, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Katta Spiel, Sultan A. Alharthi, Andrew Jian-lan Cen, Jessica Hammer, Lennart E. Nacke, Z O. Toups, and Tess Tanenbaum. 2019. ?It Started as a Joke?: On the Design of Idle Games. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 495--508. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3311350.3347180Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Simone Stumpf, Anicia Peters, Shaowen Bardzell, Margaret Burnett, Daniela Busse, Jessica Cauchard and Elizabeth Churchill. 2020. Gender-Inclusive HCI Research and Design: A Conceptual Review, Foundations and Trends® in Human--Computer Interaction: Vol. 13, No. 1, pp 1--69. DOI: 10.1561/1100000056Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Piano Talent. http://www.maxijuegos.com/jugar-juego/piano-talent Retrieved 10 July, 2020Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Sherry Turkle, 2007. Evocative Objects. Things we think with. The MIT Press, USGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Candace West, Don H. Zimmerman, 2009. Accounting for doing gender. Gender & society, 23(1), 112--122Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. At the Intersection of Digital Games, Gender, and Age: A Participant Observational Study with Active Older Women

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          CHI PLAY '20: Extended Abstracts of the 2020 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play
          November 2020
          435 pages
          ISBN:9781450375870
          DOI:10.1145/3383668

          Copyright © 2020 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 3 November 2020

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • short-paper

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate421of1,386submissions,30%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader